More Jackson Inanity
It's amazing how some of the most divisive politicians in America are the ones constantly bemoaning our lack of unity. Exhibit A is Jesse Jackson, whose piece is a spurious rehash of every left-wing canard that's been propagated over the past five years and one day.
Jackson always seems to tip his hand; he remarks right at the outset that "[The terrorist threat] is not the worst threat we face." In fact, he's more worried about the U.S. trade deficit, global warming, and pandemics. No doubt many Democrats share his view, but have decided it would be impolitic to be as forthright as Jackson.
He follows up with a paen to the national unity that was, in his view, harshly dispelled by the President "playing politics" with the war on terror. No doubt Jackson has forgotten that the first political move was made by Tom Daschle, who asked why nothing had been done in Afghanistan (unfortunately for him, on the eve of the actual invasion) and went on to play such politics that the Bush Administration, rarely given to the harsh partisan rhetoric beloved by President Clinton, finally called him an "obstructionist" (to the great dismay of The New York Times).
CBS News notes that Democrats were opposing the President as early as October 6, 2001. Presumably, the "sacrifice" that Jesse Jackson is angry that people werent' asked to make would be a tax increase to pay for the $75 billion "stimulus" (read: boondoggle) package that Tom Daschle wanted.
As for a "war of choice" in Iraq -- well, if the Democrats think that one of America's enemies can sit on a stockpile of WMD (as the entire world believed Saddam had) that had been used before (for example, on the Kurds) and do nothing, then they're crazy. In such a situation, where diplomacy has failed because of bribery and duplicity on the part of "allies," it strikes me that war isn't a "choice" . . . it's a necessity.
But maybe that's just another area where Democrats differ from Republicans. Vote accordingly.
Jackson always seems to tip his hand; he remarks right at the outset that "[The terrorist threat] is not the worst threat we face." In fact, he's more worried about the U.S. trade deficit, global warming, and pandemics. No doubt many Democrats share his view, but have decided it would be impolitic to be as forthright as Jackson.
He follows up with a paen to the national unity that was, in his view, harshly dispelled by the President "playing politics" with the war on terror. No doubt Jackson has forgotten that the first political move was made by Tom Daschle, who asked why nothing had been done in Afghanistan (unfortunately for him, on the eve of the actual invasion) and went on to play such politics that the Bush Administration, rarely given to the harsh partisan rhetoric beloved by President Clinton, finally called him an "obstructionist" (to the great dismay of The New York Times).
CBS News notes that Democrats were opposing the President as early as October 6, 2001. Presumably, the "sacrifice" that Jesse Jackson is angry that people werent' asked to make would be a tax increase to pay for the $75 billion "stimulus" (read: boondoggle) package that Tom Daschle wanted.
As for a "war of choice" in Iraq -- well, if the Democrats think that one of America's enemies can sit on a stockpile of WMD (as the entire world believed Saddam had) that had been used before (for example, on the Kurds) and do nothing, then they're crazy. In such a situation, where diplomacy has failed because of bribery and duplicity on the part of "allies," it strikes me that war isn't a "choice" . . . it's a necessity.
But maybe that's just another area where Democrats differ from Republicans. Vote accordingly.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:17 AM
10 Comments:
America is smarter than the left wing trolls that patrol your comment pages.
The lefties entire hope lies with left wing polls that are taken to get their specific desired results.
Republicans will still be in the majority come November, and the nashing of teeth with continue in your comment pages...keep up the good work Carol.
Editor's et. al. protests against Carol remind us again of our era’s peculiar alliance: the most violent, intolerant, militantly religious movement in modern times has the peace movement on its side.
Only because the "peace" movement wants POWER.
We're DOOMED!
Cliff, indeed.
As in, 'We've marched right off one by following the biggest bumbling buffoon in history.'
You are the one whose shrill tone suggests brainwashing. The kind of dumb loyalty that comes only from severe cognitive dissonance.
It is one thing to stand next to an open sewer and pretend to not smell anything. It's quite another to start freaking on those who point it out.
You are the one who leads a dark and gloomy existence void of independent thought.
Wow, Cliff, you really have marched off the edge.
I do not underestimate the little man's ability to manipulate people with fear, slander (which he jobs out so he can keep the aw shucks thing going), and stoking the basest biggoted instincts of others while cloaking himself in religion.
He is preeminent in that respect.
But for you to suggest that his staggering incompetence at EVERYTHING he has attempted is somehow a clever deception is too dumb to be funny. You can have a mulligan. Maybe you should log off before hitting the sauce.
Even Carol spewed tea out her nose when she read that one.
Duke and eddy. Talk about drinking the koolaid. Hey eddy! Carol isn't a name caller, I am, you freakin' putz. But then so are you and dukie, constantly railing on about Bush without any serious support. A lot of moonbat links, but no real support. BTW, you're drooling again.
As to the thread, to which eddy never seems intelligent enough to stick, the Wrong Rev. Jackson appears in the Chicago Sun-Times far too regularly and I make a point of never reading his nonsense. I can't take his eddy-like view of the world. I expect more out of a major metropolitan newspaper than such drivel as his.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Really, Carol, what has happened to your standards? Your foamers seem to have taken it up a few notches as the election draws closer.
Editor
Actually - a Putz is a Horses Penis.
The American Heritage dictionary defines "putz" in three ways:
Slang-a fool; an idiot.
Vulgar slang-a penis.
Precise slan-eddy-boy.
OK, I made the last one up. But what kind of fool or idiot assumes the worse of two choices for himself. Clearly, and eddy might know this if he didn't spend so much time making stupid assumptions, I use the word to mean "eddy", I mean, "idiot". And I mean it in the most clinical sense of the word. Do you need "idiot" defined and clarified for you eddy, or do you just gravitate to words like "penis"? Sheesh. What a putz!
Post a Comment
<< Home