the Democrats decided to run as weaker on national security
in a time of war.
Around the world, all the people who wanted America to lose the war,
or who didn't care,
preferred the Democrats.
The Democrats lost,
and I wondered if they would
learn the lesson of 2004
- that they needed to move to the right,
and propose someone who would take the war seriously.
Sadly, no, is the answer.
the Democrats decided the answer was to move further left.
as in the 2004 election,
all the people who want America to lose,
or who don't care,
preferred the Democrats.
Again, it seems that
the Republicans are far more committed than the
to victory in the global War on Islamism.
And yet, incredibly and sadly, it worked!
In the wake of a sudden and unexpected
huge economic crash
in Sept 2008,
the American people elected a left-wing defeatist
to prosecute this war.
God help us all.
We ended up getting Hillary anyway - as Secretary of State,
in which role she went
along with President Obama's apologetic, defeatist foreign policy.
Probably Obama probably pushes her left of where she would be if she was President.
Obama seems clearly to the left of Bill Clinton.
Nile Gardiner judges Hillary as Secretary of State, 2 Nov 2010.
"The last 21 months have been a period of marked US decline, both at home and abroad ...
It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success this administration has achieved with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at the helm. Its hallmarks have been the appeasement of America's enemies, groveling apologies before foreign audiences, the undermining of key alliances, and an embrace of supranational institutions that undercut US sovereignty."
"I want an end to the war immediately, and I want the soldiers to be encouraged to destroy their weapons and drive themselves out of Iraq."
And she thinks Obama is the man to support.
Damning words indeed.
of the extreme left-wing site Daily Kos
In 2004, when four US civilian contractors
(all military veterans with distinguished records, three of them fathers)
were burnt and dismembered in public in Fallujah,
"I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit.
Now he supports Obama.
He says if Obama loses:
"A generation of young Americans - who back Obama in big numbers - will turn cynical, concluding that politics doesn't work after all."
That would be great!
Republican majorities forever!
Seriously, imagine being so immature as to conclude that
"politics doesn't work"
just because your guy didn't get elected.
This Guardian leftie says:
"if McCain wins in November ... it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for."
Oh calm down.
Crap politicians don't come along once-in-a-generation.
There will be plenty more besides Obama.
The Guardian is probably
the most pro-jihad newspaper in the English-speaking world.
Jonathan Freedland slams Bush for intervening in Iraq.
Jonathan Freedland (yes, the same guy) bemoans the West's non-intervention in North Korea and Syria.
What a total hypocrite.
You wanted non-intervention, you got it.
You wanted Obama. You got him.
I got a
reply from Freedland
on Twitter, 21 Feb 2014:
"one of the reasons I opposed the Iraq war was my fear it would poison the well
for future liberal interventions".
"Yes but one could also say that the left opposing Iraq so strongly
poisoned the well for future interventions."
All the wrong people like Obama:
An Adel Daoud of Hillside, IL
was a committed Obama supporter as at 2012.
He supported Obama, the Democrats and the Occupy movement.
Adel Daoud of Hillside, IL tried to carry out an Islamic terror attack on Chicago in Sept 2012.
An Al Aqsa Brigades terrorist says Obama's rise is
"an important success. He won popularity in spite of the Zionists and the conservatives."
Another Al Aqsa Brigades terrorist said Democrat candidates' anti-Iraq war positions
"prove that important leaders are understanding the situation differently and are understanding the price and the consequences of the American policy in Iraq and in the world."
Iran supports Obama
"The problem with Mr. Obama is his education. ... The Americans cannot accept him because ... he is better educated. They don't understand that his education would enable him to serve them better.
The flaw they see in Mr. Obama - which they don't admit - is that he is highly educated".
Comparing the Democrats to the Republicans:
"Mr. Obama's perspective is more clear. ... Mr. Biden is a very respectable man. He has a good reputation,
... They are more knowledgeable in foreign affairs."
I think he meant to say that
Obama's education "would enable him to serve us better".
Senior Iranian official, Oct 2008,
threatens Israel with pre-emptive strike,
and also urges US to elect Obama:
"Safavi also said that a victory by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would pave the way for dialogue with Washington, while a John McCain presidency would bolster Iran's extreme right, which opposes dialogue."
At last, some of the jihadi scum have learnt from their mistakes
in declaring their past support for
Some smarter jihadi scum try some reverse psychology.
They claim they want McCain
he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war
al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush.
Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America".
So he is saying he does not want
the American troops to leave Iraq.
I wonder how Al Qaeda view this traitor to their cause!
Of course, many left-wing partisans
are taking (or pretending to take)
the "Al Qaeda for McCain" nonsense seriously,
and are claiming that Al Qaeda really does want McCain.
