Bush!!!!
- Thread starter jacknjill
- Start date
fishman830
Active Member
The following was written by my friend, an extreme bush supporter
The War Story: What Media Elites Like Dan Rather Refuse to Say
By _______
680 Day War......1420 Dead
You know, by simply looking at those numbers, one could not help but join the Liberal Democrats and be against the war in Iraq. That's a part of the rhetoric the Liberal Democrats in Washington use each chance they get. I guess I understand why somebody would think that. The problem is, they don't see the bigger picture. They must not remember how they felt on September 11th, 2001, when the Clinton Kool-Aid Drinking 1990's came to an end and our security was intruded upon. But wait, it was not the first time. It was just the first time it happened under an administration that did not want to sweep it under the carpet and continue to drink Kool-Aid. America has been attacked before, just never with the magnitude of that tragic day. Those Liberal Democrats continually forget about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in East Africa, and the suicide attack on the USS Cole.
They do not remember the 300,000 Iraqis that were killed under Saddam, they do not remember the American planes that were shot at by Saddam, and I am positively sure they do not remember the people Saddam gassed. Yes, my friends, I used the word gassed. Gassed, as in, using chemical weapons. Yes, chemcial weapons, as in WMDs.
The have seemed to simply forgotten about the UN resolutions that were passed since the first Gulf War that had the same effect on Saddam as a t-shirt on a winter day. Somebody must have also forgotten to tell them about the times when Al-Qaeda and Taliban officials met in Baghdad with Saddam Hussein's regime. What about the fact that it took two weeks between the time the weapons inspectors wanted to go into Iraq and the first time they actually were allowed in? I suppose Saddam Hussein was simply making everything nice and tidy so he would not be embarrassed if the weapons inspectors came into a messy Iraq. It's not as though that would have mattered much, because weapons inspectors were only allowed to search "approved places." Don't search that empty warehouse or the ---- room, here, let's look inside the schoolhouse, shall we? When weapons inspectors were taken to certain places, they would be blind folded and put into the back of a vehicle, which can only mean one thing. A big version of the childhood game of guess where we are.
While now the Bush Administration seems like the only group of people in the world that thinks Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, that was not the case prior to the liberation of Iraq. Not only did CIA Director George Tenet tell President Bush that there was conclusive evidence that Saddam had WMDs, but MI-6, the British version of the CIA, France, yes the same American hating country of France, and other European countries all said there was clear evidence that Saddam had WMDs. Then the question comes up of why there wassuch opposition to the war. The answer is simple, countries like France, Germany, and many other UN powers from Europe all saw a major conflict of interest. All these nations were heavily involved in the widely popular Iraqi Oil-for-Food program (it was popular until it was publicized), so an invasion to there main source of oil would be simply proposterous. Ironically enough, France took pride in the fact that they were "leading the coalition against countries that start wars for oil," when really they were just "leading the coalition against countries that refuse to remove evil dictators because of oil." Interesting plot twist in the ageless saga of the French.
Anti-war, Anti-Bush Liberal Democrats do seem to remember the fact that our President is from Texas, yes, Texas, and how this must surely mean he is a moron. None of the Liberal elitists could ever possibly imagine a Texan being intelligent. But a Yale diploma and a Harvard MBA later, here he is, George Walker Bush, as President of the United States of America. Some usual rhetoric will be that he rode on the coat tails on his daddy, George H.W. Bush. "His dad was President, what do you expect?" I assume the fact that George Walker Bush graduated from Yale in 1968, and his father, George H.W. Bush was not even Vice President until 1980, proves nothing. "Well, he used family and political connections to dodge Vietnam!" No, he did not go to Vietnam because he was serving in the Texas Air National Guard as an F-102 Fighter Pilot, a job that takes extensive training that, despite the best efforts of Dan Rather, President Bush did pass. With flying colors. A few people had to stay home to protect this country, and he happened to be one of them. It was the Democrats' hero, President Bill Clinton that skipped Vietnam. He was a Rhodes Scholar. That is why we never saw William Jefferson Clinton in combat. The books were too heavy and he could not get up from the table when Uncle Sam called him. Or perhaps he didn't want to. "Well, John Kerry served." Only after he had his deferment rejected. Twice. "Hey, he won three purple hearts." Yeah, that he applied for. Twice. He applied for one, it was rejected, so he applied again, for the same wound. Then, when he came home, a couple months earlier than he was supposed to, not only did he meet with Vietcong officials, but he joined the anti-war rally with Jane "Hanoi" Fonda and threw his medals. Or were they his ribbons? It does not matter, they are interchangeable. I guess the Democrats got Conservatives on that one. They are definitely better soldiers.
George "Dubya" Bush, the stupid Texan. That is one of the things that Liberals continue to bring up, only to let some petty things called facts prove them wrong.
