Archive for the ‘9/11’ Category

Olbermann’s Self-inflated Ego…

May 6, 2008

Keith Olbermann’s ego, which he personally inflates every night with the aid of the usual cronies of the liberal elite media, must surely be in danger of bursting. Once a minor satirist, now a self-promoting apologist for all things anti-American, Olbermann’s show has survived for tworeasons. Firstly, it is on a cable news network that few care to watch. Secondly, he’s taken the easy option of being a Bush-basher, an anti-war, anti-American, and anti-Western Civilisation ‘journalist’ – something that is guaranteed to gain him good press in the wishy-washy world of the liberal media.

Tonight, once again, he took the opportunity to attack Senator McCain. The criticisms of McCain were exaggerations of the facts at best, or childish lies at worst. His partner in crime this evening was a certain Matt Taibii, dubious author of a deeply troubling book that supports the anti-American conspiracy ideas behind 9/11 among other disturbing notions. They took it in turns to take swipes at McCain, to back each other up and to mock America. At one point, Olbermann made light of the “post-9/11” world – he is an offensive cretin if he does not believe most people’s lives in the western world were altered by 9/11. Our whole outlook on the world, our security, religious extremism had to change.

Olbermann and Taibii spoke in circles and contradictions; at one point, criticising McCain for changing his opinions, and then pseudo-praising him for not blindly sticking to certain conviction. One would hope a politician could modify his views on issues over the course of several decades – it would be very concerning if he held exactly the same views in 2008 as in 1988. The world is constantly changing.

Taibii guffawed when mentioning that McCain had voted against his own bills in the Senate. Neither he nor Olbermann bothered to mention that he voted against some of his own proposed bills owing to their final state and content when they were presented to senators for the vote.

I do not want to waste any more of your time with Olbermann quotations or comments. All I will add is the following… Olbermann has put his eggs in the Obama basket. Two peas in a pod… two leftist elitists, out of touch with the people and often offending middle America. Hopefully, 2008 will bring an end to their negative, anti-American tripe they both try to force down the throats of their audience.

Advertisements

Victory in Iraq

March 20, 2008

On the fifth anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq, President George W Bush gave a rousing and inspiring speech in defence of the war, laying out clearly, once again, the reasons for going to war and, more importantly at this moment in time, the reasons for continuing the fight against the forces of extremism.

The current successes in Iraq, owing much to John McCain’s surge theories, are grounds for hope that victory will come. Yet, at this crucial stage in the war, when the Coalition forces have the upper hand, some are calling for retreat and surrender. One of the few clear planks in Barack Obama’s otherwise virtually empty manifesto is to surrender in Iraq and leave the extremists celebrating victory over the United States and its Allies. Bush refers to politicians such as Obama in today’s speech, “The successes we are seeing in Iraq are undeniable — yet some in Washington still call for retreat.”

Obama likes to claim that the so-called experience of John McCain and Hillary Clinton led them to support an unjust war while his ‘better judgement’ made him oppose the war from the outset. Obama’s judgement conveniently ignores key facts about Saddam Hussein’s regime. Facts that Bush highlighted in today’s speech…

“Because we acted, Saddam Hussein no longer fills fields with the remains of innocent men, women and children. Because we acted, Saddam’s torture chambers and rape rooms and children’s prisons have been closed for good. Because we acted, Saddam’s regime is no longer invading its neighbors or attacking them with chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. Because we acted, Saddam’s regime is no longer paying the families of suicide bombers in the Holy Land. Because we acted, Saddam’s regime is no longer shooting at American and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones and defying the will of the United Nations. Because we acted, the world is better and United States of America is safer.”

Barack Obama’s judgement would have allowed Saddam Hussein to continue to act against the interests of the free world. Obama lives in the liberal bubble, along with many in the media and many Democrats in general – a bubble that seems to be cut off from the real world and one that will be burst when the next attack on the USA occurs. These bubble-inhabitants deny that 9/11 changed the world and appear oblivious to the danger that will arise if Coalition forces retreat from the battle with extremists in the Middle East.

Obama’s willingness to accept defeat in Iraq, when, to any strategist with any foresight, victory for the USA is the only acceptable outcome for the safety of the US and the free world, coupled with his ongoing support for his racist, America-hating pastor, Rev. Wright, will only weaken his hand as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. the war may not be popular but it is essential.

On voting day, most Americans will realise that it will not be wise for them to elect a President who is happy to lead his country in retreat in the face of terror. On the contrary, the majority of Americans will vote for a Commander-in-Chief who will stand firm when confronted with extremists and who recognizes that we are in a battle for our civilisation. Al Qaeda is on the run and McCain is the man to chase them “to the gates of Hell.”

McCain realises, as Bush mentioned today, that no outcome except victory is acceptable in the war against the extremists.

