Replies

Contribute to my thread at The Lott Gaffe & DemoKKKratic Hypocrisy

OK, the liberal media is biased. Ok, the democrats are hypocrites.

Now how does that make Lott fit to lead the republican Senate?

Are we going to allow hypocrites and idiots to lead us just because the democrats can get away with it? What does that make us?

This is so funny, in the manner of a wake. The NAACP is the oldest civil rights organization in the country. No kidding. Is Strom Thurmond the oldest United States Senator in the history of the country? Did he chase women? Did he catch some? Did Martin, Jesse and Ralph? Did a lot of people change the old ways, both black and white? And finally, isn't it about time that the country give up its self destructive racial obsession? Are there any arguments that we have not yet heard? Is it time for the racial careerists to retire with their riches? Is it time to let the oldest minority in the country compete with the newest?

This is not a question. It is time for Trent Lott, Robert Byrd, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Strom Thurmond, Tom Daschle, Roger Wilkins, and every other racist, real or imagined, in this country to exit the stage. Then perhaps it can be said, honestly, "Free at Last."

I posted this reply on another thread as well but wanted to "share" it with more than one person.
Hope You don't mind if I duplicate my rant here. Trent Lott can keep his seat as Senator for all I care. But he should step down as Majority Leader. What is my rational? Fact. Trent Lott said nothing offensive, yet, he and all republicans are apologizing for his lack of offense. Even the President has chastized Sen. Lott for his lack of offensive remark. Trent Lott simply said that Strom Thurmond as President might not have been that bad. Who is to say old Strom wouldn't have sent troops into Little Rock? He was ( and is ) a politician, who knows which side the bread is buttered on, and can turn his opinion on a dime and give You change. Strom's foreign policy might have been different than Ike Eisenhower's, and likewise, he may have had a different stand on Labor relations. Trent Lott stated Defense policy as the basis of his remark. I don't know, and neither does anyone else. Eisenhower won the election and became president. Strom stayed in the Senate. Fact is, Trent Lott didn't say " we wouldn't have all those "Racist" problems, or "Integration" problems, or any other kind of problems. But Opponents and detractors wailed and gnashed their teeth, threw on their hair shirts, and began whipping and flailing at their own backs, crying out loudly, "He IMPLIED it!" And HERE IS THE POINT of my argument. When Liberal Race Baiters Put Words In Your Mouth, WHY, Why, Why, I ask You, would ANYONE be STUPID enough to APOLOGIZE for something You probably didn't "imply", and sure as Hell never Said? But that is exactly what Trent Lott did. He apologized for what he didn't say that wasn't offensive enough. Then his fellow Republicans began to apologize and chastize Senator Lott for what he may possibly have implied, even though it is unclear how he implied it, other than to say he thought Strom Thurmond might have made a good president. Then Lott went national and bared his soul, to apologize for the Implied Words put into his mouth by his Liberal enemies. Do Republicans have BRAINS attached to their spines? Do they HAVE SPINES? WHY HAS NO ONE ATTACKED THE RACE BAITING IMPLICATIONS OF THE LIBERAL LEFT? If the Republicans lose control of the Senate while holding a Majority position, then Libertarians will become a major party in 2004. Because no self-respecting conservative will ever be able to hold his head up and admit to being a Republican again.

>>CBS’s Dan Rather imputed great respectability to the NAACP by describing it as “the oldest civil rights group in the United States.”

That's funny, I'm pretty sure the NRA has been around a lot longer than the NAACP. More reportorial inaccuracy from "Dan the Man". What's the frequency?

Lott is an idiot. Only a moron would have said what he said. He's a disgrace to the party now. At best a laughingstock to the nation and at worst, a symbol of bigotry. From Lott's past, the benefit of the doubt is towards Lott's judging people by their skin color.

The party of Milton Friedman, opportunity and freedom for EVERYONE doesn't need historically or socially ignorant, leaders at its helm, or who are serious closet racists.

Instead of focusing on something important like the recent release of information regarding al Qaeda having gotten VX gas from Iraq, we see the media talking about a NON subject. Though I'm not a huge fan of Trent Lott as Senate leader.. this thing is being taken totally out of context. Give me a break!!

What about this article!!!

Al Qaeda leadership reported disrupted
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

U.S. military and intelligence forces have killed or captured a major portion of the al Qaeda leadership and several key successes were won in the past few months, according to CIA Director George J. Tenet. Top Stories
• Bush rolls back 'secular' rules
• Bush scolds Lott for remarks
• Faith-based funding a top Ehrlich goal
• N. Korea to restart nuke reactor
• Smallpox vaccinations pit safety against risks
• Cameras mulled for neighborhood watch
• PBS show to 'counter' perceptions of Islam

"More than one-third of the top leadership identified before the war has been killed or captured," Mr. Tenet said in a speech Wednesday. "Almost half our successes against senior al Qaeda members has come in recent months."

