Friday, November 03, 2006

Democratic Party Supporters

I just finished deleting six comments on my last post about john kerry’s disgraceful behavior. What fun! The tolerant lefties are inflamed over the revelation that Ted Haggard, a leading evangelist and outspoken opponent of gay marriage, has been accused of trysts with a gay prostitute. It’s funny how when a gay liberal is exposed he is revered as a saint while exposure of a gay right winger is cause for burning at the stake. That’s because the right wing guy is a hypocrite – lib’s really hate them – rather than a sinner – lib’s don’t believe in sin.

Conservatives realize that we all sin and that some sins are worse than others – like if a president had sex with an intern in the Oval Office – like that could ever happen. So, Mr. Haggard has resigned from his post as president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals while a church panel investigates allegations. He resigned like Mark Foley did, but Barney Frank did not. I wonder what political party Barney belonged to.

But enough of inconsequential matters! That critical election is coming next Tuesday and foreigners are voicing opinions.

“Americans should vote Democrat,” said Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity.

“This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because it is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud.”

Senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WorldNetDaily say they hope that Democrats sweep into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq. A Democratic victory would prove to them Americans are tired, ensuring a victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

This is NOT A JOKE.

But speaking of jokes, nancy pelosi was recently interviewed on 60 Minutes. Pelosi demonstrated that she does not understand the global nature of the threat when she stated flatly “the war on terror is the war in Afghanistan.”

Al Qaeda's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, seems to have a different opinion: “Victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in Iraq, the heart of the Islamic world.”

The House Minority Leader continued: “The jihadists are in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there.”

Unfortunately, terror leaders unanimously rejected nancy’s contention that American withdrawal would end the insurgency. Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, “There is no chance that the resistance will stop but would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.”

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would “mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America).”

He called both Democrats and Republicans “agents of the Zionist lobby in the U.S.” Oh-oh, they don’t much like dem’s either. I wonder what they think of gays.

Maybe pelosi can tell us how giving al Qaeda what they want in Iraq will keep Americans safe and secure from Islamic terrorism in the future. Or, maybe not.


Anonymous Anonymous said...


The Republican rats are still deserting the sinking ship. Can it be that Perle timed this announcement with the election in mind? You have to see that you guys are becoming a complete joke!

A leading conservative proponent of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq now says dysfunction within the Bush administration has turned U.S. policy there into a disaster.

Richard Perle, who chaired a committee of Pentagon policy advisers early in the Bush administration, said had he seen at the start of the war in 2003 where it would go, he probably would not have advocated an invasion to depose Saddam Hussein . Perle was an assistant secretary of defense under President Reagan.

"I probably would have said, 'Let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists,"' he told Vanity Fair magazine in its upcoming January issue.

Other prominent conservatives criticized the administration's conduct of the war in the article, including Kenneth Adelman, who also served on the Defense Policy Board that informally advised Bush. Adelman said he was "crushed" by the performance of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld .

Perle said "you have to hold the president responsible" because he didn't recognize "disloyalty" by some in the administration. He said the White House's National Security Council, then run by now-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice , did not serve Bush properly.

A year before the war, Adelman predicted demolishing Saddam's military power and liberating Iraq would be a "cakewalk." But he told the magazine he was mistaken in his high opinion of Bush's national security .

"They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era," he said. "Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."

Now let me guess....Perle was a closet liberal all those years he worked with Reagan??? No, he just knows failure when he sees it.


6:56 PM  
Blogger Bill Lama said...

What does this have to do with the terrorists who are dying to have the democrats win... so they can stop dying.

In the war we made only one strategic error based on a false assumption. Bush assumed that the Iraqi army, especially the republican guard, would stand and fight and die on the outskirts of Bhagdad.

He should have carpet bombed the army until they were all destroyed then searched out and killed the rest of the baath party supporters of saddam.

Big mistake. Looks like it's time to let the shias and kurds take care of business.

7:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the nicest things one can say about nancy pelosi is she opens her mouth and her brains fall out. She is truly my definition and description of a harridan.

9:13 AM  
Blogger Bill Lama said...

I just deleted another comment that called my friends "dimwits" and me a "coward" for deleting his diatribe. This anony reader never says anything meaningful, content with insulting personally my readers who disagree with him. He calls me a coward but won't sign his name. Interesting ethics.

So "friend" sign your name, first and last, give us an email address, and say something worth a damn and I'll let your comments remain.

9:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, did you hear on the news that if Dems take control of the Senate Lieberman is going to switch to Republican? He is a good man!!!

1:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is a known fact that if any Democrat wins it is a win for the terrorist. The Democrats truly want America to lose the war. They do not care about this country or the people in it only getting and holding power. How can anyone vote for a Dem when it is obvious they really want to destroy America and make it easier for terrorist to kill us all?

Democrats hate the military and will knowingly try to weaken the country. I really think they are working with the terrorist.

Most of the Republicans are corrupt but at least they have morals (Christian) so voting for corrupt Republican is better than voting for a Dem working for terrorists.


4:12 PM  
Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

The first annoy points out that some Republicans point out that there needs to be some changes, and so the Administration takes those statements under advisement.

If a Dem chanllenges their postition, (Liberman), they run him out of town on a rail.

First Anony dosen't say what we "should" do, only that there are critics.

His solution is probably like most Dems....Cut and run...leave and lose.

Everyone wants our troops home, but most of us want a victory first, while the Dems want a loss first.

The goal is to stay until those 14 million voters can have a govnt that can protect itself.


7:52 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home