Archive for the ‘terrorist’ Category

Olbermann’s Insanity

May 15, 2008

Tonight, Keith Olbermann on his ‘show’ on MSNBC took the opportunity to offer another ‘special’ comment to the nation – actually, the few hundred thousand viewers of his programme. Most of his special comments take the form of a raging attack on President Bush and tend to side with the Jihadists and any other anti-American group/country/individuals. Today’s effort was no exception.

Olbermann criticised American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, denouncing the American-led Coalition as being “cold-blooded” killers and accusing Americans of being war criminals. He felt President Bush was being dishonest when he mentioned that the Jihadists would prefer a Democrat as President – this is not speculation, it is clearly true. The Dems want to retreat and wave the white flag of surrender… both candidates have promised they will pull out the troops as soon as they become President. Olbermann was incensed at the idea that the extremists might attack the United States again – he seems to have fallen for the wishy-washy rhetoric of those living in the liberal bubble. That is, America is only attacked becasue of Bush’s policies. In his minute mind, if we pull out of Iraq and stop attacking the terrorists, they will love us and never harm Western civilisation again. Yes, Keith, and the Big Bad Wolf lived happily ever after with Little Red Riding Hood.

Olbermann accuses Bush of lying but in almost the same breath labels John McCain as Bush’s twin – clearly disregarding what his own cable network has been broadcasting for the past 7 years… McCain’s displeasure with Rumsfeld and certain planks of the Bush policies.

Olbermann, in his selfish little world, surrounded by yes-people, is guilty of many of the charges he levels at Bush, most of which involve dishonesty. He believes he knows what’s best for the American voter and so he ignores the extremist views of Barack and Michelle Obama, and their confidants, he belittles Hillary Clinton’s triumphs against the O-man, and he treats McCain with contempt. Olbermann lost the plot months ago. He seems to blame America for the world’s woes. We all know who he wants to win in the war on terror – it’s not the good guys.

Advertisements

Cheney: “So?” – Well said!

March 20, 2008

The media is up in arms at Vice-President Dick Cheney’s latest comments on the war in Iraq. The following dialogue took place during an interview with Martha Raddatz for ABC’s Good Morning America…

CHENEY: On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.

RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.

CHENEY: So?

RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?

CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

The grand hoohaa has been over his use of the word “so?” in the sense of ‘so what?’ I do not see what the problem is. Great leaders the world over are not fussed by the views of the general public which change with the wind. I find it interesting that the left side with opinion polls and demand that the President act in way that would court popularity with the masses on the issue of war. The public are not in a position to make decisions about wartime tactics and strategies, and yet the media and the Democrats attack Bush and Cheney for not kowtowing to the whims of the people.

That is not how democracy works. We elect politicians to make those decisions. The media seem to want this war on terror to be waged based on quasi-referenda, that is opinion polls. If the democratic nations of Europe and North America were ruled based on the fluctuating views of the general population, most countries would have the death penalty, some form of repatriation for many minorities and civil rights for homosexuals would be non-existent.

Political leaders have to make decisions which are not necessarily popular. Considering most leaders are voted in with less than 50% of the vote (remember, many people do not even vote), it is hardly surprising that opinion polls consistently show low approval ratings for leaders in most countries in the free world.

Kudos to Cheney for once again saying what he thinks and sticking to his principles. In the upcoming Presidential election, the man of principle and integrity who will not back down just to curry favour with the electorate is the man America needs right now. That man is, of course, John McCain. Obama merely wants to be popular and wants everyone around the world to like Americans; he will achieve the latter with regard to the extremists by leading America in retreat waving the white flag of surrender. In doing so, many of America’s Allies will lose respect for this great nation.

McCain will stand tall and steadfast. McCain’s America will be very unpopular with terrorists, anti-Americans, undemocratic rogue states, and all those who are willing to let America (or its Allies) be attacked again (ie the non-interventionists). These people will not like what McCain will do in the face of threats to America or its allies. So what?

Romney Lies

January 16, 2008

An interesting article highlighting Mitt Romney’s willingness to do anything to get votes, including flipflop and deceive.

McCain Remains Only Hope For Victory

January 16, 2008

The Republican race is wide open according to many in the mainstream media. When one looks at the national polls, however, it is clear that there is one candidate ahead of all Republican candidates and one candidate who can beat any of the Democratic candidates head-to-head.

Who is the candidate? John McCain. Despite media hopes that his campaign would collapse, McCain’s guts have seen him hold on and remain a frontrunner. At the moment local politics (economic recession in Michigan) are clouding voters’ judgement. What is at stake here is more significant that individual States’ concerns. Those voters in Michigan who think that Romney would prioritise their needs should his farytale ever come true are seriously misguided.

Voters in these primaries should be concerned with America’s future first and foremost. If the country is safe and in good hands, then individual states can prosper. If the Islamic extremists gain the upper hand and sense weakness in the White House, and if the rest of the world loses respect for American strength, individual states will suffer.

All voters in South Carolina must be urged to vote for national and international reasons and not local politics. The next leader of the Free World will come from this batch of candidates.

John McCain is the only candidiate suitably qualified to lead the Free World in the fight against radical Islam, to protect America’s interests, and to look after the interests of the people. He has always acted for the good of his country. Personal profit is not a factor. His country’s prosperity remains his priority.

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.