Patrick Poole replies,
quoting McCain on terror, and then saying:
"Only in the fairy tale world of establishment media newsrooms would such conviction embolden America's enemies. And only in the same would al-Qaeda leaders be shaken to the bone by the very thought of [having] to confront President Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress."
The flag of communist Cuba,
with a picture of communist killer
on the wall of a Barack Obama campaign office, Texas, Feb 2008.
It's not that Obama supports foreign totalitarianism.
It's more that people who appease or support foreign totalitarianism
Interview with Maria Isabel who hung the flag:
during 2012 election
points out that
Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro's daughter
both back Obama.
Chavez said in Oct 2012:
"In the point of view of his politics, if I were voting, I would vote for Obama and I believe that if Obama was from Caracas, he would vote for Chavez, I am positive."
"I hope that the new presidency in the United States... I pray for the safety of Barack Obama, and I pray that he can shift the United States attitude to this question.
So as we come towards the November elections, and the real prospect of a significant victory for Obama, everyone will have to re-find their footing, and these puppet presidents and corrupt kings may discover that the ground has moved under their feet, Allah willing."
- The disgusting jihad supporter
It was 50-50 going into Sept 2008,
when there was a
sudden and unexpected
huge economic crash,
after which Obama won comfortably
(53 - 46).
22 percent of those who oppose the Iraq War voted for McCain (76 percent for Obama).
21 percent of Jews voted for McCain (78 percent for Obama).
Obama's many associations with anti-Israel radicals seem not to bother American Jews.
Jews in America are blindly liberal
and almost never vote for the more pro-Israel candidate.
atheists in America seem to be more pro-Israel than Jews.
4 percent of blacks voted for McCain (95 percent for Obama).
In contrast to the willingness of whites to vote for blacks,
isn't this slightly embarrassing?
Shouldn't blacks try to be a little more colour-blind?
Who each county voted for.
About 70 million for Obama.
60 million for McCain.
See full size.
Said Al-Qaeda in this 2007 spoof:
"Let there be no doubt: Our failure in Iraq would be a strategic and moral catastrophe not just for al-Qaeda, but also for the Democrat Party, as well as our natural allies in the anti-war movement, media, academia, and trivial entertainment industries. If Iraq avoids civil war and becomes secure for business, it will be a tremendous victory for America - and nobody wants that".
Syrian pro-democracy reformists are horrified by Pelosi, Apr 04, 2007:
"A Hijab is NOT a confirmation of the rights of women in the Middle East but rather a symbol of their suppression.
Pelosi just reversed the work of the Syrian civil society and
those who aspire for women's freedom in the Muslim countries
many years back with her visual statement.
Assad could not have been happier because Syrian women, seeing a US official confirming what their husbands, the Imams in the Mosques tell them, and the society at large imposes on them through peer pressure will see in her wearing a Hijab as a confirmation of the societal pressures they are constantly under.
The damage Speaker Pelosi is causing with her visit to Syria will be felt for many years to come."
The Trouble With Islam by ex-jihadi Tawfik Hamid, April 3, 2007
- "it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals
... have become obstacles to reforming Islam.
Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity.
The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam.
When Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism,
it actually endangers the lives of reformers
and in many cases has the effect of suppressing their voices."
Syrians bolstered by 'good American' Pelosi, May 2, 2007.
Of course by "Syrians" they don't mean the Syrians that support democracy and human rights.
They mean the Syrians that support the regime.
One said her trip
- "bolsters the regime with the Syrian people, and it shows that isolating Syria won't work.""She was enormously popular here, a hero.
This is the best thing that has happened here,
if it proves [Assad] was right not to give concessions."
The idiot Nancy Pelosi "urged"
Syria to stop supporting the jihad in Iraq,
release the Israeli soldiers held captive in Syria,
and end Syria's support for terrorism.
Why would Syria do any of that?
After Pelosi's Syria Visit, Dissidents Cower, Katherine Zoepf, May 15, 2007
- "perverse as it may seem to some American liberals,
it is the Syrians who are most sympathetic to their progressive values
who have been most critical of Ms. Pelosi's attempts to begin a dialogue with Syria's government."
Assad's Useful Idiots by Noah Glyn, 27 July 2012, after it emerged that Assad was actually a psychotic butcher
like his father.
"Assad's murderousness is now a banner headline, but his past crimes, and those of his father, were never truly hidden. On the contrary, anyone with a clear moral compass would have recognized them for who they are: dictators heading an evil regime intent on spreading terrorism across the globe. It reflects poorly on the political judgment of certain politicians that they thought the Assads could be changed or honestly negotiated with."
