As has been amply illustrated over the years here at Jihad Watch, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a particular clue about the nature of the global jihad and what to do about it, and there has been much too much politics as usual, and craven partisanship such as is exhibited here, when there really needs to be a new political alignment and a sober reappraisal of our international and domestic policies. "Clinton: Terrorist attack would help GOP," by Alexander Mooney for CNN:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- She says she is the Democrat best equipped to fight terrorists, but White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton told New Hampshire voters Thursday that another attack on the United States would likely help Republican candidates at the polls.Sen. Hillary Clinton said the Republicans would benefit politically if a terrorist attack occurred before the '08 vote.
"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' " Clinton, a New York Democrat, told a house party in Concord, according to the New York Post and The Associated Press and confirmed by her campaign.
"But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world."
Clinton added that if such a scenario occurred, she is the best Democratic presidential candidate "to deal with that."
Clinton was in the crucial early voting state Thursday to unveil her health care plan.
A Clinton spokesman, Isaac Baker, told CNN "Sen. Clinton was making clear that she has the strength and experience to keep the country safe."
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who is also competing for the Democratic nomination, issued a statement Friday afternoon calling Clinton's remark "tasteless."
"Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States," he said.
"Clinton added that if such a scenario occurred, she is the best Democratic presidential candidate "to deal with that."
...and she could always get tips on Islamic head covering garments from Pelosi to help her along the way.......
Now the jihadists want to get involved in campain 2008? Give me a break!
I once heard that if the American voters elected Hilary, I would be the best thing for the Republican party for the next 20 years. Maybe this needs to happen. Our battle with Islam has commenced. I now understand that it is very hard to get into the country if you are from an Islamic country. Well at least someone is getting part of the message.
Hilary's comment makes us all realize that she hasn't a clue. Or that the income from the islamic countries is still filling her bank account.
Beyond despicable. Have you seen this?
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/08/25/clitman-cops-it-big-time/
Hillary here is my suggestion to win the election.
Promise or start planning to outlaw islam and deport every muslim fouling American soil.
You may get a solid 54-58 million votes.
More people everyday are seeing the reality of islam and hate it.
This is the best way to protect America.
We did not import Germans or Italians during WW1 or 2 did we?
So why are we importing these welfare abusing muslims today?
Believe me, I know many people in the nursing-medical fields who would love this idea.
They see first hand the bogus abuse of our Medicaid system by muslims having 6-9 kids per household courtesy of the US taxpayer.
Changes have to be made now.
How do people like Hillary make it through life?I mean really, this nit wit wants to be President????
Let me get this straight. If there is an attack, the republicans benefit because they are thought to be stronger in the war on terror.
However, If there isn't an attack, the republicans still benefit because they have prevented us from being attacked since 9/11.
Talk about playing the victim !!!! What a moron.
No wonder chipmunk cheeks is recieving flak from her own party, she just left them with no way out.
Of course it's Bush's fault that this broad can't see the conflict of her own arguement. I wonder if she knows Bush isn't running anymore.
I've never forgotten how I heard Hillary refer to the Islamic Terrorists as "Bad folks who want to kill us."
Well, she got the "who want to kill us" part right, but - "bad folks?"
C'mon Hillary, you can do it - name the enemy.
This comment is directed to "credit man".
You state: "I now understand that it is very hard to get into the country if you are from an Islamic country. Well at least someone is getting part of the message."
For the sake of this discussion I assume you refer to "legal immigration" of muslims into the USA. (Lord only knows how much illegal immigration there has been into this country by muslims).
My question is this: Can you point out to me your souce of information suggesting that muslim immigration into the USA is "very hard".
I'm asking because I have been given to understand that muslim immigration into the USa has been on the rise since 9-11.
Thank you in advance for your response.
"Clinton was in the crucial early voting state Thursday to unveil her health care plan."
Frankly, this scares the hell out of me more than anything she said.
Any health care plan she comes up with will probably kill more people than the Jihadists.
This alone is reason enough to vote against Hillary.
She either believed her lying, philandering husband or she lied about believing him.
I wouldn't trust her to be a good judge of anyone or anything.
This might sound harsh but it wasn't the first time he'd been unfaithful to her.
We've had a really good look at the attitudes and behaviour of her husband. She's still married to him. That tells me a lot.
"Birds of a feather..."
...Hillary know zip about Islam.....and she lies about believing her huband...Politicians who know zip about Islam are dangerous....
Perhaps if these Democrat chaps would show Islamists a more hard assed approach rather than relaying to them that they feel everything can be done "diplomatically", there wouldn't be concerns like this.
Politicians are nothing but imbecilic vote hoes.
Is this some kind of coded message to Al Qaeda to lay off until after the election?
(Can't Bill get the message across through his Dubai "speaking tour" bankrollers?)
Hillary is too weak to even divorce B.J.
History International cable channel is showing a 2006 production called "Secrets of the Koran" tonight at 8:00 Eastern. The info bar on Comcast says that it will make comparisons to the Bible among other things.
Now, back to the regular topic.
Hillary as President? I would rather eat worms for life. God help us!
I am very interested in hearing the details of Hillary Clinton's health care plan.
Since we are on a direct path to another terrorist attack, I want to know how her plan will deal with all the wounded and the maimed.
Please, Hillary, tell us how great you are!
And are you going to take away our guns so that we cannot defend ourselves when the terorists begin to go door to door like in Algeria? Of course, you will. And you will do it "in the name of the children" just like you said you would do everything. I am watching this unfold like a horrible map to hell.
Since the government's efforts are perpetually misdirected, I don't trust you do help my family AT ALL! So, I have been taking the wife and son to the pistol range. We have identical weapons, so as to minimize parts problems, and cross-training. And familiarity in the dark. Are you Democrats and Republicans going to subsidize my ammunition needs? No? I didn't think so.
Are you politicians going to guarantee that terrorists will not poison our water supply? No? Not doing anything about that, either? Well, I am buying my own water purification supplies.
Are you going to send me some Potassium Iodide to take when a nuclear bomb goes off? No? You haven't stockpiled that for our community? Well, never mind. I bought six hundred tablets for our family and a few friends.
Are you going to send our family a good first aid kit, or teach us how to stop arterial bleeding, or clear an airway?? Oh. That's not part of the health care plan, is it? Well, I guess I will have to buy that expensive new blood-clotting bandage, and pay for my own courses of training.
