Sunday, November 12, 2006
Democrats Effortlessly Miss Opportunity To Deplore Terrorism
Here's an interesting little scenario that presented itself and didn't materialize. Democratic politicians missed and wasted an opportunity to make a unified statement condemning terrorism, thereby telling the world that they too are tough on terror.
It is events like this in which Democrats show us exactly who they really are. That they are indeed weak on terror and cannot be trusted to protect the United States and that they are the party of which our allies look suspiciously upon when wondering about the sincerity of our military commitments.
In the past few days since the election, we've had Iraq's al Qaida leader say he will not rest until the White House is blown up. Terrorists are celebrating the election of Democrats and the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld with a spike-the-ball-in-the-end-zone attitude.
No matter how much The Left may think they are entitled to own The White House, it isn't owned by any political party . It is OUR WHITE HOUSE, the people own it. It is America's White House. And we have an outrageous and hostile declaration from terrorists saying they want to fulfill their vile vision of seeing the White House blown up!
And what is the response from Democrats, both those who were elected this past week and those who've been entrenched in their positions for several terms? Nothing.
You mean to tell me that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Cluck Schumer, Hillary Clinton and such self-proclaimed supporters of the Military as John Kerry and John Murtha can't find a camera and microphone and issue a simple statement somewhat similar to the following:
The Democrats had a golden opportunity to put their money where their mouth is and respond with a unified voice that they are indeed tough on terrorism. But they intentionally ignored doing so for reasons of nothing more than their agenda of appeasing terrorists which stems from their inherent nature of pacifism.
I'm not surprised by the lack of a response from Democrats. But for all of you out there that consider yourselves Democrats and Liberals, don't feign ignorance as to why you're party is correctly and rightfully labeled as being weak on terror and sympathetic to terrorists. Your Liberal Leaders demonstrate it every single time, or in this case, fail to demonstrate it.
If you can't put political bias aside and agree that anyone threatening terrorism to blow up the White House should be universally condemned, when can you expect the Democrats to condemn terrorism?
©2006
Informational Sources:
Khamenei Says Republican Losses A Victory For Iran. IHT
Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, said, "We will not rest [until we blow up] the White House." Reuters
It is events like this in which Democrats show us exactly who they really are. That they are indeed weak on terror and cannot be trusted to protect the United States and that they are the party of which our allies look suspiciously upon when wondering about the sincerity of our military commitments.
In the past few days since the election, we've had Iraq's al Qaida leader say he will not rest until the White House is blown up. Terrorists are celebrating the election of Democrats and the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld with a spike-the-ball-in-the-end-zone attitude.
No matter how much The Left may think they are entitled to own The White House, it isn't owned by any political party . It is OUR WHITE HOUSE, the people own it. It is America's White House. And we have an outrageous and hostile declaration from terrorists saying they want to fulfill their vile vision of seeing the White House blown up!
And what is the response from Democrats, both those who were elected this past week and those who've been entrenched in their positions for several terms? Nothing.
You mean to tell me that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Cluck Schumer, Hillary Clinton and such self-proclaimed supporters of the Military as John Kerry and John Murtha can't find a camera and microphone and issue a simple statement somewhat similar to the following:
"We condemn and deplore the recent statements regarding blowing up The White House made by al Qaida leaders in Iraq and Iran, and we condemn and deplore the statements made by the likes of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. As Democrats, we may sometimes disagree with our Republican colleagues and President Bush, but we will not be influenced, intimidated or threatened by those who sponsor, support and encourage acts of terrorism."
The Democrats had a golden opportunity to put their money where their mouth is and respond with a unified voice that they are indeed tough on terrorism. But they intentionally ignored doing so for reasons of nothing more than their agenda of appeasing terrorists which stems from their inherent nature of pacifism.
I'm not surprised by the lack of a response from Democrats. But for all of you out there that consider yourselves Democrats and Liberals, don't feign ignorance as to why you're party is correctly and rightfully labeled as being weak on terror and sympathetic to terrorists. Your Liberal Leaders demonstrate it every single time, or in this case, fail to demonstrate it.
If you can't put political bias aside and agree that anyone threatening terrorism to blow up the White House should be universally condemned, when can you expect the Democrats to condemn terrorism?
©2006
Informational Sources:
Khamenei Says Republican Losses A Victory For Iran. IHT
Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, said, "We will not rest [until we blow up] the White House." Reuters
Labels: Cluck
Comments:
<< Home
Hey David! Just to tell you, I voted Democrat. Sorry, but the Republicans have sucked for quite some time. In 2004, I voted for Kerry, but Republicans for Congress. They sucked, Bush has sucked for 8 years, so it's time for a change. The people have spoken. Great talking to you again.
Nick
Nick
Bloodstomper Barbie... what's that ?
You know BB, you're either deliberately writing untruths or you're actually stupid. Please share any evidence you have of Mark Foley being a child molester or having any conducting himself inappropriately with anyone under the age of 18, because there is no evidence to support what you write. Unlike Gerry Studds and hosts of other Liberals who cannot keep their mitts off of underage boys and girls.
