Why don't the Liberals understand
In yet another proof of the demonstrable truth, Liberals can't be trusted with National Security, Michelle Malkin shows us the truth about the NY Times beliefs on the War on Terror. For some reason, the NY Times blames the President for their own actions attempting to defeat us in the War on Terror. It's Bush's fault the NY Times is filled with traitors. A perfect example is this picture.
This picture is a sniper shooting at the American Military Personnel, I can only presume that this picture is one of those 2500+ personnel that the times think is just too many. The Times credits the photographer with "Incredible Courage". I believe that this is an embedded reporter with the enemy forces. After all, a reporter purportedly told Rumsfeld that if they were embedded with American forces, it looked like they were working for the "other side". Note, I am quoting an article on Michael Moore's website.
According to the NY Times Editorial. It is only now, nearly five years after Sept. 11, that the full picture of the Bush administration’s response to the terror attacks is becoming clear. Much of it, we can see now, had far less to do with fighting Osama bin Laden than with expanding presidential power.
Apparently, the NY Times is about as stupid as the rest of the Liberals, who make up History to satisfy their point today. President Bush told us, and Congress approved a series of actions on Terrorism, and Terrorists, not just Osama Libs. From the President's speech on 20 September 2001.
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.
It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
We aren't looking to punish one man, or one small subset of a group to get revenge for 9-11. Our goal is to make sure that 9-11 never happens again. It is a difficult goal, probably impossible in all honesty. However it is an admirable goal. One worthy of our nation, and one worthy of the world. I don't want to see another attack, even on San Francisco, which is so far left as to be nearly Socialist in nature. Even there, I don't want to see people die because of a terrorist attack. That which harms our ability to prevent the next 9-11 is bad, and that which aids us in preventing the next 9-11 is good for our cause.
Howard Dean says we have lost our Moral Leadership. Is it more moral or less moral to have buildings knocked down by terrorist attacks?
Our national security is too important to trust to Liberals, thus it's too important to trust to Democrats who are at the beck and call of Liberal loonies. Senator Barbra Boxer is even now learning that the Liberal Loons will sacrafice all other issues at the alter of American Defeat.
One leader of the Progressive Democrats of America, Mervis Reissig of Sonoma County, said: ``I'm in a state of shock. What Sen. Boxer is doing is a total invalidation of one of our main values. Right now the war is a more important issue than choice.''
So Liberals claim to be willing to sacrafice Abortion to the alter of defeating Americans overseas. Frankly, that demonstrates how illogical and immoral the Liberals are. We have lost over 2500 military personnel in three years of fighting the war on Terror in Iraq. We have seen an estimated 3 million abortions performed in that same time period. It's a shame that the Liberals can't count the numbers of children dead at the hands of their beloved Abortion Clinics.
National security is too important to trust to Liberals.
For more reading, check out the Hot Air piece.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has used this information and more in the Vent piece for today.
UPDATE: More Liberal Bleating about how unfair this is here and here. Supportive pieces are located here.
posted by Max Conservative at 12:24 AM
2 Comments:
Thanks for the link. I've added you to my blog roll, even though you're clearly a myopic conservative! ;-)
I'm a liberal, and here is what I don't understand. I don't understand why you think it is so important to protect the president politically that you have to attack the media for reporting his lawbreaking. This administration had the opportunity in 2002 to support modification of FISA. Rather than voicing concern that the law was unconstitutional or too imposing on the executive, the administration "declined to support" changes in the law. Now, we find out thanks to the Times that the President has repeatedly authorized spying on Americans without judicial oversight in direct violation of that same law. Since the president has said that the changes made to FISA after 9/11 were adequate, the only reasonable explanation for violating FISA is that the President doesn't want even FISA's secretive judicial oversight i.e. he doesn't want to be held accountable by anyone for who he is spying on.
I submit to you that the violation of our laws, our constitutional separation of powers and our civil rights is a grave danger to our national security, and on that threat the pseudo-conservatives in power have shown themselves unworthy of our trust. Reagan didn't need to spy on U.S. citizens without warrants during the Cold War. Surely the USSR was a far more threatening enemy than a rag tag group of Islamic crazy men, yet he seems to have done just fine without subverting our system of government and attacking the free press. Do you really want these new precedents in the law? How do you feel about a future President Hillary Clinton having the power to spy on you without oversight? This kind of power hurts our democracy, and this disrespect for the rule of law is an attack on our country and our heritage.
Post a Comment
<< Home