Of course, all you politicians have made sure that my medical kits cannot contain lidocaine to deaden a wound for suturing, and I can't buy the morphine I am SURE we will need. And your health care plan will NOT ALLOW me to stock up on antibiotics.
Yes, you are going to help me. Sure you are. When the bomb goes off, I hope it's right under your ass.
My oldest child is a chemistry major at a large university and reports that, from looking at a class list for study partners, almost 1/3 of the names are of middle-eastern males.
A Pakistani family moved into our upper middle-class neighborhood. Three kids; oldest is 6. Now the grandparents have emigrated and live here, too.
I'm not seeing that it is difficult for muslims to get into the US.
for all you Bush bashers, Mrs.Clinton would be a thousands times worse as well as any other Dems. l am not always pro Bush, just not much to pick from. Either way if there is another attack the Dems will portray the Republicans as weak against terror. but then of course Dems have stricken the word "terrorism" from their dialogue. Not only do the Dems want unrestricted entry for illegals, but will give them free health care and money for going to colleges.
The perfect ticket for a Republican presidential bit would Guiliani and Tancredo! beware the Saudis and any islamist and their appologists!
This just shows what Clinton is in politics for, that being "politics". Such shallowness will defeat America.
Hillary has a more basic problem with voters: they might not want to step backward into the 1990s.
Hillary has baggage.
She's old news.
Here's a little parody song and slideshow about Hillary.
(sung to the tune of Adelaide's Lament, from Guys and Dolls)
Hillary's Lament
http://cruxy.com/info/11224
Dhimmican or Dhimmicrat what’s the difference, they both care so little about the American voter, much less the future of the world. They both have their heads shoved so deep in the sand, we can barely see their toes sticking out.
Hillary used to bother me:
3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
…
3:18 In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon,
The eventual outcome of too many tinkling ornaments, bracelets, rings, and nose jewels is families baking their own bread and making their own clothes, regardless of one’s religion. The sooner the better.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/is/3.html
"...no matter how much more dangerous they [Republicans] have made the world."
If the world is more dangerous, it is because the United States is broadcasting weakness in the global fight for the very existence of our civilization.
Since the Cold War, we have cut our military forces in half--Army, Navy, and Air Force.
Since the Cold War, we intervened to create and protect new Muslim terror enclaves--Kosovo, Gaza, and eventually, Afghanistan and Iraq (the last two having Islam in their constitutions means that they are at war with humnanity).
Since 1967, we have turned on our friends in Israel, Vietnam, Taiwan, and (potentially) the Balkans.
Since the Cold War (at least since then) we have been pressuring Europe to take an increasingly Islamo-fascist Turkey into the EU.
Since WWII, we have run away from nasty fights to accept either stalemate or defeat: in Korea, in Vietnam, in Lebanon, in Somalia and soon, Iraq.
Since 9/11, we have demonstrated that we are unable to understand the strategy or adapt to the tactics of our enemy. In fighting the enemy, we confine our actions within a strict legalistic procrustean box, while permitting our enemies to break every moral, ethical, and legal international rule with impunity and even sympathy.
While some of these failures may have been tactical necessities, no national politician should be comfortable or happy with any of them.
But the Hillary Clintons of the world see all these outcomes as desirable--such folks think that their paramount and noble prime objective is to weaken and humble the United States, lest it become some kind of runaway empire. Well, they have done a good job of that. We are not only not an empire, we will cease to be a nation very soon.
If the United States is eventually destroyed or thus neutered, the world will inevitably sink into a new Dark Ages. Hillary and those like her, smug in their cosmopolitan narcissm and moral masturbation, are traitors to civilization itself.
The very idea that the public is so idiotic as to react by offering renewed support for Tarbaby Iraq, and those who loyallty stick by that policy, shows the terminal confusion of Hillary Clinton and of the other Democrats who apparently are unable to make the one argument against the war in Iraq that makes sense.
To wit: the continued American presence in Iraq, to achieve the stated goals, makes little or no sense. The war in Iraq merely squanders American resources -- men, money, materiel -- and uses up our attention, when many other matters require that attention. The war in Iraq puts off the day of true understanding, and hence of reckoning, of the nature, scope, full menace of Jihad as a world-wide phenomenon, prompted by the immutable texts of Islam, and not to be rendered less dangerous by futile attempts at winning Muslim "hearts and minds" but rather by reducing the harm that Muslims bent on violent Jihad -- through "qitaal" (combat) and terrorism, which many Muslims clearly regard as a legitimate version of "qitaal" -- can do to us, by diminishing their access to major weapons, by diminishing their use of other instruments of Jihad, such as the Money Weapon that funds campaigns of Da'wa and seemingly inexorable -- but entirley reversible -- demographic conquest in the Bilad al-Kufr, the Land(s) of Unbelief, the Lands of the Infidels.
Why can't Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, or Joseph Biden, or John Edwards, or any of the others -- why can't Al Gore, who should not be waiting in the wings but enter the lists because clearly his big theme, anthropogenic climate change, needs a champion, and if he can wed it, as he should, to a policy of reducing the oil revenues of the Arabs and Muslims, he can be, if not in like Flynn, at least a most attractive and convincing candidate.
Why can't the good, real, convincing reasons be given for getting out of Iraq? Timidity? Rigidity? Cupidity? Stupidity? Choose from the many possiblities that the Esdrujula Explanation provides, or you may choose more than one.
Hitlery = Macchiavellery
to Hungarian Crusader:
We did not import Germans or Italians during WW1 or 2 did we?
[...]
Posted by: Hungarian Crusader
Italy was an ally to the United States in WW1. They received Alto Adige at the expense of Austria after the War. FYI
Is Hillare saying that she can run away faster than the other Candidates?
We are at war with radical Islam, and this is not the time to put a woman in the White House. IMO, Hillary's only interest in being President is to say that she's the first Woman-President.
No, she hasn't come out and stated this, so it's only a guess on my part, but if I'm right, then that's hardly a reason to be placed at the helm. Regardless of whether I'm right about that, I still think that she would cause us great harm, even if her motives were pure (right).
