KENNEDY AND HIS ILK TELL OUR TROOPS TO GO TO HELL
And that's the way it is, folks. The ever-disgusting Democrat Ted Kennedy voted against President Bush's funding request for our operation in Iraq. He wasn't alone. John Edwards and John Kerry were right there with him, opposing Bush's $87 billion funding request for the continuation of our efforts in Iraq. Wesley Clark and Howard Dean say that they would have opposed the funding if they had a vote.
Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards and every other politician who voted against this funding request was sending messages to our troops in Iraq, their families at home, Saddam Hussein and his supporters, Islamic terrorists and the international community.
The messages these Democrats are sending are clear:
To our troops in Iraq -- while we may pay homage to "supporting our troops" in reality, we don't. We are not going to provide the funds that are necessary to continue caring for you in the field. What's more, we do not approve of what you have accomplished thus far.
To Saddam and his supporters -- you had us pretty much figured out. Once you showed that you were willing to wage a war of attrition against our troops, killing a few here and a few there, we folded. We want out. You can now proceed with your plans to return Saddam to the seat of power in Baghdad. What's more, once you have achieved your victory over America you will be free to reinstitute your weapons programs as you see fit. There will be no more inspections, no more cruise missiles, and no more pressure from the United States to halt your weapons programs.
To the people of Iraq -- brace yourselves. As you may have suspected, America does not have the resolve and courage to stick to this campaign. Soon your ruthless dictator will return. This means that the midnight disappearances, the torture, the killings and the mass graves will soon return. If you cooperated with the Americans during our aborted attempt to rid you of this devil, we're sorry. You will most assuredly be targeted by Saddam's thugs and murdered. They have been watching, knowing that soon we would turn tail and run and leave you to their revenge.
To Islamic terrorists around the world -- the way is clear. We will no longer bring the war to you on your soil. We will simply wait for you to bring your jihad to us, or, if you like, we will do whatever is in our power to appease you at every turn. We do not have the stomach for a fight. Appeasement is by far our preferred course of action.
To the International Community -- The United States herewith withdraws from any responsibility to work with our allies in fighting terrorism. We are henceforth going to follow the path of appeasement. You would be well-advised to do the same.
And to the American people -- Brace yourselves. Islamic terrorists around the world will soon be celebrating the return of Saddam Hussein and the Baath party to power in Iraq. We have abandoned the path of confrontation and eradication and have chosen instead the path of appeasement and withdrawal. Saddam will soon renew his production of weapons of mass destruction and his attempts to build nuclear weapons. At some time it is certain that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists, and eventually make their way to our country. This will undoubtedly increase the probability of a terrorist attack on our home soil. To prevent such an attack we will be taking even more draconian security measures in our homeland. In short order we will be issuing national identity cards which you will be required to have on your person at all times. You will also be subject to searches of your home, your automobiles and your person at any time. Sorry, but in the face of the terrorist threat we are going to have so suspend nuisances such as "probable cause" or warrants before we conduct these searches, or before we tap your telephone lines and internet computers.
This is the future waiting for America and the world if these appeasers ever regain their much-coveted political power in Washington. Our nation is in far more danger now than it has even been since the Civil War --- and the choice has never been more clear for the voters.
We either confront these Islamic terrorists and those who have and would support them, or we don't. We either confront them on foreign soil, or we enact draconian measures here at home to avoid the confrontation on our own soil. We fight or run. If the party of appeasement takes control after next year's elections many of you will be instituting your escape plans. The rest of you will be wishing you had one.
from neal boortz
democrats give aid and comfort to terrorists?
Moderator: S2k Moderators
-
Derek Ortt
-
wx247
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 14279
- Age: 42
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 10:35 pm
- Location: Monett, Missouri
- Contact:
So did the funding not pass?
0 likes
Personal Forecast Disclaimer:
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.
-
rainstorm
-
wx247
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 14279
- Age: 42
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 10:35 pm
- Location: Monett, Missouri
- Contact:
I didn't say it was the point rainstorm. I was just asking. And I think that it is rediculous to assert that the dems are aiding terrorists.
0 likes
Personal Forecast Disclaimer:
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.