A transcript of his remarks at the Nixon Center was made public yesterday.

"We are still in the 'hunt phase' of this war — the painstaking pursuit of individual al Qaeda members and their cells," Mr. Tenet said. "This phase is paying off, but is manpower intensive and will take a long time. There are no set battles against units of any size. We are tracking our enemies down, one by one."

The comments were the first substantive remarks by the CIA director in months. They followed the release Wednesday of a congressional report that criticized U.S. intelligence failures related to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Among the CIA's recent successes, Mr. Tenet said the CIA has "netted":
•Al Qaeda's operations chief in the Persian Gulf, who helped plan the 1998 bombings in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.
•A key al Qaeda planner who was a conspirator in the September 11 attacks.
•Numerous operations officers and facilitators.
•A large amount of information now being used to hunt for additional terrorists.

Mr. Tenet did not mention the names of two key al Qaeda terrorists who were killed and captured. They include Qaed Senyan al-Harthi, who was among six terrorists killed last month in a daring CIA-directed missile attack from a drone aircraft in Yemen.

The key al Qaeda planner is Ramzi Binalshibh, an al Qaeda paymaster arrested in Karachi, Pakistan, in September.

Several top al Qaeda leaders, however, remain at large, including Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri and Khalid Sheik Mohammad.

Overall, some 3,000 al Qaeda members have been detained in over 100 nations, he said, noting that the arrests have disrupted but not stopped al Qaeda operations.

Additionally, efforts against al Qaeda have led to the seizure of some $121 million in terrorist-related financial assets around the world, Mr. Tenet said.

The CIA director said the war against terrorism is not a war with the Muslim world. "But we are at war with extremists," he said. "We are at war with terrorists. We are at war with fanatics. But we are not at war with Islam — even though the terrorists want to portray it that way."

The terrorists are among the "fringe of the fringe" of radical Muslims who are violent and murderous, he said.

Mr. Tenet said al Qaeda and bin Laden are "formidable" enemies and before September 11 the CIA had a "stable of assets and a body of information that pinpointed al Qaeda's Afghanistan infrastructure."

The data helped in the "rapid destruction" of that infrastructure when the war began Oct. 7, 2001.

Mr. Tenet said the al Qaeda leadership has been "rattled" by recent losses and is more cautious. "But let's be very clear: There is no letup in the threat at the moment."

Al Qaeda is preparing more terrorist attacks and every captured al Qaeda member has indicated more strikes are planned, he said. "Recent tapes by al Qaeda leaders threatening the U.S. economy and our coalition allies, were unprecedented in their bluntness and urgency," Mr. Tenet said.

Which gaffe are you talking about?

The first gaffe: his initial remarks.

His second gaffe: not promptly coming out and saying "I was wrong to say that, and I'm sorry."

His third gaffe: trotting out the standard "I was taken out of context."

His fourth gaffe: The "f*** 'em if they can't take a joke" non-apology.

His fifth gaffe: forcing GWB to spank him.

His sixth gaffe: going through two more tepid apologies before FINALLY coming out and properly apologizing--a week late.

FYI, I wrote the Washington (com)Post the following letters this week in reply to their two lead editorials of this week. Won't make print

Their editorials are here:

Two Southern Senators and Mr. Lott's Party

-------------------

Dear Sirs/Madames,

We all agree that Senator Lott’s comments regarding Senator Thurman were wrong. Yet the Post editorial, “Two Southern Senators” has all the backbone, and nearly the same taste, as Lott’s poor joke. As with Lott’s vague endorsement of Thurman’s racist past, the Post doesn’t give us to know whether or not Lott really meant what he said and if he actually said what the Post insinuates he said. You do a mighty fine job of hinting at it, but you leave us at the edge. Did Lott mean it? Or does the Post suffer an absence of conviction?

Is he, or isn’t he? Is Lott a racist or not? Is segregation his platform? Somehow, the Post ties this unanswered question to the Louisiana Senate race, hinting at Republican tricks to suppress black turnout. Well, did they, or didn’t they? The interested reader demands to know.

You’d do better to speak your mind. All we get from the editorial is a suggestion ending with the wonder should the Republican Party follow Lott’s “lead.” To what, or to where, we aren’t told. To bad jokes? Or to the New Segregationist Party? The Post doesn’t say.