Those who seek to destroy us hate us, and they also view women in a very negative light. I have many concerns about Hillary being President, but one of my concerns is how we as a country would be viewed by our enemies because we were foolish enough to elect a woman during a time of war -- especially how Iran & Company would view us.
If Hillary really cared about this country then she would drop out of the race and run for President at the PTA -- since being 'pres' is so important to her.
Vote for sHrillary, folks!
Don't forget you get Willie as a bonus!
Can you imagine these 2 nitwits in the white house again for another 4 years?
Another vexing thing about this ill-considered remark from Hillary is, whether it occurred to her or not, she's playing into the hands of 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Granted, they never stop to ask themselves about the other jihadist-driven conflicts in the world (is India attacking itself over Kashmir? Are the Thais shooting Buddhists in the south? Or did Bush, Big Oil and the Mossad do all that, too?).
But all too many people will seize upon a remark like this and further divorce the discussion about the threat to the U.S. and other Western countries from the jihadist ideology that underlies it. And meanwhile, the jihadists can continue to plot and exploit the collective cluelessness of the establishment.
blasts hit hyderabad
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/30-killed-40-hurt-as-2-blasts-hit-hyderabad/47450-3.html
Anti-islamocommunist--
Thanks for the heads-up (I should add I wasn't aware of that breaking news when I mentioned India above).
We're keeping an eye on it, and will post if additional news shows evidence of a jihadist angle.
I WANT YOU
for the Jihad Awareness Project.
We currently have 60 volunteers in 33 states.
WE STILL ARE SEEKING CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS FROM ALL 50 STATES, ESPECIALLY FROM THE FOLLOWING 17:
Alabama
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Utah
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming
I'm looking for at least two people in every state of the Union who would be willing to purchase a copy of Robert Spencer's Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't and mail it, on an agreed upon date, to one of the senators in your state. I'm organizing an effort to get the book simultaneously to all 100 senators, in order to send a strong message. If we get more than two people per state, books can also be sent to the House of Representatives.
If you’d like to be involved, please write to me at traehnam@yahoo.com under the subject heading “Senate,” and tell me the state your senator represents, an email address where I can reach you, and a nickname. No need for your real name. And I will never share your email address with anyone, not even with other volunteers for this project.
And visit www.jihadawareness.blogspot.com to get more info on this project and to leave comments other volunteers can read. You can also see there the growing list of participants in this project, and the states their senators represent. I’ll try to update the list at least once a day. I've also designed a graphic that might amuse. Scroll down when you get to the site.
Once we have at least two people from every state, we can agree on a mailing date and then each of us can mail a copy of the book on that date.
Right before each of us mails the book, we can issue a press release to various media outlets in every state, and in that way announce and explain the mailing. And perhaps we can come up with some other ways of maximizing the effectiveness of this project and gaining as much positive attention as possible.
One of the project's volunteers suggested contacting Rep. Sue Myrick, who started the anti-Jihad caucus in Congress. I'll try to coordinate this project with Rep. Myrick to maximize its effectiveness. I've also been calling various congressional offices to get advice on how best to go about this. And I'll soon contact Regnery, Robert Spencer's publisher, to ask their advice and to see if we can coordinate with them in some way.
The remark should make Republicans happy because well.....its silly. This is her deep thought of the day? I have no idea nor does anyone know how another act of Islamic aggression will help or hurt. I am getting the feeling most Americans don't trust either party right now. The GOP and its "Iraq adventure" and the Dems in their "we are the world adventure" is getting old for most.
Just look at the polls! Both are stuck in the below 30 range. Really it is so typical of our politics today....spin and re-spin. Truth and facts are not important. All that matters is how James Carville, Rove and the rest of men politics can frame it to help them and hurt the other guy.
We need a third party or the American people (that means us) need to clean up our current political parties. What ever happened to real leaders writing their own speeches?
The problem with the Clintons (does not matter what sex) is they are very similar to the Bushes. They both are big lovers of the Arabians (just like Bush). I wish people could for once put away their political party and just see how muslim oil money has infected our political establishment. How it controls the debate for fear of upsetting OPEC and the Arabians. How every western leader jumps through hoops to keep oil cheap.
The democrates remind me a little of the French at the battle of Agincourt. All they needed to do was wait until the English to collapse of hunger and for lack of water but instead they figured it would be a shame to waste their numerical advantage. So they attacked the English in a frontal assult.
Hil & Bubba had their chance to fight global-jihad. They blew it.
Anyone here want to run for POTUS? Please. How about a farmer or truck driver? Anyone but professional politicians. All politicians want are connections to big money....they don't give a damn about the people. They would hang us out to dry if given the assurance that they would have a good life behind their walled compounds.
Hugh,
I greatly admire your scholarship, knowledge and eloquence on the threat we face from Islam, but I am greatly troubled by these questions – if we leave Iraq:
Why would our enemies not proclaim this a great victory over the “Great Satan”?
Why would this not give great hope and strength to the fundamentalist recruiters of Islam?
Why would this not totally destroy the morale of our allies and those we are asking to join us in this fight?
Why would the World that is watching not draw the conclusion that Islam is invincible if the only Super Power cannot defeat it?
And finally, to what purposes would the land and resources of Iraq be put if we allow the forces of militant Islam to have it?
Nanci,
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25004_Pelosi_in_a_Hijab&only
Hillari,
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/08/official_campai.html
Sunni or Shia is the real question. With politicans like this can the burka be far behind? Where do they stand er kneel on FGM, segregation of the sexes, wife beatings, the education of girls as well as a host of other issues, I would like to know.
The road that the leaders of the world are taking leaves little doubt that their followers are stocking up on supplies for the future, no not food water ammo, these,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SS-Armband.svg
If someone from the UiN(United islamoNazis) comes to your house and tells you that you are to be relocated…don’t fall for it!
Davegreybeard
Maybe it's safe to say that Iraq is a lose lose situation. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I wonder if it's too late to install a dictator there?
I greatly admire your scholarship, knowledge and eloquence on the threat we face from Islam, but I am greatly troubled by these questions – if we leave Iraq:
"Why would our enemies not proclaim this a great victory over the “Great Satan”?
Why would this not give great hope and strength to the fundamentalist recruiters of Islam?
Why would this not totally destroy the morale of our allies and those we are asking to join us in this fight?
Why would the World that is watching not draw the conclusion that Islam is invincible if the only Super Power cannot defeat it?
