SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: cirrus who wrote (51384)10/13/2008 5:01:09 PM
From: jmhollen3 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 224649
 
(A) you sure don't know that for a fact................

(B) There was Saddam, and Uday, and Qusay - raping, killing, putting people though tree-chippers feet-first. And, they did have chemical weapons and Chemical Ali. And, there were meetings between Saddass and his goons and and Osama Lama DingDong and his goons....

You're a Demoncrap proponent of lots of dead Shiites and low gas prices for yourself - right ( or rather, very-Left, we presume..).....

:-)

.



To: cirrus who wrote (51384)10/13/2008 5:06:43 PM
From: Geoff Altman2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224649
 
I hate to tell you, well actually I don't, but that 'Mission Accomplished' sign that you so happily throw in our face wasn't talking about Bush's mission, IT WAS TALKING ABOUT THE USS ABRAHAM LINCOLNS MISSION, you see, they were at the end of their cruise and getting ready to homeport.



To: cirrus who wrote (51384)10/13/2008 5:15:59 PM
From: DizzyG3 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 224649
 
That's odd, cirrus...

There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before Bush overthrew Saddam - a secular muslim and arch-enemy of bin Laden - to install a regime friendly to Iran

According to this gentleman, that is not true. Here is the relevant portion of the interview:

Investigator: What organization do you belong to?

Abed: Ansar Al-Islam.

Investigator: What organization is this?

Abed: It is Bin-Laden's group.

ON BIN LADEN’S AL-QAEDA TRAINING CAMPS IN FALLUJAH UNDER SADDAM:
Abed: Our Ansar Al-Islam military camps were in Halabja.

Investigator: This was in the days of the previous regime?

Abed: Yes.

Investigator: And now?

Abed: Now, there is nothing. They were all scattered. The training area was in Falluja.


Investigator: And then?

Abed: After Falluja was hit, they would come through Syria to Mosul... I mean, through Falluja to Mosul.

amyproctor.squarespace.com

But don't take my word for it...listen to the interview yourself:
brightcove.tv

Diz-



To: cirrus who wrote (51384)10/14/2008 11:09:52 AM
From: Ann Corrigan1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 224649
 
BO's plans for US military would destroy America's most precious resource:

The World According to Obama

by A.W.R. Hawkins, 10/14/2008

The mainstream media is in full court press. After using the ‘financial crisis” to hasten the passage of bailout legislation which shielded Democrats like Barney Frank and Franklin D. Raines from prosecution, they now reference market woes ad nauseum, attempting to keep our minds off the many troubling aspects of Barack Obama’s candidacy. We’ve only three more weeks and one more debate to change gears and remind the electorate that, in spite of large market drops, “it’s [not] the economy, stupid,” it’s the plethora of inconsistencies and leftist goals in Obama’s world.

It’s his opposition to laws protecting marriage, his plans to open up the military to homosexuals, his opposition to the Second Amendment, and his willingness to kill both the born and unborn alike.

There needs be dialogue about the fact that in Obama’s world, one can espouse support for “struggling families” in town hall debates and infomercials without explaining his support for infanticide (murder by another name), and the abolition of the Defense of Marriage Act.

How is it that Obama can both support families and seek to destroy them through ultra-liberal abortion policies and an outright war on traditional marriage?

Think about it, folks. What kind of perverted politician supports laws like Obama supports -- laws that forbid doctors and nurses from resuscitating or otherwise staving off the death of a child who survives an abortion? The answer to this question should be far more important to us than the answer to questions about when the Dow will hit 10,000 again.

Obama freely admits he has “not come to a firm resolution on” whether life begins at conception or not. He admits this in questionnaires he’s answered and at settings such at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, where he said the determination of when life begins was above his pay grade. It should trouble us beyond measure that, in Obama’s world, if you’re not sure the baby is a baby, it is okay to kill it. I much preferred Ronald Reagan’s position, when he said that, in such a situation, we should always give life the benefit of the doubt.

We need to remind the electorate that, in Obama’s world, you can both support the Second Amendment and seek to eliminate it. He has commercials running down here in Texas showing hunters shaking hands with him, but I’ve not seen any counter-commercials that show he endorsed a gun ban in Illinois, that he pushed for limiting gun purchases to one a month in 2000, that the concealed carry laws he supports are only for retired police officers, that he wants to reinstate the assault weapons ban, and that he opposed the legislation that protected firearm manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits.