You know what else Liberals remember? How great the 90s were because everyone was drinking a glass of Clinton Kool-Aid.
I believe Clinton was a great President, because he proved to our country that when threats show themselves, we have to put down our Kool-Aid and pick up our rifle. So for that, thank you, President Clinton.
Unfortunately, Ol' Slick Willy did not do that. He kept drinking and sleeping with Monica Lewinsky. "It was the vast-Right Wing Conspiracy." Yeah, and so was, "I actually did vote for the $87 Billion, before I voted against it."
That is the problem with today's American Liberal. They are not like the old time Democrats, like Senator Zell Miller, a Democratic Senator from Georgia. He was marooned by the Democratic party because he committed the number one sin, he is PRO-LIFE. The nerve that man must have to call himself a member of the progressive, moral relativism believing party while he does not believe a woman should be able to kill her baby prior to birth. That was yesterday's Liberal. Today's Liberal is personified with a little bit of Howard Dean ("I Have A Scream" speech), John Kerry ("I actually did vote for the $87 Billion, before I voted against it), and John Edwards ("There are two Americas, a rich America and a poor America." Really? So we are not the United States of America anymore. Wow, I must not have gotten the memo).
That is the major difference between yesterday's Liberal and today's. Today's Liberals are not like the old school Liberals that used to at least have enough pride in their country to protect and defend it. How about serve it? Oh, the Liberals serve America, as long as by America, you mean NOW (National Organization for Women, a large pro-abortion group that believes women should get jobs just because they are women), the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a large Liberal group that believes blacks should get jobs because they are black), the NARAL (the group that has dubbed themselves "Pro Choice America"), and the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union, a group that protects civil liberties, as long as they do not involve people that do exercise the freedom of religion and practice their chosen religion).
Real Liberals should want to Liberate people. They used to. Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and even John F. Kennedy, despite their social programs that soiled the likes of their domestic agendas, wanted to protect America.
Today's Liberal believes social programs outweigh defense initiatives. They believe worrying about gays in the military is a more pressing issue than worrying about soldiers having guns in the military. That is the problem with Liberals today. It is a complete disregard for the protection of America.
Maybe Liberals are not as justified in their stance on the War in Iraq as they may think. Maybe, just maybe, we have seen that when threats appear, we need to confront them. What is sad is that we will never truly know the positive aspects of the War in Iraq, because Saddam's plans will never be fullfilled.
The War Story: What Media Elites Like Dan Rather Refuse to Say
By _______
680 Day War......1420 Dead
You know, by simply looking at those numbers, one could not help but join the Liberal Democrats and be against the war in Iraq. That's a part of the rhetoric the Liberal Democrats in Washington use each chance they get. I guess I understand why somebody would think that. The problem is, they don't see the bigger picture. They must not remember how they felt on September 11th, 2001, when the Clinton Kool-Aid Drinking 1990's came to an end and our security was intruded upon. But wait, it was not the first time. It was just the first time it happened under an administration that did not want to sweep it under the carpet and continue to drink Kool-Aid. America has been attacked before, just never with the magnitude of that tragic day. Those Liberal Democrats continually forget about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in East Africa, and the suicide attack on the USS Cole.
They do not remember the 300,000 Iraqis that were killed under Saddam, they do not remember the American planes that were shot at by Saddam, and I am positively sure they do not remember the people Saddam gassed. Yes, my friends, I used the word gassed. Gassed, as in, using chemical weapons. Yes, chemcial weapons, as in WMDs.
The have seemed to simply forgotten about the UN resolutions that were passed since the first Gulf War that had the same effect on Saddam as a t-shirt on a winter day. Somebody must have also forgotten to tell them about the times when Al-Qaeda and Taliban officials met in Baghdad with Saddam Hussein's regime. What about the fact that it took two weeks between the time the weapons inspectors wanted to go into Iraq and the first time they actually were allowed in? I suppose Saddam Hussein was simply making everything nice and tidy so he would not be embarrassed if the weapons inspectors came into a messy Iraq. It's not as though that would have mattered much, because weapons inspectors were only allowed to search "approved places." Don't search that empty warehouse or the ---- room, here, let's look inside the schoolhouse, shall we? When weapons inspectors were taken to certain places, they would be blind folded and put into the back of a vehicle, which can only mean one thing. A big version of the childhood game of guess where we are.