Islamic Jihad enemy fighter
expressed hope that the Democrats will continue winning elections:
"If the Democrats want to make negotiations with Syria, Hamas, and Hizbullah,
this means the Democratic Party understands well what happens in this area
I hope she wins the next elections"
This enemy fighter is
hopeful that the Democrats will bring about American defeat in Iraq:
"Al-Batch expressed hope Pelosi and the Democratic Party will pressure Bush
to create dialogue with Syria and Middle East "resistance movements"
and prompt an American withdrawal from Iraq."
"Bush and Dr. Rice made so many mistakes in the Middle East.
But I think some changes are happening for the Bush administration's foreign policy
because of the hand of Nancy Pelosi. I think the Democratic Party can do things the best.
... Pelosi is going down a good road by this policy of dialogue"
says this enemy totalitarian who hates democracy and human rights.
High praise indeed.
A Hamas enemy leader shows how the Democrats encourage the jihad to keep going
and even escalate:
"Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip,
said the willingness by some lawmakers to talk with Syria
'is proof of the importance of the resistance against the US'."
So step it up, is the obvious conclusion.
"The plan Mr. Edwards presented ...
calls for a 10,000-person "Marshall Corps" to deal with issues ranging from worldwide poverty and economic development to clean drinking water and micro-lending. He said investing in those areas would shore up weak nations and help ensure that terrorism does not take root there. That, he said, would allow the country to stop potential terrorists before they even join the ranks."
Someone with a brain responds:
"The president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Clifford May, said he was "skeptical" of Mr. Edwards's proposal.
"Humanitarian aid is a good thing. I approve of that. But it doesn't really have much to do with the causes of terrorism," Mr. May said. "Mohamed Atta, the lead terrorist on 9/11, was based in Germany, was well-educated. The causes of terrorism are several, but poverty is not one of them.""
Harry Reid, Apr 2007, says about Iraq:
"I believe ... that this war is lost".
Articulate and eloquent soldiers reply to Harry Reid.
"I am a US Army Reservist.
certainly hope you can sense the pride I have in my unit and my service.
That pride will soon be stripped from me in defeat.
The Democrats have wanted Iraq to become a Vietnam for George Bush from
the start. You, sir, finally have your Vietnam parallel. This war has
been pure politics for you and the Democrats. You have now conceded
defeat when the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and Airmen
From the beginning you and your ilk have sat on the sidelines, our
sidelines, declaring the immorality, illegality, and the futility of
your country's efforts. In emergency medicine there is an old saying; if
your patient believes he is dying, he probably will. Your stance on Iraq
will prove to be just that sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
We are winning this war. Just look at the signs. The enemy cannot safely
wear uniforms, they cannot confront us directly, and instead they hide
amongst and target unarmed civilians. When they succeed in blowing up an
unsuspecting marketplace, they can count on you to dutifully deliver the
big sound bite about how the civilian body count is direct evidence that
the war is lost. Then you tell the same enemy that all they need to do
is kill more civilians and wait, kill more civilians and wait, kill more
civilians and wait."
Al Qaeda in Iraq are pleased.
They follow the western news, and they
quote Harry Reid approvingly:
".. This comes on the heels of an important statement by House Majority Leader Harry Reid
who previously said,
"The Iraqi war is hopeless and the situation in Iraq is same as it was in Vietnam."
This is how the cross worshipping occupiers and their henchmen live. Their morale continues to collapse as the result of the increasing strikes of the Mujahideen, carried out by the grace of Allah.
The signs of victory can be seen and the cross worshipper's defeat is obvious and progressive, all praise be to Allah."
Bush vetos it,
but Bush will be gone soon,
and the resolution sends a message to the Iraqi jihadi "resistance"
to keep going,
and even escalate.
If only they can hang on for another year or two,
the Democrats will give them victory.
"John McCain was ahead of Barack Obama when
the September meltdown
occurred. Had the financial panic not transpired until December, there was a 50-50 chance that McCain would have won ... In that case, we would be talking now about the continued Democratic propensity for self-destruction by nominating liberal northern presidential candidates like Obama, Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, and Mondale."
Victor Davis Hanson, May 08, 2009, on McCain's bad luck.
Who I block on Twitter:
I will debate almost anyone.
I love ideas.
I will not debate (and will block) people who:
(a) target my job,
(b) target my appearance, or:
(c) libel me.
Also, since 2016, abusive reporting has become a thing.
I was targeted with abusive reporting by
an Israel-hater pretending to be "Jewish".
So I now also block:
(d) any account that even hints that it reports its enemies,
(e) any Israel-hater that claims to be Jewish.
It is just self-defence.