-
janswizard
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 3:08 am
- Location: Fort Pierce, FL
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe I'M the one that's misinformed but I though the struggle about the $87B was about the part that helps rebuild Iraq. It was my impression that the money that was supposed to go to the troops passed with no problem. The debate centered around the rebuilding funds and whether it should be issued as a "grant" (meaning no paybacks from Iraq to the American taxpayer) or as a "loan" (meaning that when they get back on their feet, some of this money will have to be paid back to us). I think the money figure that have been talking about is something like 23 Billion Dollars out of the 87B. All this on top of what has already been spent rebuilding the infrastructure over there.
In any event, I don't think political party has anything to do with it. In my opinion, it's all a matter of economics - can the American people afford to give away that kind of money (to one of the richest nations, by the way) and not expect any return for their dollar?
I myself would much rather see 23 Billion Dollars go to educating our children and taking care of our elderly. I have an Alzheimer's Aunt who worked her entire life - her prescription costs alone outweigh the money she receives in monthly checks. So if thinking that this money should be a loan instead of a grant makes someone think I am aiding and abetting the terrorists....
In any event, I don't think political party has anything to do with it. In my opinion, it's all a matter of economics - can the American people afford to give away that kind of money (to one of the richest nations, by the way) and not expect any return for their dollar?
I myself would much rather see 23 Billion Dollars go to educating our children and taking care of our elderly. I have an Alzheimer's Aunt who worked her entire life - her prescription costs alone outweigh the money she receives in monthly checks. So if thinking that this money should be a loan instead of a grant makes someone think I am aiding and abetting the terrorists....
0 likes
-
rainstorm
will we run, like in somalia?
Drumbeat . . . from the failure brigade
By Mona Charen
There is a marked tendency among those on the left to believe the worst about the United States. This is particularly true when it comes to military action.
Before the war in Afghanistan, the failure chorus warned that Afghan fighters had withstood the mighty British and Soviet empires, that the winter weather would paralyze our troops and that the Taliban could count on the aid of Islamists worldwide.
Before the Iraq war, the negativity brigade warned darkly that our troops would be subject to poison gas or chemical attack (yes, the same people who are now loudly proclaiming that Iraq never possessed those weapons); that the Israelis would be drawn into the conflict thus igniting a larger regional war; that Muslims worldwide would unite against us; that the price of oil would skyrocket; that Iraq's oil fields would burn out of control creating an environmental catastrophe; and that patriotic feeling would cause the Iraqis to fight to the death against us just as the Russians had fought the Nazis at Stalingrad.
Once the war began, many in the press declared we had become bogged down in a quagmire after only a few days of fighting. When the Iraqi armed forces capitulated in the south, we were told this was a clever way to draw us into a sustained "house to house" battle in Baghdad that would take months or years to win, if we won at all.
When Baghdad fell just three weeks after the war had begun, we were told that not since Nebuchadnezzar's time had Baghdad experienced such a terrible spate of looting and crime. The United States and Britain had just demonstrated that an enlightened coalition could liberate a nation enslaved by a tyrant in three weeks with very few civilian casualties, very little damage to the nation's infrastructure and extremely low casualties for the coalition itself. But the news media in Britain and the United States were singing lamentations.
Where oh where were the precious antiquities from the Iraqi Museum? (They were all fine, it turns out.) Why is the electricity still not functioning properly? Why are there shortages of water? What about the street crime?
Once each problem is solved, a new lament is discovered. I must say I predicted this back in February. It was just after Baghdad fell, and there was rejoicing in the streets. I was giving a talk at the local Barnes & Noble bookstore (it was on C-SPAN) and was asked, "What will the liberals say now?" I responded, "Well, in about a month they'll be complaining that Iraq is not yet a functioning democracy."
Does this drumbeat of negativity have any effects? I think it does. The first baleful effect is the press is failing in its duty to provide the news straight. Yes, there are ambushes on our soldiers and bombings of embassies, and these must be covered. And there is a certain amount of lawlessness, and that, too, should be reported. But there are a great many aspects of the rebuilding of Iraq the press is failing to convey.
More than 45 countries have offered military assistance in rebuilding Iraq, and that number now rises with last week's Security Council resolution pledging more aid. Thirty thousand Iraqis have traveled to Hungary for military and police training. The United States is training thousands of Iraqi police, with 34,000 already on the job. It isn't quick or easy to find suitable police in a country where, for 30 years, eligibility was determined by family or political connections — to say nothing of a willingness to commit any human-rights abuse in the name of the regime.
