Liberals, you don't agree with this do you?

Question

Looks like someone is looking for new friends.

http://www.gulf-news.com/opinion/columns/world/10160716.html

I did not post this because I believe it. It was posted because I consider it to be trash talk from the extreme right. I believe that Americans would never stoop this low. Someone mentioned more fuel for the fire and WE should all agree this is garbage. That being said those on the left much of what the right hears sounds just like that.

Answer 1

What does the right care? I thought bin Laden had been "marginalized"? Why is he all of a sudden important again?

bin Laden is a murderer that needs to be to justice. All of his whacko nonsense should be ignored, except for using it as leads to track him down, take him to prison, and eventually execute him.

Robert, what you're saying is 1) unAmerican, and 2) blatantly ridiculous. The Democrats want to get bin Laden. The Republicans want to leave him free reign to run through Pakistan and Afghanistan, releasing videos every once
in a while to remind Americans to "be scared." Some Conspiracy Theorists say that bin Laden is a Bush Admin. creation to keep people afraid, but that's ridiculous. Bush's people aren't bright enough to do something like that. But they are bright enough to know that if bin Laden is caught, then most people believe the War on Terror is over and we've won, so they act busy looking for bin Laden but don't really pursue him.

Regarding the media...well, it appears someone in the media was at least able to FIND bin Laden...That's more than the Bush admin. can say...but again, they're not really looking...after all, he's been marginalized...except when he's useful for making people afraid...

You claim the media is helping the terrorists, and you claim Democrats are friends to terrorists. How is the media helping the terrorists? By not continually running Bush propaganda?

Regarding Democrats being friends to terrorists...I think Republicans are the best friends to bin Laden's bunch in Afghanistan. The Bush Admin refused to hold meetings on bin Laden when taking office and instead focused on paper Tiger Saddam. After 9/11, Rumsfeld wanted to bomb Iraq because there were better targets there.

Back in 1996, U.S. officials still didn't understand the threat that bin Laden posed. He was thought to be more of a financier of terrorism rather than a mastermind. Clinton administration diplomats deny that the offer from Sudan to turn him over to the U.S. in '96 ever took place.

And when Clinton ordered the strikes against bin Laden in 1998, Republicans (Arlen Specter, PA) accused him of using the bin Laden strikes to take attention away from the impeachment circus.

And once again, when you question a neo-con on Bush's motives, he gets all huffy and puffy and says "How dare you question Rush Limbaugh's version of the facts."

Media printing the tools? Specifics please? How about the deputy sheriff in Fresno California who "infiltrated" a "terrorist group"...Peace Fresno. A bunch of middle age people who sit around, eat cookies, and talk about peace. A deputy sheriff "infiltrated" their group. Are those the "tools" you're
talking about, Robert?

You were on a roll, Robert..."As for GW dragging his feet..." and then you threw a tomato at Clinton. What's that got to do with GW totally botching Afghanistan?

Bush dragged his feet getting into Afghanistan, but they got what they wanted...the oil pipeline through Afghanistan.

The countries surrounding Afghanistan had their eyes on building an oil pipeline across Afgh. Oil company Unocal wanted in on it. Once the invasion occurred, Bush had the military be sure to secure the areas where the pipeline would be located. Guess who was appointed head of the interim government? Hamid Karzai, former Unocal consultant. The first U.S. envoy to Afghanistan? John Maresca, Vice President of Unocal who pleaded with Congress in 1998 to have the Taliban overthrown.

Bush had nothing to do with 9/11 taking place, but boy, he sure did take advantage of it after the fact.

As far as Clinton and the Cole...Robert, buddy, you're grasping at straws. The Cole attack occurred in October 2000. Investigations of things like that take months. He promised that the government would hunt down and punish those responsible, but he hoped that the next (read: Gore) administration would pick up where he left off, continue the investigation and nail the perps who did it. Remember, he was leaving office in 3 months. The CIA attacked and killed a suspected plotter in the Cole attack...2 years later. Things like that take time.

The truth hurts, indeed.

Answer 2

If you are suggesting that Democrats want an alliance with radical Islam, you must be out of your mind. In fact, I'd say you're loosing it. "Progressive" in this country means things other than what you are suggesting. I'd call what you are saying paranoia. If these people feel there is any chance that the U.S. wants to be their buddies, they are in for a shock and so are you apparently.