President Bush concluded in his speech to military at the Pentagon, “The battle in Iraq is noble, it is necessary, and it is just. And with your courage, the battle in Iraq will end in victory.” Obama’s views undermine that war effort and give encouragement to the enemy. McCain, on the other hand, will support the efforts our troops are making, and will lead America and the Coalition towards a victory many on the left feel is impossible.

Rosie’s Blog’s Damning Evidence.

May 27, 2007

Much of the furore surrounding the Rosie O’Donnell and Elisabeth Hasselbeck verbal entanglement centred on the notion that O’Donnell had described the US troops as terrorists. A charge that O’Donnell denies and one on which she forced Hasselbeck to defend her (eventually) during the now infamous row.

It is ironic that O’Donnell’s own blogsite contains the following quotation – a transcript of a discussion in which the ‘terrorist’ description pops up…

 “Dated: 2007-05-23
Did Rosie Call Our Troops Terrorists?

The [sic] is directly from the transcripts of The View for May 17th:

O’DONNELL: …… I just want to say something. 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?
HASSELBECK: Who are the terrorists?
O’DONNELL: 655,000 Iraqis — I’m saying you have to look, we invaded –
HASSELBECK: Wait, who are you calling terrorists now? Americans?
O’DONNELL: I’m saying if you were in Iraq, and the other country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?
HASSELBECK: Are we killing their citizens or are their people also killing their citizens?  
O’DONNELL: We’re invading a sovereign nation, occupying a country against the U.N.”

Notice, O’Donnell refuses to answer Hasselbeck’s questions regarding clarifying her position on the identity of the terrorists in her opinion. It is clear from her initial statement (my bold) that she is implying that US troops are the terrorists. She is clever enough not to actually put those words in the same sentence but her implication is crystal clear. Hasselbeck gave her ample opportunity to clarify her postion – O’Donnell refused.

It is typical of O’Donnell that she tosses in the 650,000 figure for the amount of Iraqis killed and she even has a section for this stat on her blogsite. I say typical, because of course the number 650,000 is not based on any facts. It is fictitious. There is no proof. This does not deter O’Donnell from using it as if it were true to back up her argument.

It is equally bizarre that she would state that the US was acting against the UN while conveniently ignoring the fact that Hussein/Iraq had been acting in violation of the UN for over a decade. I hardly think the current massacres occuring in Iraq as a result of the fighting between rival Muslim groups is in accordance with the UN charter either – although the lack of action from the UN regarding Darfur might suggest otherwise.

The fact that O’Donnell’s own blog contained the incriminating evidence – and yet, O’Donnell’s people viewing the transcript through Rosie-tinted spectacles do not see it. This might explain why they don’t ‘get’ 9/11 or the War on Terror.

O’Donnell – Defending the Indefensible

May 26, 2007

Rosie O’Donnell is leaving The View ahead of her scheduled departure time following her spat with Elisabeth Hasselbeck. On the back of her regular efforts to discredit the US troops, denigrate the President, and propogate unsubstantiated falsehoods (9/11 conspiracy theories), this departure is long overdue.

While free speech and questioning of authority are to be encouraged in a democratic society, abuse of a public position to spread unproven, extremist theories and to undermine the country at a time of war should not be tolerated.

It is interesting that this blog has received a number of comments containing extreme vitriol as a result of its criticism of O’Donnell and yet these same people are quite happy to hear her compare the US forces to terrorists and President Bush to war criminals.

O’Donnell’s right to free speech is undeniable – she does not have the right to abuse the troops and spread groundless, extremist conspiracy theories on national television without being questioned.

Dream Team? Rosie and Ron Paul…

May 25, 2007

Just a quickie here, but has anyone noticed how closely aligned Rosie O’Donnell of The View and Ron Paul, one of the outsiders in the race for the 2008 Presidency, are in terms of their political outlook?

Both O’Donnell and Paul have an interpretation of 9/11 that is significantly different from the established facts that millions saw unfolding in front of their eyes on live television. O’Donnell throws her weight behind the 9/11 conspiracy theories and sees Bush as beling involved in a huge cover-up of the ‘facts.’ Paul lays the blame for 9/11 firmly at the feet of the victims themselves and of America as a whole.

It is obscene that these opinions gather so much support and attention. While freedom of speech is one thing, dishonouring the innocent victims and their families with these ludicrous claims is unforgivable. Luckily, both have been defeated in the eyes of the public recently: Giuliani tore a strip off Paul in the last Republican debate for his 9/11 views, while Elisabeth Hasselbeck pulled the carpet from under O’Donnell’s feet on The View this week.

Paul demonstrates why he is not fit to run for President with his ‘the terrorists are not to blame’ manifesto. O’Donnell shows she is not fit to be on mainstream television with her mindless repetition of extremist, anti-American conspiracy propaganda.

Both fail to see the bigger picture. Both seem to hate what America stands for. They would make a dream team. Not politically, but rather as a comedy duo. Unfortunately, we’ve grown tired of the Bush-bashing, anti-American, ‘blame us not the terrorist’ approach.