And finally, to what purposes would the land and resources of Iraq be put if we allow the forces of militant Islam to have it?"
-- from a posting above
All of these questions have been answered, on dozens of occasions before. I suggest that you click on the bar above, under "Hugh Fitzgerald," and look for such articles as "Declare Victory" and "Victory Lies Shining Before Us" and a few more. And there are hundreds of postings in which I have set out what I think would happen, if at the same time as such withdrawal were to take place, other measures were taken, or at least ostentatiously considered, that would make clear that the withdrawal is not done because Islam has won, but because the Administration has decided at long last to be clever, relentless, and ruthless, not least in using whatever pre-existing fissures exist within the Camp of Islam to weaken it.
Such measures include, but are not limited to:
1) Openly discussing the problem of the texts of Islam, their immutability, their plain meaning.
2) Beginning to discuss with fellow members of NATO (other than Turkey) the security problem that is already menacing the countries of Western Europe because of the large-scale presence of Muslims whose Total System flatly contradicts everything in the legal and political institutions of the Western world that have been developed over the past two millennia.
3) Possibly sending Western troops -- with no U.N. or Arab League nonsense about it -- to protect the non-Muslims of the southern Sudan and the non-Arab Muslims of Darfur, and having those trooops sweep the board of the Janjaweed, and in the process destroying whatever airplanes and helicopters the government of Sudan may possess, and destroying the rest of its supposed armed might in a day or two of bombing. And then announcing that the Western forces will stay until such time as a free and open referendum may be held, in both places, on whether or not the black Africans now in thrall to the Arab racists of Khartoum, and backed to the hilt by the other members of the Arab League -- especially treacherous Egypt -- now running interference for it wish to remain under Arab rule, or wish to be independent. Note that all of the oil in the Sudan is in the south, under the lands of the non-Muslims, and that other resources, including oil, may possibly exist in Darfur, under the lands of the non-Arab Muslims now being killed with such unopposed ease.
4) Signalling in every possible way to the Christians of Nigeria that if they wish to break away from the rule of Northern Muslims, as they did in 1967-69, this time the Western world will not shun but aid them, and if this time the Egyptians come to bomb those Christian villages, there will be no more Egyptian pilots or planes in the sky over Nigeria, or possibly elsewhere. Note that the oil of Nigeria, like the oil of the Sudan, is in the south, in the lands of the Christians. Nigerians in Great Britain and the United States are overwhelmingly Christian and will be able to help garner public support through their appearances.
5) Ending all pressure on Israel to yield to this absurd "two-state-solution" business, and recognizing that any further surrenders of territory by Israel, any signs of weakness by this ineffectual and confused Israeli government or governments that might follow, must not be permitted. The Israeli ruling class needs to understand Islam, as others in the West must do so, and must understand why those concessions make no sense. Call it, in a twist on the late and most unpleasant phrase -- "saving Israel in spite of itself" -- a phrase that originates with those who were hostile to Israel, and couched their hostility in smiles of sweet-reason and sympathy, the kind of sympathy that meant "if only those crazed biblical-settling Israelis would come to their senses and make still more life-threatening concessions then they might have a chance." No: the American government should signal that the game is up, and that the nature of Arab opposition to Israel, obviously rooted not in some phony "clash of nationalisms" based on the recent invention of the "Palestinian people," but on the opposition, that cannot be assuaged but can, with force or the threat of overwhelming force be suitably contained, of Muslim Arabs to the permanent existence of an Infidel state of Israel, no matter how tiny it may be, or tinier it may become.
6) In Iraq, the Americans should leave, not be wedded sentimentally to "saving the Iraqis" -- the "Iraqis" do not exist. It is foolish to attempt to prevent the very fissures which 1) work to our advantage and 2) cannot in the long run be prevented in any case. We should watch from afar, and have other Infidels watch from afar, as the sectarian fissures widen, and as the Sunnis and Shi'a outside Iraq find themselves, for their own good reasons, sending aid to their co-religionists on both sides.
There is so much more. But I have put it all up before. Google a bit. You'll find it.
"... why can't Al Gore, who should not be waiting in the wings but enter the lists because clearly his big theme, anthropogenic climate change, needs a champion, and if he can wed it, as he should, to a policy of reducing the oil revenues of the Arabs and Muslims, he can be, if not in like Flynn, at least a most attractive and convincing candidate..."
Posted by: Hugh at August 25, 2007 12:35 PM
Hugh, come on. Gore is an A-1 horse's *ss, and nothing about his character makeup is going to improve. If Gore had won in 2000, I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts the Taliban would still be sitting in power in Afghanistan. For all your problems with the Republicans and Bush, any Democrat, (except Lierberman, who isn't running), will be much worse versus the global jihad.
The problem with Republicans is that they are wedded to the status-quo IOW keep the borders open so as to encourage steady inflow of cheap labor and keeping our dependence on imported foreign oil and keeping the war in in Iraq going until our Army is totally incapacitated. Not to mention wasting hundreds billions of dollars on useless high tech weapons.
And the way they are kissing Muslim ass and allowing unlimited illegal immigration, elected Republicans are really doing a good job blurring the lines between them and the Democrats.
Naah the Republicans had their day in the sun and fucked up beyond belief.
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, found Sen. Clinton's remarks "tasteless," in that they express political outcomes following a terrorist attack upon the United States. I too find her words tasteless, but Sen. Clinton is correct. And if she is divulging a state secret, it is the worst kept secret imaginable.
The current president was elected to a (ahem) second term largely on the perception that he would be a stronger leader in the event of another terrorist attack upon the US. This despite the fiasco he and his cronies spearheaded in Iraq (Must...invade...Iraq). Iraq could have remained bunged up, ratcheting pressure all the time, without the expense of the present deployment. The present administration has not shown itself to be any more savvy conerning the threat that faces the West than the Democrats.
We need a savvy electorate, an electorate that sees beyong red and blue states and asks for competence and integrity from their leaders. This isn't the situation now. This hasn't been the situation for far too long.
Tasteless...thy name is Clinton.
Al Gore, who should not be waiting in the wings but enter the lists because clearly his big theme, anthropogenic climate change, needs a champion,
the only thing AlGore is champion of is taking money away from fools who belive in giving his company money for their carbon footprints! Algore the snakeoil salesmena needs to be run out over with a Hummer! lol PS its the sun that creates global warming, and ya cant change that!