U.S. and international efforts are also rebuilding sports stadiums, schools, hospitals and power grids. They are doing so in the face of sabotage and murder. A little appreciation from home could go a long way.
Moreover, the Saddamists and Islamists who have gathered in Iraq to defeat us are not acting irrationally. They have historical reasons to believe that if they can inflict enough casualties on the United States, we will run. They cite Somalia, Lebanon and Vietnam.
What we are doing in Iraq is right morally and strategically. And it is succeeding on the ground. But the press has the power to distort reality. By presenting an overly bleak picture of the challenges we face, they can demoralize us.
By Mona Charen
There is a marked tendency among those on the left to believe the worst about the United States. This is particularly true when it comes to military action.
Before the war in Afghanistan, the failure chorus warned that Afghan fighters had withstood the mighty British and Soviet empires, that the winter weather would paralyze our troops and that the Taliban could count on the aid of Islamists worldwide.
Before the Iraq war, the negativity brigade warned darkly that our troops would be subject to poison gas or chemical attack (yes, the same people who are now loudly proclaiming that Iraq never possessed those weapons); that the Israelis would be drawn into the conflict thus igniting a larger regional war; that Muslims worldwide would unite against us; that the price of oil would skyrocket; that Iraq's oil fields would burn out of control creating an environmental catastrophe; and that patriotic feeling would cause the Iraqis to fight to the death against us just as the Russians had fought the Nazis at Stalingrad.
Once the war began, many in the press declared we had become bogged down in a quagmire after only a few days of fighting. When the Iraqi armed forces capitulated in the south, we were told this was a clever way to draw us into a sustained "house to house" battle in Baghdad that would take months or years to win, if we won at all.
When Baghdad fell just three weeks after the war had begun, we were told that not since Nebuchadnezzar's time had Baghdad experienced such a terrible spate of looting and crime. The United States and Britain had just demonstrated that an enlightened coalition could liberate a nation enslaved by a tyrant in three weeks with very few civilian casualties, very little damage to the nation's infrastructure and extremely low casualties for the coalition itself. But the news media in Britain and the United States were singing lamentations.
Where oh where were the precious antiquities from the Iraqi Museum? (They were all fine, it turns out.) Why is the electricity still not functioning properly? Why are there shortages of water? What about the street crime?
Once each problem is solved, a new lament is discovered. I must say I predicted this back in February. It was just after Baghdad fell, and there was rejoicing in the streets. I was giving a talk at the local Barnes & Noble bookstore (it was on C-SPAN) and was asked, "What will the liberals say now?" I responded, "Well, in about a month they'll be complaining that Iraq is not yet a functioning democracy."
Does this drumbeat of negativity have any effects? I think it does. The first baleful effect is the press is failing in its duty to provide the news straight. Yes, there are ambushes on our soldiers and bombings of embassies, and these must be covered. And there is a certain amount of lawlessness, and that, too, should be reported. But there are a great many aspects of the rebuilding of Iraq the press is failing to convey.
More than 45 countries have offered military assistance in rebuilding Iraq, and that number now rises with last week's Security Council resolution pledging more aid. Thirty thousand Iraqis have traveled to Hungary for military and police training. The United States is training thousands of Iraqi police, with 34,000 already on the job. It isn't quick or easy to find suitable police in a country where, for 30 years, eligibility was determined by family or political connections — to say nothing of a willingness to commit any human-rights abuse in the name of the regime.
U.S. and international efforts are also rebuilding sports stadiums, schools, hospitals and power grids. They are doing so in the face of sabotage and murder. A little appreciation from home could go a long way.
Moreover, the Saddamists and Islamists who have gathered in Iraq to defeat us are not acting irrationally. They have historical reasons to believe that if they can inflict enough casualties on the United States, we will run. They cite Somalia, Lebanon and Vietnam.
What we are doing in Iraq is right morally and strategically. And it is succeeding on the ground. But the press has the power to distort reality. By presenting an overly bleak picture of the challenges we face, they can demoralize us.