Time for a little clarification, Washington Post. Are Republicans racists? If so, don’t be so shy. Say it, for if it is true, the public needs to know. If not, then say so. The public deserves honesty in your service, and Senator Lott deserves clarity in your charge. Instead we get dangling insinuation, and bait.

--------------------

To Whom It May Concern:

The Post’s lead editorial today recites its Tuesday demand to know if the Republican Party shall follow Senator Trent Lott into the New Segregationist Party. As with the Tuesday piece that hinted, winked, and stuttered about dirty Republican tricks to suppress black votes, and other sly tactics to re-elect James Buchanan, today's homage to the Party of Lincoln suggests -- but does not go so far as to say -- that Republicans are racists. The Post points to "coded" language used by the Party as a siren to "white voters" who "oppose civil rights."

Once again, the interested reader demands to know. Would that the post unravel and reveal these secret codes? Is it that Republican welfare reform when unencrypted reads like a Strom Thurman platform of 1948? Is school vouchers legislation a Trojan Horse, that once past the Capitol doors will reverse the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Would that the Washington Post please explain! I voted for the Republican Ehrlich for Governor of Maryland. Will his Inter-County Connector project pave over the Bill of Rights?

Clearly, the Washington Post has decided that "States Rights" is segregation is racism is un-American. Too bad, though, that the Washington Post won't say it right out. Please try. "Trent Lott is a racist." "Republicans are racists." "States Rights is the Confederacy." Can you do it? You'll feel better, and we'll all know, finally, exactly what you've been trying -- and would seem afraid -- to plainly say.

And if you can't say it outright, then retract it. Tuesday's and today's editorials intimate that Lott and the Republican party are racists. Be honest with us, Washington Post. Are they, or aren’t they? All these hints and innuendo are not befitting a principal voice in American journalism. You owe the accused clarity, and the public candor.

This matter would be cleared more quickly, with less anger, and to a far greater benefit to all parties if we can understand exactly what is being said -- by everyone, including and especially the Washington Post.

--------------------

It goes in their trash can, but at least one idiot over there had to read 'em.

Yes, the DemonRats are racists. Senator Robert Byrd, DemonRat from West Virginia, on TV last year used the "N" word twice on national television, covered up by the left-wing biased press, never reported. This Rat was a past grand wizard of the KKK. All covered up by the left wing racist press.

Interestingly, Byrd was not in the armed forces in WWII, and that was also precisely when he was in the Klan. On D-Day, Strom Thurmond, a 42-year-old who resigned his judgeship to volunteer for the Army, landed in Normandy, and Robert Byrd, 26 at the time, worked comfortably in a defense plant in West Virginia.

In 1964, President LBJ, Democrat, praised the Republicans for their vote for the civil rights act of 1964 where 21 DemonRats voted NO while ONLY 5 Republican voted NO.

Bill Clinton, Governor 12 yrs. Arkansas, celebrated Confederate Flag Day for ALL 12 of his yrs. as governor and signed ACT 985 enacting Robert E. Lee day, If you forgot your history Lee was the General of the CONFEDERATE army.

Don't forget Bilbo, Faubus, Maddox, and Fulbright. Perhaps the worst of them is Hugo Black, a leading liberal Democrat senator from Alabama who pushed FDR's new deal through congress and, for his loyalty, was appointed by FDR to the US Supreme Court.

Like Byrd, Hugo Black was also a former Klan member. But whereas Byrd was a recruiter for the KKK, Black was much worse.

Black was literally a Klan attorney. He represented Klansmen who were under prosecution for hate murders. In fact that is how Black became famous in Alabama and later won his senate seat.

In 1921 a Klansman went into a Catholic church in Birmingham and murdered a priest in cold blood. He was brought up for prosecution and Klan lawyer Hugo Black signed on as his attorney. Black appealed to racial and religious hatred throughout the trial and even used his Klan connections to sway the jury. Reports of the trial note that at one point Black approached the jury, which included some Klan members, and flashed a series of Klan signals with the implication that they should acquit their fellow Klansman of the murder. They did and Black achieved his fame as the lawyer who got a fellow Klansman off the hook for a hate murder.

IN 1984, Democrat Gary Hart, visited the Wallace mansion in Alabama.

JFK

Roy Cohen worked with Joe McCarthy and Sen. Robert Kennedy was his lawyer

Martin Luther King's room was bugged by JFK and Robert Kennedy

Yes, the DemonRats have their facts wrong and cover up their biases within their biased press which they control. 93% of the media voted DemonRat.

Merry Christmas, well thanks to the political correct DemonRats, that's a bad term to use, it's now Happy Holidays.