Iran needs to go
Let Israel deal with Syria and the Proxies.
Withold Financial Aid and Arms support. Especially spare parts.
Tell the Saudi's to leave our Booze and Whores alone and stay HOME.
Transfer American Heavy Combat Forces along the Iranian Border.
I wouldn't expect much help from either NATO or the UN unless UNIFIL is shot at by the Muslims, where they are more than likely run away. Or, actually fighting Israel.
I wonder the likelyhood that Iran would sacrifice the Dome of the Rock with a Nuclear Device? There must be something that would fit the defination of a Well some where under it. (Or under the remains of the Temple Mount.)
Whats tasteless is that if there is blame to be laid at the Americans feet it is not only to be laid at the feet of Republicans.
In fact one could say that the Dems have made the world unsafer because they coddle and appease that which we should be destroying.
A funny thing the blame game is.Here Clinton is blaming others when herself,now,and her Husband when he was president make and made the world unsafe by not doing what was needed done to the threat of the world.
Politics has become so disgusting it's hard to stomach anymore.
In my view the whole rat club are no better than the islamists.The lieing and childish mind sets go hand in hand.
How much more should we have to endure from these career thieves and bums?
Hugh.
The West can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I wouldn't put Al Gore in charge of a lemonade stand.
Bill Clinton wagging his finger in the face of a reporter is the biggest lie of all - his administration was part of the deballing (emasculation) of the agencies desighned to propect us.
The author of "The Road To 9/11" explained why it is unlikely that there will be another attack soon by Al Quaida: they are required to get Osama's permission first - for Al Quaida America is the the glittering Broadway, the main course - they will not tarnish their large success of 9/11 with a lesser terrorist incident - it would vitiate the propaganda value of 9/11, it would have to be much larger than 9/11.
So bunny cheeks will likely get her wish.
This is nothing new at all.
The terrorists have, by their own words, sought to influence elections...not just here, either...and have made no attempt to hide that fact.
The political kook fringe have exploited this to enhance their own conspiratorial kookdom against their political enemies for decades...but only the past 6 years has it boiled over en masse, as can be seen at the SPindymedia & dailykook sites.
Now, HITlery is exploiting it for her own political gain, which is totally unnecessary, in exceptionally bad taste and form, and beyond despicable, even for a militant candidate...especially when they go the extra length to exploit it and promote themselves in afterthought like this.
Disgusting, but so predictable.
Classic saul alinsky lackey.
This is the same Hillary Clinton that was proud of instigating her husband to wage a war on Albanian terrorists' side against soveriegn Serbia, an evil war that resulted in a brutal eradication of Christianity from Kosovo.
Her latest remark exposes her for what she is: a sociopath who does not know right from wrong.
Folks, just keeping her from becoming the president of the United States is reason enough to rally for Rudy. Visit his website JoinRudy2008.com.
Vote for Rudy and pray it is not too late.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
Al Gore is a rich-boy_ raised _in_ hotel suites, professional politician. How does the wind blow Al?
I am just sick of fake people...is there a true leader out there? Bolton? I wish one time a POTUS would fore go the flowery speech making and talk straight.
So if there's another attack, Hillary is telegraphic that her move will be to get the moonbats to scream that it was all a setup, that the attack was a Bush plot to steal the election, and trigger rioting in the streets
The kooks already tried that one...on and after 9/11-it didn't work...but that never deters them to try the same lie over and over...they figure sooner or later, it'll work...like the terrorists, they only need to be effective once.
I found this article about Hllary Clinton disturbing.
http://www.themidnightsun.org/?p=486
Saul Alinsky was apparently the subject of Hillary Clinton's college senior thesis.
"Saul Alinsky wrote two books outlining his organizational principles and strategies: Reveille for Radicals (1946) and Rules for Radicals (1971).
Rules for Radicals opens with a quote about Lucifer, written by Saul Alinsky: 'Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.'".
Trying to influence elections can be tricky.
If you know the nation you are trying to influence is inclined to appeasement, then your jihad attack might be accompanied by the release of a public warning to elect the jihad-appeasing candidate, or else.
But if the nation whose election the jihadist is trying to influence is an anti-appeasement and confrontational nation, the jihadist might decide to try reverse psychology: accompany the jihad attack with a public warning to elect the Republican (when really, the jihadist wants the Democrat elected). In response to that warning to elect a Republican, some of the anti-appeasement electorate might defiantly vote for the Democrat (who would be making very militant statements against terror) simply to defy what the jihadists had publicly demanded.
Finally, if half the electorate is appeasement oriented, and the other half of the electorate is confrontational, the jihadists wouldn't be able to send a clear message with a pre-election jihad attack. It would be difficult to tell if the jihadists' warning to elect a candidate was a reverse-psychology warning, intended to provoke the warned electorate into making the choice opposite to the one demanded by the jihadists, or a direct warning intended to make the electorate choose as the jihadists demanded.
But despite all those feedback loops (and more), Hillary is probably correct: a pre-election jihad attack would most likely help Republicans, and most people would probably not concern themselves with the question of whether jihadists, with their attack, were trying to provoke precisely that outcome.
Tricky, perhaps...but it has been known to work...like it did in Spain.
Good news is, we're not Spain.
HITlery's comments aren't disputed as to being right or wrong...THE crux of such tasteless comments is this...
the past few years, commentators like Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, Humphries, even the dreaded "she-devil" Ann Coulter, all said in ridicule, words to this effect..."Oh, don't hurt us! We're liberals, we're on your side!", et al...and were promptly excoriated in the nastiest possible way.
Now, it comes out by ones own words...which in turn proves the same commentators who got excoriated to be right all along. That's the biggest point of all this, beyond the fact she said it.
(yes, it bewilders even me as to why anyone would prove their detractors right by walking right into it, but it's exactly how she just came off-proving her detractors right, and the excoriators to be lying hypocrites), and a real attack would spell their political death knell.
It's one of the few honest thing's she's ever said or did in her life...but that's another forum...
I think Hillary is also making this statement to send a message to the jihadists: "Jihadists, if you want me elected -- and I'm sure you do -- don't attack the U.S. before the election!"