Liberals like you are pathetic. You belong to a party or align yourself with a political belief that claims to be a big-tent party, but every chance you get to bash a gay conservative you go at it full speed ahead. It's odd that you would criticize Ted Haggard for his personal life...why, I thought the Left was all about letting adults conduct their personal lives the way they want to, without judgment. Oh, but when it comes to Conservatives, then it's a different story, isn't it. Then the standard you apply to yourself changes. Liberalism is so full of hypocrisy its a joke.
As far as denouncing the statement made by al-Qaida leaders, well - the Left is really big on denouncing things that favor their own advancement of political ideology, but are reluctant to do the same to "their own".
I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence, and I'm not sure you do either.
Thank you for calling me Ms Coulter...stay true to your Liberalism with name-calling, that always works, doesn't it?
You know BB, you're either deliberately writing untruths or you're actually stupid. Please share any evidence you have of Mark Foley being a child molester or having any conducting himself inappropriately with anyone under the age of 18, because there is no evidence to support what you write. Unlike Gerry Studds and hosts of other Liberals who cannot keep their mitts off of underage boys and girls.
Liberals like you are pathetic. You belong to a party or align yourself with a political belief that claims to be a big-tent party, but every chance you get to bash a gay conservative you go at it full speed ahead. It's odd that you would criticize Ted Haggard for his personal life...why, I thought the Left was all about letting adults conduct their personal lives the way they want to, without judgment. Oh, but when it comes to Conservatives, then it's a different story, isn't it. Then the standard you apply to yourself changes. Liberalism is so full of hypocrisy its a joke.
As far as denouncing the statement made by al-Qaida leaders, well - the Left is really big on denouncing things that favor their own advancement of political ideology, but are reluctant to do the same to "their own".
I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence, and I'm not sure you do either.
Thank you for calling me Ms Coulter...stay true to your Liberalism with name-calling, that always works, doesn't it?
Nick, Nick, Nick...wrting about politics on your blog just isn't your metier . Stick with baseball and sports.
Far from being an election that favored Extreme Liberalism, a large portion of the democrats that were elected this past week are very moderate, centrist democrats. Some of them are even pro-Life Democrats! I know, I know...I'm sure we all thought they were extinct.
You're a good kid Nick. I predict as you grow older you'll turn more conservative.
"If you're not a Liberal when you're young you have no heart. If you're older and not a Conservatvie you have no brain." I dunno who said that, but it's true.
Far from being an election that favored Extreme Liberalism, a large portion of the democrats that were elected this past week are very moderate, centrist democrats. Some of them are even pro-Life Democrats! I know, I know...I'm sure we all thought they were extinct.
You're a good kid Nick. I predict as you grow older you'll turn more conservative.
"If you're not a Liberal when you're young you have no heart. If you're older and not a Conservatvie you have no brain." I dunno who said that, but it's true.
===> HEY NICK <=== ... one more thing. Bush has been president for 6 years, not 8. Maybe math isn't your metier either ?
.
.
.
And dude, that's a joke.
.
.
.
And dude, that's a joke.
Bloodstomper Barbie sure is a dumbass. Do you think it ever crossed his/her mind as to why tyrants of the world, plus terrorists, support the Democratic Party? Does he not wonder why al-Qaeda welcomed the Democratic victory?
Being stupid and willfully ignorant must indeed be a blissful place to exist.
Republicans, for all their faults, are the party of strength. They chose to fight the clear menace. Democrats are the party of weakness, with a very long history of ineffective appeasement and glad-handing the worst regimes in the world.
Liberals won't be happy again until they get another philandering coward in the White House.
Being stupid and willfully ignorant must indeed be a blissful place to exist.
Republicans, for all their faults, are the party of strength. They chose to fight the clear menace. Democrats are the party of weakness, with a very long history of ineffective appeasement and glad-handing the worst regimes in the world.
Liberals won't be happy again until they get another philandering coward in the White House.
Oh Ape, you're too generous! heh
I totally agree, Lib won't be happy until we're all speaking Arabic and pacifism is entrenched in the White House and Congress.
Thanks for visiting and commenting.
I totally agree, Lib won't be happy until we're all speaking Arabic and pacifism is entrenched in the White House and Congress.
Thanks for visiting and commenting.
Maybe you better learn to work with people instead of alienating everyone...
Good point. Let's invite Al Qaeda operatives to YOUR house this Thanksgiving!
I can see it now: "Hey, Ahmed, could you pass me the cranberry sauce? (pause) Aw, dammit, who put Grandma's head in the dressing pan?!?"
Good point. Let's invite Al Qaeda operatives to YOUR house this Thanksgiving!
I can see it now: "Hey, Ahmed, could you pass me the cranberry sauce? (pause) Aw, dammit, who put Grandma's head in the dressing pan?!?"
JL - you overlooked the most important ceremonial part though...the singing of Kumbaya!
thanks for stopping by and commenting.
Post a Comment
thanks for stopping by and commenting.
<< Home
Alabama Internet
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.