0 likes
-
blizzard
- Category 5
- Posts: 2527
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 2:04 am
- Location: Near the Shores of Gitche Gumme
Apparantly some people are sorely misinformed and are only getting half of the story. (Or at least only telling half of the story). Let us not forget that when there were Republicans (Reagan & Bush) in the White house, they cut military spending which went directly to the troops (or should I say never made it to the troops). So I have to agree with janswizard, that this is not about political parties, but economics. Some people have to have a target all of the time and in this case, it is the Dems.
So, now tell me, were Reagan and Daddy Bush telling the troops to go to hell also? Think about it.
So, now tell me, were Reagan and Daddy Bush telling the troops to go to hell also? Think about it.
0 likes
How about this. Sell their oil and use that to rebuild their country and not Saddams bank account. This was , I thought , a plan. With almost every program being cut here we could use it also. I'm not saying I don't care about the Iraqi people but we keep giving money away while things get shut down at home.
0 likes
rainstorm....great post..you beat me to it. I'm so disgusted by the likes of Ted K I'm ashamed to be from Massachusetts.
Speaking of Massachusetts and to get off track for just a minute....In the 20 years I worked in the Engineering field (3 different jobs) I never once met a Democrat. Not even ONE! Sooooo....you may ask..where are all the Democrats?? Do you think all Engineers are Conservatives by the very nature of their work...a job that entails thinking, rationalizing, and constantly striving for a better way to accomplish your goal?
Just a passing thought to think about.
Back to Liberals....If any of you get a chance, read Anne Coulter's, "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism."
The left is trying to write her off as a Conservative extremist with a fixation on Communism, but trust me...once you've read this and seen how extensive her research was ( probably 30 or more pages of footnotes), you will have a difficult time arguing in defense of any of our more "famous" Democratic leaders from the past. Furthermore, you will understand why Conservatives fear for their lives every time a Democrat gets in office.
Speaking of Massachusetts and to get off track for just a minute....In the 20 years I worked in the Engineering field (3 different jobs) I never once met a Democrat. Not even ONE! Sooooo....you may ask..where are all the Democrats?? Do you think all Engineers are Conservatives by the very nature of their work...a job that entails thinking, rationalizing, and constantly striving for a better way to accomplish your goal?
Just a passing thought to think about.
Back to Liberals....If any of you get a chance, read Anne Coulter's, "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism."
The left is trying to write her off as a Conservative extremist with a fixation on Communism, but trust me...once you've read this and seen how extensive her research was ( probably 30 or more pages of footnotes), you will have a difficult time arguing in defense of any of our more "famous" Democratic leaders from the past. Furthermore, you will understand why Conservatives fear for their lives every time a Democrat gets in office.
0 likes
-
opera ghost
- Category 4
- Posts: 909
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 4:40 pm
- Location: Houston, Texas
Here are some thoughts for the day from your local liberal (and my husband cracks up every time I say I'm liberal on S2K- I'm one of the most conservative people he knows...)
There are 2 sides to every fact.
Declaring entire sections of the populace are going to hell is not exactly the way to make friends and influence enemies. It's a way to make enemies and influence friends. Preaching to the choir has never been the best stance. Speaking in the place of someone else and condensing thier complicated political stances into phrases like "KENNEDY AND HIS ILK TELL OUR TROOPS TO GO TO HELL" is not the way to present a debate- it's a way to present "fact"- or fact as the writer sees it, often called opinion... in the FORM of fact.
I like a good political debate as well as anyone else I know. I enjoy presenting my detailed viewpoint and hearing other viewpoints in return. Unfortunetly popular opinion and following the herd has never been up my alley and I'm not up to debating politics as one against the collective.
I feel very uncomfortable staying true to my views, more often than not, in off topic... so I'm going to move firmly over to the boards that are on topic and stay there. It's not that I don't like any of the people I've come head to head with- I respect all opinions regardless of whether they're negative towards me. It's that I don't want to always be the one to go off about the side of the equation that isn't being mentioned. If y'all wanted that- someone else would be posting it
We've got a lot of really amazing weather people... so I'll stick to the weather See you around S2K!
There are 2 sides to every fact.
Declaring entire sections of the populace are going to hell is not exactly the way to make friends and influence enemies. It's a way to make enemies and influence friends. Preaching to the choir has never been the best stance. Speaking in the place of someone else and condensing thier complicated political stances into phrases like "KENNEDY AND HIS ILK TELL OUR TROOPS TO GO TO HELL" is not the way to present a debate- it's a way to present "fact"- or fact as the writer sees it, often called opinion... in the FORM of fact.
