Posted on 10/14/2004 4:01:28 PM PDT by notkerry
Under the tyrannical Taliban, Afghanistan was a cauldron of Islamic hatred for western civilization, and thus a fitting home base for al Qaeda. A single nation separates Afghanistan from Iraq, which under Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party was a cauldron of Islamic hatred for western civilization. And the only nation separating the two is Iran, ruled by a despotic government that, not surprisingly, is a cauldron of Islamic hatred for western civilization that reviles America and advocates its destruction.
So it stands to reason that any collaborative efforts between al Qaeda and Hussein could only have occurred in the Czech Republic. Preposterous as this statement clearly is, it was the basis for the American left to denigrate every attempt by the Bush White House to include Iraq in the “axis of evil” in the days following the attacks of 9-11.
According to liberal Democrats, a reputed meeting between Mohammad Atta and a high-ranking Iraqi official in Prague, some months before 9-11, could not be conclusively proven, and therefore, no possible link between the two evil entities could have existed. Moreover, this is the story to which they tenaciously clung right up until the 9-11 Commission released its findings.
According to the commission (hardly a convention of partisan Republicans), links between al Qaeda and the dictatorial government of Saddam Hussein clearly existed (a fact that should surprise no one). Yet no concrete evidence of cooperation in the planning and perpetration of the September 11 attacks has been established. So once again, the liberal Democrats ask us to believe the unbelievable, namely that these two virulently anti-American entities, while regularly engaging in murder and mayhem throughout the world, freely discussed everything on their minds except 9-11.
Such absurd reasoning from the left is really nothing new. In fact, these incidents are only part of a long list of outlandish assertions, by which they seek to fool enough of the electorate, enough of the time, to regain their power. Consider some other examples (though this list is, by no means, complete).
Who can forget the incredible “ironies” surrounding the former First Lady who, having no prior knowledge of the intricacies of dealing in cattle futures, nonetheless performed an unprecedented feat of multiplying her investment one-hundredfold in only a year, before completely divesting herself from any other futures activity? Yet despite such incredible astuteness and discernment, she was the only person on the continent who ostensibly remained unaware and unsuspecting of Bill’s dalliances in the Oval Office with Monica.
In November of 1995, Al Gore was involved in a fundraising meeting that, being held in the White House, was plainly illegal. Gore’s excuse? He had been drinking large quantities of iced tea, and though his presence at that gathering was undeniably established, he was “coincidentally” absent during any illegal discussions, having succumbed to the need to visit the restroom only during those segments of the event.
Recently, this phenomenon has breached the walls of the Democrat political machine and infected the major media (assuming any such boundary ever divided the two). Over at CBS, “60 Minutes” producer Mary Mapes is embroiled in an eerily similar controversy. While spearheading the segment involving those fraudulent memos that ostensibly cast aspersions on George W. Bush’s Air Guard service, she is on record as having been in communication with Kerry campaign insider Joe Lockhart, directing him to contact Bush-hater Bill Burkett.
Lockhart admits to calling Burkett, but throughout the course of their discussions, they somehow never got around to the Guard scandal. Why are we not surprised?
Proving his allegiance to this legacy, John Kerry defends his presence at a 1971 meeting in Kansas City of the radical “Vietnam Veterans Against the War,” in which the assassination of prominent pro-war United States Senators was discussed. According to Kerry (at least in the second revision of his story), though in attendance, he was coincidentally out of the room when the subject of assassinations was debated.
Perhaps the cruelest “irony” of all involves the fact that Kerry, who was able to accrue a chest full of medals during a mere four months in Vietnam, somehow took more than three decades to receive an honorable discharge from the Navy. Such a heartrending paradox and disservice to the honored Senator certainly warrants an explanation. And Kerry himself could furnish that explanation by simply authorizing the release of his military records, which he steadfastly refuses to do. How ironic.
They gorget what they want to forget to get their guy elected. Any damned fool knows the world is better off without Saddam.
It frightens me to think this country could be in the hands of a man who took part in talks with our VietNamese enemy's while we were at war. A man who spoke with our enemy while Reagan was trying to defeat Communism in Nicaragua. A man who sold out his fellow soldiers and refused flak jackets to our troops for a political ploy.
It's a damn good thing that we captured Saddam or Kerry would be negotiating with him as we speak...
It wouldnt surprise me a bit to see Kerry elected and Saddam placed back in Iraq to quell the Iraqui's. No doubt he could do it too.
John Kerry is a danger to America. He has been for years. Its a sad state when Democrats would sell out their country because they suffered a loss when Al Gore wasnt elected, and Thank God he wasnt elected. A vote for John Kerry isnt a vote for John Kerry its a vote for anyone running against George Bush. Most honest Democrats will admit that.
Can you imagine a man who goes on his honeymoon and meets with the enemies of the USA in Paris?
Can you imagine a man meeting with the enemy while President Reagan was fighting Communism in South America?
Can you imagine a man who goes to Vietnam to free any prisoners held there and ending up apologising to the Viet Cong and getting a trade deal with our former enemies?It is pretty obvious why he went back to Viet Nam.It certainly wasnt to look for any surviving prisoners.
Say what you like about President Bush , he never sold out his fellow soldiers and he never sold out his country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.