I'm not saying that Hillary is allying herself with the jihadists, except in one thing: trying to get herself elected. I'm sure she believes she would be able, once elected, to mess up the jihadists better than could a Republican president. And in some ways, she might be right. However unjustified it may be, any defensive or offensive actions she as president might take against the jihad would perhaps be far more supported internationally than the very same actions taken by a Republican. Unfair, but probably true. Second, in the U.S., neither Democrats nor Republicans would complain much about defensive and offensive actions she might take at home in the U.S. Suddenly, things like the Patriot Act would be no problem. Whereas if a Republican becomes president, half the U.S. will blindly oppose the very same defensive and offensive actions. So the choice between, say, a Giuliani and a Clinton is not entirely obvious. But all things considered, I'm sure I would still vote for Giuliani over Clinton. For one thing, Giuliani is not Bush, and might be able to enlist much more support than Bush ever could. Bush is very passive as a spokesman for his own policies. Giuliani is the opposite. He can be an extremely effective advocate.
"But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world." --Sen. Hillary Clinton
"...'Oh, don't hurt us! We're liberals, we're on your side!', et al...and (i.e. conservative infotainers, e.g. Coulter, Limbaugh, et al.) were promptly excoriated in the nastiest possible way. Now, it comes out by ones own words..." -- from above
I don't see the logical connection between Sen. Clinton's words and the supposed vindication of certain right-wing commentators' comments. Sen. Clinton's present remarks have absolutely nothing to do with any attempt to placate terrorists. Her words have everything to do with a lingering perception that the Republicans are tougher on terror. Some of the comments on this thread tend to lend evidence to support her observation.
Her words have everything to do with a lingering perception that the Republicans are tougher on terror.
The Republicans are tougher on terror. The Democrats have a losing strategy, comprised of law enforcement techniques and diplomacy. The Republicans are the lesser of two evils in the war on terror and they aren't tough enough for my tastes, but I'm an unabashed "Western Man" in the sense that Wyndham Lewis meant that term, so it is quite difficult for anyone to be tough enough for my tastes. C'est la vie.
Simple...they said to expect it, got excoriated for daring to say so (implying they wouldn't do/say such things)...said resultant actions prove the commentators right, and HITleries goons liars.
They DO placate terrorists, by their words and by their actions, and have done so for a very long time...whether or not it's intentional (some are, some are not) is irrelevant.
Her "observation" isn't in doubt.
Her credibility is...and it's just been settled, as well as her hypocrisy.
Whay she just did was political suicide...proving ones opposition correct only hurts their own ambitions, especially fundamentals like this was.
The Republicans are the lesser of two evils in the war on terror and they aren't tough enough for my tastes
I should also add that they aren't smart enough and seem fully determined to completely ignore Hugh's sound advice that they learn more about Islam.
Chatillon, you said:
I agree she isn't trying to placate terrorists. Isn't part of the purpose of her statement to signal to the jihadists that if they want her elected, they shouldn't attack before the election? I don't think she's at all on the jihadists' side, but is she above sending such a signal to them, if she thinks they might prefer to have her in office rather than a Republican? Especially since her signal to jihadists is well-camouflaged behind the message's more obvious signals -- to Democrats and Independents.
This is a sickening atrocity.
Religious moslems have bombed two sites: an amusement park where families gather on the weekend and also a second weekend retreat where the murdered were watching a laser show. The murdering cretins will no doubt consider themselves doubly blessed by the demon god if they manged to kill moslems who were watching the forbidden laser. allah does not like it if you are if there is anyother god but allah. allah requires fresh sacrifices of infidel and moslem blood sacrificed in the sanctification of him. allah is a jealous god. How clever these adherents these helpers of the scourge of humanity and human decency and human morals to leave a bomb under the stadium seats.
Islam is despicable. How many atrocities will the infidel world suffer before it does something about this? Hindu Kush (more dead Hindus!) allah be praised as he establishes himself as the sickening god of evil incarnate. Who would pray to such a demon but a moslem? I see why a moslem must kill anyone who is critical of the prophet. The least inquiry about islam will lead the inquirer to the conclusion that allah is false and evil through and through.
Details of this one negligible islamic atrocity the murder of 30 or more human beings among incessant atrocities troubling infidels worldwide can be found at:
http://broadband.indiatimes.com/videoshow/2310669.cms
If Infidels were smart they would band together and just banish all moslems. Moslems must go! Send them to their beloved Pakistan, Arabia or Iran. I understand there is a mosque in islamabad that is seeking a whole new membership. It is painted in a colorful red and has fresh human sacrifices to Moloch!
" What if? What if?' ". . ."But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world."
Just taking what she said on face value alone it is a very speculative statement. Giving the Republicans the advantage is like sticking her finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. (She probably is right BTW) She then paints they (the Republicans) as the problem. Not the real enemy, Islam. She then follows by saying she is the best choose. Implying even if attacked she could handle it and the world would be less dangerous with her in office. It is just politics as usual.
All of the other comments here about her motivates are just as speculative. I personally don't give her credit for the motives mentioned because she does not understand who the enemy really is. I wish and pray those in power were up to speed on who the enemy is. As many have said in a number of ways,"You need to know who your enemy is before you can fight to win."
"The Republicans are tougher on terror" -- from above
Yes, the Republicans are as tough as a charging bull, but not nearly as cunning.
But the real villain in all of this is the American electorate, for not making it clear to both major parties what they expect the priorities to be. We don't need (and did not get) the "lesser of two evils" in our political leaders. We need clear thinking, plain talking and sensible action. We have not had any of that for a long time.
Clinton says, "...Republicans... no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world..."
I love that statement. It exemplifies everything wrong with Western thinking. That's right, Republicans have made the world more dangerous, not Islamists. I love the white man's guilt. I can't imagine four years of her clap trap.
Elect Hillary = neuter America.
Elect Hussein Obama = Islamisize America.
Elect John Edwards = pssify America.
You choose.