While now the Bush Administration seems like the only group of people in the world that thinks Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, that was not the case prior to the liberation of Iraq. Not only did CIA Director George Tenet tell President Bush that there was conclusive evidence that Saddam had WMDs, but MI-6, the British version of the CIA, France, yes the same American hating country of France, and other European countries all said there was clear evidence that Saddam had WMDs. Then the question comes up of why there wassuch opposition to the war. The answer is simple, countries like France, Germany, and many other UN powers from Europe all saw a major conflict of interest. All these nations were heavily involved in the widely popular Iraqi Oil-for-Food program (it was popular until it was publicized), so an invasion to there main source of oil would be simply proposterous. Ironically enough, France took pride in the fact that they were "leading the coalition against countries that start wars for oil," when really they were just "leading the coalition against countries that refuse to remove evil dictators because of oil." Interesting plot twist in the ageless saga of the French.
Anti-war, Anti-Bush Liberal Democrats do seem to remember the fact that our President is from Texas, yes, Texas, and how this must surely mean he is a moron. None of the Liberal elitists could ever possibly imagine a Texan being intelligent. But a Yale diploma and a Harvard MBA later, here he is, George Walker Bush, as President of the United States of America. Some usual rhetoric will be that he rode on the coat tails on his daddy, George H.W. Bush. "His dad was President, what do you expect?" I assume the fact that George Walker Bush graduated from Yale in 1968, and his father, George H.W. Bush was not even Vice President until 1980, proves nothing. "Well, he used family and political connections to dodge Vietnam!" No, he did not go to Vietnam because he was serving in the Texas Air National Guard as an F-102 Fighter Pilot, a job that takes extensive training that, despite the best efforts of Dan Rather, President Bush did pass. With flying colors. A few people had to stay home to protect this country, and he happened to be one of them. It was the Democrats' hero, President Bill Clinton that skipped Vietnam. He was a Rhodes Scholar. That is why we never saw William Jefferson Clinton in combat. The books were too heavy and he could not get up from the table when Uncle Sam called him. Or perhaps he didn't want to. "Well, John Kerry served." Only after he had his deferment rejected. Twice. "Hey, he won three purple hearts." Yeah, that he applied for. Twice. He applied for one, it was rejected, so he applied again, for the same wound. Then, when he came home, a couple months earlier than he was supposed to, not only did he meet with Vietcong officials, but he joined the anti-war rally with Jane "Hanoi" Fonda and threw his medals. Or were they his ribbons? It does not matter, they are interchangeable. I guess the Democrats got Conservatives on that one. They are definitely better soldiers.
George "Dubya" Bush, the stupid Texan. That is one of the things that Liberals continue to bring up, only to let some petty things called facts prove them wrong.
You know what else Liberals remember? How great the 90s were because everyone was drinking a glass of Clinton Kool-Aid.
I believe Clinton was a great President, because he proved to our country that when threats show themselves, we have to put down our Kool-Aid and pick up our rifle. So for that, thank you, President Clinton.
Unfortunately, Ol' Slick Willy did not do that. He kept drinking and sleeping with Monica Lewinsky. "It was the vast-Right Wing Conspiracy." Yeah, and so was, "I actually did vote for the $87 Billion, before I voted against it."
That is the problem with today's American Liberal. They are not like the old time Democrats, like Senator Zell Miller, a Democratic Senator from Georgia. He was marooned by the Democratic party because he committed the number one sin, he is PRO-LIFE. The nerve that man must have to call himself a member of the progressive, moral relativism believing party while he does not believe a woman should be able to kill her baby prior to birth. That was yesterday's Liberal. Today's Liberal is personified with a little bit of Howard Dean ("I Have A Scream" speech), John Kerry ("I actually did vote for the $87 Billion, before I voted against it), and John Edwards ("There are two Americas, a rich America and a poor America." Really? So we are not the United States of America anymore. Wow, I must not have gotten the memo).
That is the major difference between yesterday's Liberal and today's. Today's Liberals are not like the old school Liberals that used to at least have enough pride in their country to protect and defend it. How about serve it? Oh, the Liberals serve America, as long as by America, you mean NOW (National Organization for Women, a large pro-abortion group that believes women should get jobs just because they are women), the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a large Liberal group that believes blacks should get jobs because they are black), the NARAL (the group that has dubbed themselves "Pro Choice America"), and the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union, a group that protects civil liberties, as long as they do not involve people that do exercise the freedom of religion and practice their chosen religion).
Real Liberals should want to Liberate people. They used to. Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and even John F. Kennedy, despite their social programs that soiled the likes of their domestic agendas, wanted to protect America.
Today's Liberal believes social programs outweigh defense initiatives. They believe worrying about gays in the military is a more pressing issue than worrying about soldiers having guns in the military. That is the problem with Liberals today. It is a complete disregard for the protection of America.
Maybe Liberals are not as justified in their stance on the War in Iraq as they may think. Maybe, just maybe, we have seen that when threats appear, we need to confront them. What is sad is that we will never truly know the positive aspects of the War in Iraq, because Saddam's plans will never be fullfilled.