Before a democrat blames right-wing talk radio, this was just your average, top of the hour radio network news. (Just the headlines, no slant.)
Two stories were played back to back. I just get a kick out of this every time I think about it.
The first story is about the new al-Qaida in Iraq leader succeeding Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He is Abu Ayyub al-Masri, an Egyptian with ties to Osama bin Laden's deputy.
We know this to be a fact. There is no denying this.So this proves Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It proves that Al Qaeda is fighting us (again, In Iraq). We also know that it was al Qaeda who attacked us on 9/11.
The next story was domestic. It was about a debate where some democrats do not want to include Iraq in the war on terror. They say Iraq was a detour from the war on terror.
"These people do hear the news..?? Don't they..?" Osama has quickly replaced his leader in Iraq. This means terrorists are in Iraq. But democrats say Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.
If you can find a democrat that is half-way intelligent, they will argue that terrorists were not in Iraq before we went in and it is America's fault that terrorists are there now.
(Blame America First.) Typical Liberal.
How do these democrats know terrorists were not in Iraq..?? We have proof that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq receiving treatment for battle wounds he received in Afghanistan.
We couldn't even prove, without a doubt, what type of weaponry Saddam was developing. How can you prove that terrorists were not in Iraq..?? But this is irreverent now. We can prove terrorists are in Iraq now.
You can fight terrorists in one location. I guess you could run all over the globe trying to find them. You can ask for permission to have Special Forces enter Saudi Arabia to check for terrorists. (I doubt you will get permission.) You can ask Yemen for permission to enter their country. (Good Luck!)
Or.. You can set up shop and let the terrorists come to the US military. Preferably, not within the US. (Maybe a country like Iraq)
You have been blinded my friend and you have lost your judgement.
Your hatred of President Bush has caused you to forget that the US military is run by a large group of men and women. These people are very intelligent, many have been in the military most of their lives. There are not necessarily more republicans then democrats in the military.
How long do we have to wait until these people understand that terrorists are in Iraq. So Iraq is the continuation of the war on terror.
Sometimes you have to trust the people who have been elected. The people who have decided to enlist and defend this country. I am not talking about a "blind trust." But my God, you do not have to block every move with a million questions and a hundred accusations.
Stop accusing soldiers of hideous crimes. Give a soldier the same justice you would want. "Innocent, until proven guilty."
Isn't that what you would want..?? American Justice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some comments from this article-----------
"If you can find a democrat that is half-way intelligent, they will argue that terrorists were not in Iraq before we went in and it is America's fault that terrorists are there now.(Blame America First.) Typical Liberal."So America didn't start this war? Was it the Martians? Who do we blame for this?"How do these democrats know terrorists were not in Iraq..?? We have proof that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq receiving treatment for battle wounds he received in Afghanistan."There are terrorists in almost every country in the world. How do we know there's no terrorists in Mexico? Who's next, Switzerland?"Or.. You can set up shop and let the terrorists come to the US military. Preferably, not within the US. (Maybe a country like Iraq)"And how's that working for us now? Is this the latest rationalle for going into Iraq? It changes almost daily."Sometimes you have to trust the people who have been elected. The people who have decided to enlist and defend this country. I am not talking about a "blind trust." But my God, you do not have to block every move with a million questions and a hundred accusations."America trusted this administration for four years and the media certainly didn't question them about Iraq. Now that we've been duped there's no more trust. And nobody has been "blocked" from doing anything because the Dems have yet to put together any meaningful opposition."Stop accusing soldiers of hideous crimes. Give a soldier the same justice you would want. "Innocent, until proven guilty." "I agree. Let's also close down Guantanamo Bay. comment by liberalfreak on June 18, 2006 12:56 AM (EST)
Guantanamo Bay may be closed down sometime in the future.Most of the stories from that facility have been borderline propaganda. Gitmo prisoners have it better than the "Tent City" prisoners do in Arizona. (And Gitmo prisoners do not have to wear pink underwear or work on a chain-gang.) There is a movement in this country on getting tougher with criminals. Americans are sick of repeat offenders. You cut someone a break and let him out of prison. They rape a child or kill some innocent person.Tons of mainstream media outlets went down to Guantanamo Bay looking for a liberal "sob-story" that they could run on TV. (Liberals love stories on how Evil America is a bad country doing evil bad things.) The innocent person, locked inside Gitmo. No trial in sight. What the mainstream media saw were "thugs" who tossed glasses of urine at prison guards. These news teams came back empty handed. There was no "Brad Pitt" looking terrorist who sits in the corner- sobbing. Just a bunch of thugs.So I will not surprise you LF, by saying I think we need to be TOUGHER on terrorist. Even the ones in jail.Yes, it was Martians that started this war. They had that plasma ray gun.Saddam started this war. He never followed any of the surrender terms he agreed to. Bush (41) let Saddam get away with it. Clinton let Saddam get away with it. Finally, after 9/11, Bush (43) put a stop to Saddam.Had Saddam followed the terms he agreed to. Saddam would still be in charge of Iraq and we wouldn't be there. We could be focusing on one of the other countries that Manning is talking about. reply by angryrepublican on June 18, 2006 8:55 AM (EST)
In case part of this was directed at me. Here's a comment I left on another blog a week ago that questioned the war in Iraq...Terrorist experts for the most part agreed before Iraq that landing a large military force in a terrorist rich environment like Iran or Syria would be equivilant to hitting a hornets nest with a baseball bat. So it's correct to say that Iraq was a great place to go to fill the need to do something big after 911 without significantly hurting the people who attacked us. But what you have to look at is geography. Terrorists tend to reside in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Sudan; Iraq happens to be dead center of this activity. Iraq is not the war on terror, but is is a great place to start it, as long as we actually do that and don't forget why we're there. Special forces teams can now make quick hops to the terrorists camps in the Middle East without having to suffer the response of "occupying" the country.As long as we are in Iraq we don't have to ask permission from Saudi Arabia, we can go in covertly and just not tell the media the real reason we are in Iraq, to conduct a real war on terror under the radar. The point of my comments was to show that Iraq is just the media friendly war, it isn't the real one that is probably taking place. And if it isn't taking place we are missing an opportunity. comment by manning on June 16, 2006 5:24 PM (EST)
Biff-tastic blogging. Great post. Liberals hate to be called out and exposed so hopefully you will unleash some rants from our more left leaning bloggers. It's about time the democrats put away their Blame the President game-plan and jump on board in the war on terror. comment by bigbob47 on June 16, 2006 12:17 AM (EST)
Thanks for reading The Angry Republican..!!