Traeh:
I don't know what Sen. Clinton's personal motives were in making her comments, but I doubt she is deliberately signaling anything at all to the jihadis and to suggest that she is telegraphing a message to jihadis just doesn't wash. If she were to attempt and succeed such a thing, somehow convincing the jihadis to postpone their next attack until the next election, then what? If she is elected president or not, the jihadis will continue their attempts to wreak havoc. She knows this. She is commenting on the Republicans' ability to maintain some level of support from the electorate despite their many blunders. In fact, her further comments, that she'd be the best prepared to handle a threat situation out of all the Democratic candidates, can be viewed as a warning to the jihadis that they shouldn't expect a free pass. Sen. Clinton may in fact be capable of managing things quite well, a bit like Margaret Thatcher, but without the warmth and charm.
My fear is that too many, Republicans and Democrats alike, are listening to lobbyists, particularly representatives of big business and foreign governments. These entities have agendas of their own that are most decidedly not congruent with the welfare of the people of this country. I am most certainly not campaigning for Clinton, but at the same time I just don't understand how more accountability isn't demanded of the present administration. I'm still scratching my head over the Iraq invasion, I still don't understand what Dubyai was thinking when he pressed for the portland management deal on behalf of interests in the UAE and I don't know why Osama bin Laden isn't wearing a fashionable orange jump suit at Gitmo. It seems like we had a chance at Tora Bora and blew it. The list goes on. The arrogance, stupidity and cupidity of the present administration has got us where the jihadis and their backers want us. If another attack will ensure the election of another Republican government, that may be exactly what we'll get.
Can we afford to put the party in the whitehouse post 9/11 that declares "the road to peace goes through Damascus" as a foreign policy statement??? Peace through a terrorist state...uh huh.
WE ARE NUTZ???
Hugh:
"3) Possibly sending Western troops -- with no U.N. or Arab League nonsense about it -- to protect the non-Muslims of the southern Sudan and the non-Arab Muslims of Darfur, and having those trooops sweep the board of the Janjaweed."
As someone who has been working on ending the genocide basically since it started, I do not appreciate this comment. In Darfur, there is Black-on-Black violence, Moslem-on-Moslem violence, and Arab-on-Arab violence. Now, you promulgate plunging Darfur into deeper agony by adding white-on-Janjaweed violence?
This conflict is predominantly about one man: Sudanese President Umar Hassan al-Bashir. He DOES have a very Arab nationalist outlook, and is not above using mass slaughter as a political tool. So in 2003, after Sudanese Liberation Army insurgents attacked a government compound, Bashir cut a deal with the Janjaweed that they would do his dirty work. He played up the fact that the dictatorial government and the Janjaweed were both "Arab" (which was previously considered second-class in Darfur), and backed the Janjaweed as they engaged in race-based slaughter.
It was a very cynical political move: Bashir wanted to keep Darfur divided into little atomized pieces to continue denying resources to Darfur as a whole. He also decided that he would actively encourage mass slaughter to this end, which was inexcusable. But as it is, many Janjaweed are catching on, and are turning on Bashir to join the SLA. In fact, virtually every international actor is catching on. A peacekeeping mission has been agreed upon and Western and African nations alike are making meaningful contributions. The peacekeepers are scheduled to arrive next year.
Now, here you come advocating for Western troops to "sweep the board of Janjaweed". You claim this is to "protect" Darfur. but you are doing no such thing. What you are actually doing is prioritizing the destruction of the Janajweed over ending the Darfur holocaust. Hugh, I implore you, leave such cynical politics to President Bashir.
Oh, and I thought you'de like to see this:
http://www.asiansinmedia.org/news/article.php/events/1724
"Sen. Clinton may in fact be capable of managing things quite well, a bit like Margaret Thatcher, but without the warmth and charm."
Posted by: Chatillon at August 25, 2007 11:32 PM
Chatillon, the only similarity between Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton is that they both wear skirts sometimes ... and yeah, we didn't get bin Laden at Tora Bora which didn't have to happen in the first place if Bubba Clinton accepted custody of bin Laden from the Sudanese, who offered him up on a silver platter. Anybody who thinks we are safer from the global jihad under Democrat rule ... the Democrats who want: to gut the Patriot Act, tried to kill the john doe legislation protection from flying imams suit, sent Nancy Pelosi + burkha to Syria to diplomacy them into line, treated the first World Trade Center attack as a criminal problem, some of whom think the war on terror is fabricated (See: John Edwards) ... anybody who thinks these surrendercrats, Dhimmicrats are going to make us safer from the global jihad is not living in the real world. I know the Arab money is going into both parties, but hell, the Arabs almost built the Clinton Presidential Library by themselves, and Bubba has been collecting major Arab dollars on the lecture circuit. At least Rudy told the Arabs what they can do with their money; Hillary wouldn't dare.
Wow! Just type the words “Hillary Clinton” and watch people foam at the mouth. You would think that the Republicans/Conservatives who spent 8 years making Clinton and his wife look like monsters, would after the events of the last several years have a little humility and sense. Clinton’s had and has flaws, but you know perhaps we could agree with the following assumption that any politician of any stripe is going to be an asshole of some kind. You just don’t get to high political positions without it. Having said that, it is clear to any person not blinded by stupidity/hysteria that Clinton did at least a passable job in running our country. Compared to the rank incompetence that our nation has been suffering under for 7 years, Clinton looks incredible.
So come on, stop this reflexive anti-Clinton/Hilary stuff--sorry guys they are not the antichrist, they are not evil (the persons filling that role are the jihadi scum). Both Clintons have shown themselves to be infinitely more capable and smarter than Bush. Finally, if your Hilary froth has finally dried, her comment seems to me to be pretty innocuous. Her statement is almost universally believed by all political analysis’s to be true. So her crime is speaking the truth? These things aren’t math equations, but the thought that a major terrorist attack would help a Republican more than an Democrat got elected seems to be a very reasonable projection.
Hillary Clinton is a dedicated, loyal Marxist and has been for thirty years. Her short time in the Senate hardly qualifies her for the presidency, and what other "experience" does this woman have?! In addition to her Marxist agenda, Hillary is a two-faced, or should I say many-faced, hypocrite and liar. Hillary is whatever her audience of the moment wants her to be. Beneath her many masks, she is a cold, calculating, ambitious, ruthless, mendacious, MARXIST witch.
Sorry esquared, Hillary and Bill have not proven to be "smarter" than Bush. Bill is a gifted, eloquent speaker with a boyish, charismatic charm, a magnetic personality. Hillary is a shrill, angry, conniving, ambitious witch and immensely unlikeable. Her main claim to fame is Bill's last name. He is much more intelligent than she but their capabilities are hardly phenomenal, unless you consider their ability to con the unwitting. She isn't charming, her personality sucks, she has remained married to Bill in name only to fully exploit the benefits of being a Clinton. She's not even Hillary "Rodham" Clinton anymore, just Hillary Clinton.