The point needs to be made that, in Obama’s world, you can shake a hunter’s hand while simultaneously reaching around his back with your other hand to ban the very rifle with which he hunts.

As always, the NRA has done yeoman’s work on Obama’s opposition to private gun ownership. They uncovered his involvement with the Joyce Foundation where, as a board member, he directly “oversaw the distribution of $18 million to gun ban groups,” and a 1996 questionnaire in which he espoused support for a ban on “the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns” -- period.

We can never forget that it was Obama who thought the D.C. gun ban was reasonable and who subsequently though the Heller decision reasonable as well. But they can’t both be reasonable. One is a ban and the other is a ruling that bans are unconstitutional.

Lastly, attention needs to be drawn to the fact that Obama plans to do away with “don’t ask don’t tell” and simply allow homosexuals to serve openly in the U.S. military (I don’t know how long “experts” believe it will be before we have gay bath houses on our military installations if he succeeds in this, but history teaches us they are sure to follow).

Obama promised to welcome homosexuals into the military in a campaign pamphlet distributed in San Francisco on the same visit where he mocked mid-westerners for clinging to God, guns, and anti-illegal immigration policies. In Obama’s world, the sanctity and cohesion of our military is simply one more thing he’ll throw under the bus to repay voters who elect him to office.

Senator McCain is an honorable man, and I hope someone will remind him that pointing out Obama’s inconsistencies and leftist agenda will make him no less honorable; it will simply indicate he’s actually trying to win the office.

The American people need to look away from their wallets long enough to realize that Obama is a threat to the family, an avid supporter of the homosexual agenda, a novice on the military and the importance of unity within its ranks, and a full-fledged enemy of the right to keep and bear arms.

In the world according to Obama, these positions are something to be proud of. But in the world of reality, where the majority of us live, these positions portend the end of America as we know it and as our Founders intended it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUMAN EVENTS columnist AWR Hawkins has been published on topics including the U.S. Navy, Civil War battles, Vietnam War ideology



To: cirrus who wrote (51384)10/14/2008 12:29:07 PM
From: Geoff Altman1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224649
 
To: Oral Roberts who wrote (274199) 10/13/2008 2:07:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon 5 Recommendations of 274411

When you add in the fact that I've been saying for some time that the CIA has been running an op against an elected president for going on 8 years and then to hear this. Wowza.

Yeah.. I had a few concerns as well during my 2 year stint in Iraq. Any information that pointed to a link between Saddam's Intelligence Service and Islamist terrorist groups seemed to be stifled. Even when we found documented evidence of his service actively recruiting members of Al Qaida, it was deemed unworthy of immediate reporting, but effectively blocked.

Evidence that Saddam was personally directing his intelligence service to coordinate with Egyptian Islamic Jihad (later merged with Al Qaida) in 1993 to target American interests in "Arab lands" and in particular Somalia (prior to the events of Blackhawk Down) were ignored and never brought to Bush's attention.

This despite the fact that the documents were personally signed by Saddam and that it provided the "smoking gun" that proved that Saddam was seeking to support and utilize Jihadist groups to attack US interests.

When I broached my opinion to some of these "leading analysts" that I was seeing significant linkages between Al Qaida groups and former high level officers of Iraq's intelligence service, it was ignored as an "anomaly". This despite the fact that you didn't get to become a member of the high ranking Ba'th intelligence infrastructure unless you were highly vetted. The "heir apparent" of Al Qaida in Iraq after the death of Zarqawi, Abu Ayman, was a former aid to the Chief of Staff of Iraqi Intelligence:

jamestown.org

regimeofterror.com (granted, this link goes a bit far in the Ba'th/Al Qaida linkage)

Thus, only two primary conclusions could be arrived at from the level of involvement between Iraq's intelligence service and Al Qai'da. Either there were previous linkages that created a semblance of trust between secular ba'th intelligence officers and Salafist Jihadists, or Iraqi Intelligence, like that of the IIS in Pakistan, had been heavily infiltrated by Jihadists.

I personally suspected the latter, especially given how Saddam was "forced" to look to the Salafist Arab tribal structure to support his regime after Desert Storm. This was also the time that he placed "Allah Ahkbar" on the SECULAR Iraqi flag. It was my belief that this Salafist subversion of Iraq's secular regime had been underway for at least 10 years, if not longer.

But oh well.. The politicizing of intelligence is nothing new.

Hawk