You have forgotten what it is like to be led by a government who isn't quite so trigger happy who believes in using foreign policy with those who have legitimacy. What we have at this time is far from a normal government. You are being led astray and need to look back at how things are supposed to be done on the international scene.

Answer 3

Of course we aren't allied with Bin Laden. Number one that is obviously a very biased page and number two... if you truly believe Bin Laden is evil then you have to assume everything he does is in an attempt to hurt America.. therefor SAYING he would like to ally with progressives should be taken as an attack meant to divide us further. Don't fall for his tricks.. rather stand strong WITH the left. We have different ideas on how we hope to achieve the end goal of making this nation better... but we all want to make this nation a better place.


Edit: it's very sad if that is the news the right receives.

Answer 4

Well it is a good thing we have the media to help the terrorists.

The democratic party is close to the terrorists, they think the same way, and feel the same.

That is why they want the dems to win. So hillary can invite Bin Laden to stay in the Lincoln bedroom for cask. Just like she did with the Chinese.



Bearkat

If the democrats wanted Bin Laden so bad then why did clinton turn him down 3 times from Sudan????
Clinton is a loser and so is his wife, they care only about power and nothing else.

And it is well documented that the clinton took a lot of cash from foreigner donors, that is including the Chinese. They rented out the Lincoln bedroom like it was a cheap hotel.

As for being Un American. What party is trying to silence the other. harry and gang are trying just that.

And I am sure people notice I will not use a capital letter with the clintons or any democrat that says the war is lost while our boys are in harms way. Talk about un American.

But I guess the truth hurts.

When the media prints the tools we used to find these animals that is TREASON and who is the media???? Think hard, LIBERALS.
And keep in mind those tools are now GONE. So what is the NY Times idea to protect us???? OHHH I know hillary. And what is her plan???? She wont even allow records of hers to be accessed until after the 08 election. And you libs love her. She is a SOCIALIST.

As for GW dragging his feet. clinton had NO plan on terror
Here is a link:

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/25/video-napolitano-fact-checks-the-hell-out-of-clintons-legal-argument/ Watch the video. It shows king clinton is what he was impeached on LIEING.

clinton did NOTHING even when the USS Cole was bombed what was he doing ???? Hiding cigars?????

Answer 5

Of course liberals wouldn't agree with an article written by an extreme right-wing conservative. Why on earth would you think they would?
Actually, the article made absolutely no sense. It was just the ramblings of some pseudo-intellectual trying to equate progressive ideas to communism. He obviously understands neither.

Answer 6

Right.

So, let's see here.

The leader of an extremely hyper-conservative and fundamentalist faction is supposed to have claimed kinship with the way too open minded and freedom loving left?

Uh-huh. Sure.

Who believes that he said that? And if he did say that, who actually believes he was actually being serious and non-duplicitous?

Answer 7

No,but I'm sure there are those here that will take that persons opinion as a fact. More fuel for the fire that divides America.

added. I'm not accusing you and my answer is really non partisan. There are those that seek to further divide on both sides.

Answer 8

nope, you know what they say about OPINIONS, they're just like...., everyone has one, and they both are full of.....

the person who wrote that particular opinion, completely ignores the fact that everything radical muslims listed as hating about America, are the more liberal aspects of our society.

[Oh yes, liberals totally abhor gays, and non-gospel music, rock and roll, women in bathing suits etc, which are exactly what radical muslims want to cleanse from society. /end sarcasm]

But I appreciate the lies, because once right-wing christian fundies realize they have more in common with terrorists than anyone else, we are all in BIG trouble.

Just remember....next time you hear someone say, "We need to get rid of all liberals," Osama and every other radical muslim agrees.

Answer 9

Why are you interested on how liberals view the creep's point of view? Why do you care about Osama's view?
Not all conservatives think alike and neither do liberals. Americans do not like Osama... period. Are you intentionally wanting to be devisive among your own people? Hmm.. Do you work for Al Quiada?

Answer 10

Who cares ? If some KKK website says they wanna be friends with DC Timberstone does that really matter to you ?