She rode into Washington on his coattails and if she wasn't his wife, she would be nobody. I'm sure she hates his guts for publically humiliating her with his many infidelities, but without him, she is nothing. Her ambition overwhelms even her pride and as far as I'm concerned, she would stop at nothing to get what she wants. People like Hillary Clinton are dangerous and volatile.
Can't we please elect a president that isn't named Clinton or Bush?
America and the world had enough Clitmania.
A continuation of this malaise is intolerable.
No more shrubbery.
But when you take a closer look the stooges left or right are all unqualified and unelectable.
Bolton comes to mind, and perhaps Tancredo.
But what chance have they got?
Did Hollywood aid or hinder President Clinton with the release of the Movie WAG THE DOG?
President Clinton was tied to this movie from the time of its release.
Did Clinton want to respond to Muslim Aggression? While the Movie implies there is no Enemy to confront.
Or
Did Clinton not wish to respond, with the Movie providing the Bait everyone went Fishing for?
The Clinton Policy allowed the Enemy to Attack us with almost complete impunity at times and places of their choosing. I have no re-call of any attack being prevented for him to hang his hat on.
I took forever to Convict the few Crumbs he Caught. while doing nothing to define the Enemy to the American Public nor setting any real groundwork as to how our Legal System would Judge these people.
Wifey was arround the Office while all this is going on.
Mz Clinton is tough alright- tough to take.
What works are in progress for the Misses in Hollywood? Her role on TV wasn't so good.
Mrs. Clinton is signaling her intent to make a deal with the enemies of America: Don't attack us until I'm in power; then, we'll discuss the quid pro quo.
She 'come to far with him that brung her' to go back now. She'll have her presidency, at ANY EXPENSE.
She's telegraphing her terms to our enemies now.
I have just the comments above and agree with Traeh.
In the two terms that Bill Clinton 'fought' terrorism here and abroad he proved that he was IMPOTENT to do anything forceful to protect American interests and American troops.
Hillary is smart enough to know that whatever she says is being scrutinized and amplified by the press around the world.
If she didn't want to signal 'let's make a deal' after the election, then, she should have chosen her words with more care.
She is calculating and shrewd enought to know that what she says is tantamount to a bargain with the enemy. And, if she doesn't know this then she is as dangerously naieve as her less experienced rivals who have made similar mistakes.
Re: Clinton vs. Bush, Left vs. Right, etc. etc.ad nauseum.
Surely it's occurred to some of us that the political system is being worked from both sides, but by interests inimical to Western values of liberty and tolerance. The willingness of some here to fixate on Sen. Clinton's shortcomings seems to blind them to the shortcomings of the administration already entrenched and doing its level best to prosecute a war on terms most unfavorable to the interests of the West.
We here should also be working both sides of our political system and get the issues that matter out in the open. It would help if the current president would stop referring to Islam as the "Religion of Peace" and also explain some of the peculiarities of his close relations with the Saudis. All other politicians should be asked to account for themselves in a similar manner. But since we don't have the financial resources of the Saudism we're going to have to work our political system the old-fashioned way: hands-on participation.
Burkas --
You make a very good point by saying that Hillary may be "telegraphing" a message to our enemy. It might explain her comment of being able "to deal with that"....what does that mean?
She's a traitor, and she isn't even President yet.
Whatta maroon.
Champ, since I was too lazy to read the comments above my post before posting, my post only echoes what has already been said by Traeh.
The first word that comes to anyone's mind is 'telegraphing' her wish to our enemies.
Hillary was quick to attack Obama's careless remarks. You would think she'd be careful to avoid making any connection between the complicity of Islamist terrorists with her ascent to power.
The commie who would be queen...
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=18
Her hubby...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=38E6633E-F82C-4BFB-8298-FCFCD226ADC3
Her plan for "social revolution"(???)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=39595ECB-C0AD-4E37-A093-A2E510FE3A60
(includes her saul alinsky thesis)
Her plans for a "new war" (WHAT "new war"?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLXso2HnGwI&eurl=
Considering the "glorious revolution" masquerading as a "social revolution"...
Vidkun Quisling Alert!
(and she's considered in their own peers words alone, to be "moderate", even to be not left enough by loonies at SPindymedia & the dailykook...scary).
God help us all.
Here...this guy puts it best.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57323
And remember the yearlykook convention she and her cohorts revelled in? It's a great example of the old adage how you're best known by the company you keep.
An expose' on their beloved dailykook:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26823_Daily_Kos_Diary-_Mainstream_Marxism&only
(actually the number's much closer to over 250,000,000 not that it's any surprise they'd keep the numbers so low for obvious reasons of bad PR).
This says it all.
:-)
Burkas for 'Hitlery'! ("It takes a" villain!). Burkas for Obama!
Burkas for Al Gore!
Burkas for Nancy Pelosi!
Burkas for John Kerry!
Burkas for Harry Reid!
Burkas for howard dean!
these guys will be among the very first in the US to throw 'em on when al-Qaeda attempts a major coup d'etat in America (it's coming, I'm sure of it).
It's already started...it's just a lot slower, more methodical coup they're attempting.
The above named are merely the foolish gullible pawns, who in the midst of their own agenda of "glorious revolution" of socialism, don't even see that they're being used to destabilize America...until it becomes so weakened it's FUBAR, then the islamists slow coup accelerates to breakneck speed into the stereotypical coup (armed insurrection & mass murders), and worst of all, the named PC brownshirts above will meet their demise FIRST at the hands of those islamists using them to begin with, in exactly the same fashion their predecessors did in 1934...after all, the islamists are using the exact same playbook as way back then, too:
The islamic mein kampf
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/islamic-mein-kampf/
They better wake the hell up, as the "Ewwwww, ohhhh, ummmm, I'm liberal! I'm seeeeeeensitive! Please don't hurt me!" appeasement has never worked to stop the goths at the gate, only delayed their inevitable deaths...only to find out they were targets #1 all along once they outlived their usefullness as "useful idiots".
God help us all.