I like a good political debate as well as anyone else I know. I enjoy presenting my detailed viewpoint and hearing other viewpoints in return. Unfortunetly popular opinion and following the herd has never been up my alley and I'm not up to debating politics as one against the collective.
I feel very uncomfortable staying true to my views, more often than not, in off topic... so I'm going to move firmly over to the boards that are on topic and stay there. It's not that I don't like any of the people I've come head to head with- I respect all opinions regardless of whether they're negative towards me. It's that I don't want to always be the one to go off about the side of the equation that isn't being mentioned. If y'all wanted that- someone else would be posting it
We've got a lot of really amazing weather people... so I'll stick to the weather
See you around S2K!
0 likes
-
janswizard
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 3:08 am
- Location: Fort Pierce, FL
I was wrong - it was 18.6B and it is being presented that Iraq repay half the loan when when they "come of age". I don't think this is an unfair proposition - after all, they are the richest country in the world.
see: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100772,00.html
And notice that President Bush and his adminstration are going to veto this package if an overwhelming majority for a loan and not a grant.
see: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100772,00.html
And notice that President Bush and his adminstration are going to veto this package if an overwhelming majority for a loan and not a grant.
0 likes
-
streetsoldier
- Retired Staff
- Posts: 9705
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
- Location: Under the rainbow
-
Rainband
Amen!!! All politicians are crooked anyway Dems and republicans..politics is nothing but lies. Im so sick of this liberal conservative stuff they all lie in the same bed..pun intended. I do agree that a 300 Billion dollar deficit is unacceptable NO MATTER what the money is spent on!!Stephanie wrote:We need to fix the mess that we created over there, but we also need to hold President Bush more accountable as to how he's handling the country's checkbook.
0 likes
-
Rainband
I agree..wether your Liberal or consevative..Our economy is going down the drain and you think we should spend more money..what about the AMERICANS.. I am sorry but this Iraq situation p's me off more and more troops die everyday and more and more money gets spent...It a neverending circle and IMHO it's a waste of time. I am 100% full blooded American but this is BS!!!!!!! More of our men and women are dying everyday to help a country that doesn't even want our help!!!! BTW when was the last time our deficit was this high 1992 I believe>hunter84 wrote:How about this. Sell their oil and use that to rebuild their country and not Saddams bank account. This was , I thought , a plan. With almost every program being cut here we could use it also. I'm not saying I don't care about the Iraqi people but we keep giving money away while things get shut down at home.
Pull the troops out of Iraq save lives and money in one move.
0 likes
-
Rainband
-
rainstorm
you are blinded by the liberal media
Rainband wrote:I agree..wether your Liberal or consevative..Our economy is going down the drain and you think we should spend more money..what about the AMERICANS.. I am sorry but this Iraq situation p's me off more and more troops die everyday and more and more money gets spent...It a neverending circle and IMHO it's a waste of time. I am 100% full blooded American but this is BS!!!!!!! More of our men and women are dying everyday to help a country that doesn't even want our help!!!! BTW when was the last time our deficit was this high 1992 I believe>hunter84 wrote:How about this. Sell their oil and use that to rebuild their country and not Saddams bank account. This was , I thought , a plan. With almost every program being cut here we could use it also. I'm not saying I don't care about the Iraqi people but we keep giving money away while things get shut down at home.
economy going down the drain? check the stock market, nasdaq!! 5% gdp growth is forecast for the 4th quarter. 2004 should be quite good economically
Last edited by rainstorm on Tue Oct 21, 2003 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes
-
rainstorm
not wrong at all
Rainband wrote:Me too..Helen did you type that w/o thinking???wx247 wrote:I didn't say it was the point rainstorm. I was just asking. And I think that it is rediculous to assert that the dems are aiding terrorists.
can you imagine the press and republicans denouncing fdr 2 months after pearl harbor because we hadnt won the war yet and soldiers were dying?
this is a war, and the dems are doing exactly what the terrorists want. weaken our resolve so we will cut and run. i am shocked so many posters on here are willing to accept defeat. dont cont me among you
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests