From Iran To Arafat: Kerry`s The One


PDA






Intune
October 21, 2004, 01:19 PM
Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasir Arafat is hoping John Kerry wins the U.S. presidential election in November, according to several Palestinian leaders.

Arafat deputy and chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said in an exclusive interview with WorldNetDaily that while “we do not involve ourselves in internal American politics,” at the same time “our region has been sliding deeper and deeper into chaos because of certain policies over the past few years, and this needs to change.”

A prominent Arafat aide who asked that his name be withheld spoke to WorldNetDaily from Arafat’s battered Ramallah compound: “The president [Arafat] is frustrated with Bush’s policies,” he said. “The president [Arafat] thinks Kerry will be much better for the Palestinian cause and for the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

While the comments mark the first time the PA has endorsed Kerry on the record, it has not been a secret that Arafat is frustrated with Bush’s leadership. Israel Military Intelligence Chief Maj. Gen. Aharon Ze’evi warned in July Arafat is biding his time until November, when the Palestinian leader hopes President Bush will be voted out of office and Sharon’s coalition government will fall.

Meanwhile, with Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei telling state-run newspapers that Iran will use nuclear weapons to “destroy the Zionist entity,” hundreds of thousands of dollars have been given to Kerry from the pro-Iranian lobby, possibly influencing the presidential candidate’s startling call to provide Tehran with the nuclear fuel it seeks, according to Iran’s Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy chairman Aryo Pirouznia.

Pirouznia disclosed details of Kerry’s alleged financial ties to backers of the mullah government in Iran, the most prominent of which is through Hassan Nemazee, an investment banker who has joined the board of the American-Iranian Council, a U.S. lobbying group that supports lifting U.S. sanctions on Iran and accommodating the Tehran regime. Nemazee admits to raising more than $500,000 for the senator’s campaign.

Kerry has been insisting that as president he would provide Tehran with nuclear fuel as long as it is used for peaceful purposes, a position that has many Middle East analysts baffled.

During the first presidential debate Kerry said, “I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes.”

The same policy of accommodation toward Iran’s nuclear aspirations is clearly outlined on Kerry’s campaign website as well.



Ah, my hero!
But I’m still gonna vote for him ‘cause I’m a democrat and I believe him when he says he will take care of my family and the environment and he has a PLAN and social security and my taxes and he has a PLAN and he knows how to talk to terrorists to get them to calm down and he has a PLAN and he will bring the UN into our homes so we will be better people and the paralyzed will get up and walk again and he has a PLAN and my medical bills will all be paid and he has a PLAN and he will get all of us better paying jobs and there is nothing bad in his military record so we don’t need to see them and he has a PLAN and he hunts deer the way I do on my belly with a dbl brl shotgun and decoys and he has a PLAN and he knows a guy who knows a guy who knows this sheriff who busted a guy with drugs and an AK-47 and he almost killed everybody in the town but he didn’t and that’s because all of the policemen in the world support the guy with the PLAN and he will only take the guns away from the gangbangers and the kids who plan Columbine shootings every day and he knows how to get us out of Iraq quick by using his PLAN and the PLAN is there to help all of us because after all he understands that we are the world, we arethechildrenkumbiyaPLANworldpeaceUNglobaltestPLANPLANPLANPLANPLANPLANPLAN REDRUMUSAREDRUMUSAREDRUMUSAREDRUMUSA...

There, I feel better. It is all about feelings, isn't it? :uhoh:

If you enjoyed reading about "From Iran To Arafat: Kerry`s The One" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dave R
October 21, 2004, 01:28 PM
New slogan: Vote Kerry! The Terrorists Choice!

Master Blaster
October 21, 2004, 02:48 PM
You forgot about:

The Middle Class

atone
October 22, 2004, 10:27 AM
well i can see your point since things are going so well in isreal bushes policys have really worked. ha did anybody watch the vice presidental debates or any of the preidetal debates? did you hear edwards ask chaney why haliburten had done business with libya and iran? during some very turbulent times i believe he said or sworn enemys? the worst thing about this dicussion is there is was some mention of terrorist choice we are the most dominante military force on the planet but we still can't catch bin loden we got sadam though something that should have been done during desert storm and you can say kerry is for gun control if you want he was on the mi chong delta fightin charlie when ol fat cat bush senior was keeping little george out of harms way i can gurantee 2 out of three viet cong prefer bush to kerry oh yeah kerry already killed them.proven patriot bush proven idiot.end of story

John Hicks
October 22, 2004, 10:32 AM
I love reading mindless, poorly written babble from trolls.

Dave R
October 22, 2004, 10:46 AM
you can say kerry is for gun control if you want

I don't have to say it. Look at his record. He has voted for every piece of gun control legislation that he could, thoughout his entire Senate career. His record speaks for itself.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. We're suppsed to ignore his record.

And if he was such a war hero, why has he refused to release his full military record, as Bush did. And why do so many of the people who served with him consider him "unfit for command?"

atone
October 22, 2004, 10:38 PM
what exactly is bushes record? he said on national tv he was for extending the assualt weapons ban. and what exactly has bush voted on thats helped anybody but the super rich i'm assuming that' s you right.what has he done about the brady bill? he has control of the house and the senate but your infamous leader sits idle but thats nothing new mean while unemployment skyrockets and so does gas the deficet and everything except wages.and kerrys war record well why not talk to some of the men who's lives he saved one was on larry king live. what tax refund did you get i bet it was 300 if single or 500 if your married but your commander and chief w bush got 300,000.00

El Tejon
October 22, 2004, 11:11 PM
atone,

Taxes: The Bush tax cuts helped small businesses, that's me. I employ people and pull the wagon for all the human debris that sit on the couch and demand to be given something.

Unemployment: is the same when Clinton ran for re-election in '96. If you want a job, do what I did, go make your own.

Bush idle: good, I don't want my government to do anything to "help" me. I want the government to get out of my way so I can get something done and provide for myself which benefits society. I am not some fat, Cheetoe-eating parasitic welfare case that expects the government to give me something. I want the government to leave me alone.

Gas: Bush wants to drill in Alaska. Amen, let's get to it. More supply, lower price. It is the idle spoiled superrich that are standing in the way of energy development from Alaska to California to Massachusetts.

Deficits: We are at war. I expect it to occur. If we have to cut, I suggest the Departments of Energy, Education, HHS, Commerce and the ATFE just for starters.

My tax savings: was substantially larger than what you claim. I could care less if others, including the President, saved more as IT IS THEIR MONEY! My money does not belong to you or anyone else, it is mine. I could care less about other people's money, just leave mine alone.

Yes, I wish we had a Republican candidate that cared more for the RKBA. However, the judges Bush or Kerry will appoint will decide that issue (for now, of course).

Moparmike
October 22, 2004, 11:29 PM
I make $8000 working part-time, while attending college. The Bush tax cuts shaved about 1/3 of my taxes I had to pay that year and following years.

he has control of the house and the senate but your infamous leader sits idle but thats nothing new mean while unemployment skyrockets and so does gas the deficet and everything except wages.Do you honestly believe that any administration has a "magic dial" that can control jobs, inflatation, and oil prices? Have you ever taken an economics class? If you raise wages, the cost of production goes up. Therefore, the price goes up and completely negates the whole reason of "giving" people more money. When profit margins go down, shareholders get upset, and in order to remain in business, costs are cut. If employers have to choose between profits and employees, profits win every time.

And you are so COMPLETELY deluded to think that Kerry would hesitate for a nanosecond to ban any firearm you hold dear, from your Rem870 to your dad's thutty-thutty? Would you care to tell us why your beloved "friend of hunters" would vote to ban all centerfire rifle ammunition, that all hunters use?

I may not agree with many of his policies, but it doesn't stop me from seeing something that has done good, which he initated. So you can take that "Bush is a corprate lackey" crap back to DUh where your baseless assertion will be parroted right back to you and the rest of the kool-aid drinking blissninnies who prefer to swallow whatever is fed to you by the media.

Intune
October 23, 2004, 12:09 AM
Wow, amazing. Eloquent vitriol from the DU spokesperson delivered in a fashion that hits home. Dem chests everywhere are swelling with agreement and love. After reading these two posts, if I was going to vote for Kerry, I’m gonna change my vote… TO BUSH! Who put the stuff in the Democratic Party brownies?

When I vote for President Bush in Nov. I’m going to take great pride in thinking that my vote was the one that negated your Kerry one. See, you’re a motivator. Musta been part of A PLAN. :what:
Please cite one “fact” for me- “w bush got 300,000.00 “ Just this one.

atone
October 23, 2004, 01:27 AM
well where should i start unemployment there has been more jobs lost in the last four years than in the previous 4 presidents combined.how about social security anybody here need it i guess not,alaskan oil would last like a fart in a whirl wind we have lots of well all across america truth is we could produce it as cheap or nearly enough of it to keep us going a magic dial he says mr economics during the clinton era gas was cheap unemployment all time low ever heard of a surplus?and clinton he was the gun owners anti christ he did ban importation of some assualt weapons and high cap mags a measure your own comnder and chief said he thought should be extended. now then college boy the pres cut pell grants by about 1500 so there goes your tax break. 89% of the 5 trillon given in taxcuts went to the wealthest 1% the rest of split what was left.also he has spent more then all the preidents from george washington to ronald regan combined.people there are 314 billonares living in the us right now thats more than there where in the world 8 years ago the gap keeps getting bigger.did you really say we should cut back on education and home land security? lets just give ourselves another tax cut thats how i run my house i just keep writing checks and never put any money in the bank wake up.

Malone LaVeigh
October 23, 2004, 02:30 AM
Ignoring the ignorant troll, I'd like to see some sources for the original post. I heard on the radio the other day that some high ranking Iranian official had endorsed Bush. Makes more sense to me. Bush has been the best friend the terrorists have ever had.

Meanwhile, we have Vladimir Putin endorsing Bush. I don't wonder about that. Bush's blunders in the middle east and wrecking of the US economy has got to be seen as very good in a country that still has delusions of competing with the US for a dominant role in the world.

Hkmp5sd
October 23, 2004, 07:30 AM
now then college boy the pres cut pell grants by about 1500 so there goes your tax break. 89% of the 5 trillon given in taxcuts went to the wealthest 1% the rest of split what was left.

I'd really like to know how the democrats managed to convince some people that since "rich" people get more money from tax cuts than they do, they'd rather screw them rich folks and have the government keep everyones money. At least the rich suffer more.

If there is a 1% tax cut, a person making $100,000 will "save" more money than someone making $25,000. It might have something to do with them also "paying" more to start with.

And let's take a gander at our defender of the middle class, John Kerry. Kerry's wife is worth roughly $700,000,000. During the campaign, Kerry decided to mortgage his house and use the money for commercials. Although his wife bought the house, it was determined that his "half" amounted to $6,000,000. So he took out the loan and made sure to announce that he would be paying it back, not his wife.

Doncha just love the working stiff struggling to make the monthly house payment to keep a roof over his head?

Minor technicality. Kerry's reported income from 2002 was $144,091. The Washington Post reported that even a $5,000,000 loan, with a low interest rate and spread over 30 years would result in a monthly payment of $30,389 /month or $364,668 /yr.

Yep, just the person I want as the savior of the working middle class.:rolleyes:

El Tejon
October 23, 2004, 11:57 AM
atone,

Alaskan oil: the oil fields are enormous. Moreover, they can be supplemented by drilling off the coast of California or wind mill farms in Massachusetts. Of course, super rich Democrats oppose these measures. Oil pricing is complex. For example, it was forecast today that oil will likely fail to $35ish a barrel no matter who is President in 6 months.

Cutting Pell grants: If true, that is outstanding! It's about time. I'm all for the abolition of give aways and hand outs. Went through university without taking a dime from the taxpayers. Why shouldn't everyone.

Tax cuts: who do you think will benefit by cutting taxes? Those who are making income. You can be wealthy in the US and not pay income taxes, it's an income tax not a wealth or asset tax. It's rational that that those with higher incomes will have their taxes cut more.

BTW, I forgot to include in my earlier post: Welcome to THR.:)

Intune
October 23, 2004, 12:24 PM
Hi Malone, it's from some articles on Worldnetdaily.

Bush has been the best friend the terrorists have ever had.
Please clarify this statement. :uhoh:


'9 out of 10 terrorists agree ... '

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
An editorial in the Syria Times in August urged Arab-Americans not to make "the very mistake they made in the past when they gave their votes to Bush the Junior" in the 2000 presidential election. Instead, suggested the government-run paper, a vote for Kerry this time would prove to be "a wise one."
On July 27, the Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda ran a political cartoon depicting an American soldier bleeding to death in Iraq, with his final words being, "Don't Vote Bush."

A June 17 article in the English-language Tehran Times entitled "Pity the Next U.S. president" compared Bush and his neo-conservative advisers to "neo-Nazis" who have created a "stinking heap of a mess" throughout the world. "Kerry," the paper asserts, "is exactly what the U.S. needs right now."
Israel's military intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Aharon Ze'evi Farkash, told a Cabinet meeting just over a month ago that "Arafat is waiting for November in the hope that George Bush will lose the election to John Kerry."
And a July 9 tracking poll conducted by Zogby International to monitor the voting trends of 500 Arab-Americans had Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry leading with 51 percent, Bush at 24 percent and Independent candidate Ralph Nader at 13 percent. Twelve percent were still undecided.
Abed Hammoud, president of the Arab-American Political Action Committee and assistant prosecuting attorney of Wayne County, Mich., voted for Bush in 2000, but may be leaning toward Kerry on Nov. 2.
"It breaks my heart to see not only our American soldiers die every day in Iraq, but to also see our fellow brothers and sisters dying in Iraq and Palestine; it's something that needs to be changed right away," he told Aljazeera.

The Iranian press has been particularly active in monitoring the elections. The editor of the Egyptian Al-Gil newspaper, Nagi Al Shihabi, was interviewed by the Iranian Al-Alam TV on June 13 and said, "The U.S. wants to eradicate our religious and Islamic identity. Bush declared a Crusader war following the events of 9-11. … The U.S. established its country over the body parts of 120 million Indians. We must first define the enemy. The No. 1 enemy of the Arab and Islamic peoples is the U.S. and not only Israel. … Bush, Allah willing, will go to hell in this coming November."

During his Friday sermon in the city of Qom, broadcast by Iran's Channel 2 on June 19, preacher Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli called on Americans to vote against President Bush, saying, "We advise the people of America not to continue to tolerate this oppressing, ignorant, pillaging, criminal, and discriminating administration. In the future, do not vote for Bush and his ilk."

In an article in Al-Ahram weekly on April 18, an Arab-Israeli member of Knesset, Azmi Bishara, called on Arab-Americans to "rethink their alliance with Bush" and "shift their votes from Bush to Kerry."

Three polls conducted by the Washington Post this year asked Kerry supporters if they were planning to vote for John Kerry because they wanted him to be president, or if they planned to vote for Kerry in order to defeat George Bush.

The first poll, conducted on March 7, found that 61 percent of voters who planned to vote for Kerry were doing so simply because of their opposition to George Bush.

A second poll, conducted in mid-May, asked the same question and found that number unchanged at 61 percent. By June, those who opposed Bush more than they supported Kerry dropped to 55 percent.

Not wanting their pro-Kerry bias to show too broadly, the Post also put the same question to Bush supporters. Only 13 percent, 11 percent and 16 percent of Bush supporters, respectively, said they were going to vote primarily to prevent Kerry from winning the election.

What these results indicate is that most Kerry supporters would vote for any candidate other than Bush, regardless of his/her policy positions, political record or personal history.

And most of America's enemies feel the same way.
There is a lesson in here, somewhere.

Gary H
October 23, 2004, 12:25 PM
Please use capital letters where appropriate.. and try using a spell checker. It really helps to make your argument when you appear to be a person that pays attention to details.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
October 23, 2004, 01:16 PM
using his PLAN and the PLAN is there to help all of us because after all he understands that we are the world, we arethechildrenkumbiyaPLANworldpeaceUNglobaltestPLANPLANPLANPLANPLANPLANPLAN REDRUMUSAREDRUMUSAREDRUMUSAREDRUMUSA...


Indeed, good reasons, all, to vote for Kerry.

In addition, and I think many people may not know this because the Senator is a modest man and not one to brag, but Kerry also is a very highly decorated Vietnam veteran who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam war which is all seared into his memory, next to all the shrapnel in his keister, which he took in Vietnam.

Malone LaVeigh
October 23, 2004, 02:14 PM
Please clarify this statement.Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists wanted a war they could use as a recruiting tool. Going after Afghanistan wasn't enough, because a large number of Muslims, not to mention the rest of the world, could agree that the Taliban was shielding people guilty of a assault on the US and they weren't a very popular bunch anyway. Going after Iraq was viewed by most of the world, and certainly a vast majority of Muslims, as an unprovoked act of aggression against Muslims in general. This was a gift beyond the wildest dreams of the terrorists. I have seen reports that Zarkowi's popularity is growing in Iraq. The most severe thing we can do to these people is kill them, and that's just what they want, to be made into martyrs.

George Bush has been the best friend Osama bin Laden ever had.

"stinking heap of a mess" throughout the world When they're right, they're right.

Warbow
October 23, 2004, 02:52 PM
Malone LaVeigh wrote:

I have seen reports that Zarkowi's popularity is growing in Iraq.

Can we see them, too?

The most severe thing we can do to these people is kill them, and that's just what they want, to be made into martyrs.

What's the proper solution?

Gary H
October 23, 2004, 02:56 PM
George Bush has been the best friend Osama bin Laden ever had.

I knew that someone was hiding that Osama guy. Wait until Kerry figures this one out.

Hkmp5sd
October 23, 2004, 03:41 PM
George Bush has been the best friend Osama bin Laden ever had.

Hmm....guess he should'a just sent Osama a box of chocolates and a copy of Microsoft's Flight Simulator and Saddam a few pounds of enriched uranium for Christmas. :rolleyes:

JohnKSa
October 23, 2004, 09:18 PM
Seems North Korea likes Kerry too...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=107492

Malone,

Your theory about Iraq sounds good on the face but doesn't hold up in light of the facts.

Remember Libya, who was at one time a very active sponsor of terrorism? They decided to get out of the terrorism business as a direct result of what happened in Iraq. More to the point, getting Libya to knuckle under wasn't the GOAL, it is proof that the strategy works. What happened in Iraq scared the crap out of the nations that overtly sponsored terrorism. Basically the U.S. has proven that with sufficient provocation we can and will go in and destroy a government if we think it's actively plotting against us. And that we'll do it without unanimous international support if necessary.

Did it make the terrorists mad? SURE! Did it galvanize them to attempt further action? SURE! But it also pretty much eliminated overt sponsorship of terrorism by GOVERNMENTS. Without big funding and without safe havens all the mad and galvanized terrorists are severely hampered.

Besides, you're forgetting, the terrorists were ALREADY mad enough and effective enough to kill a few thousand of us BEFORE Iraq. The idea that killing off terrorists and eliminating their havens and funding has made them MORE effective is logically bankrupt.

I'm reminded of two interviews I saw conducted after a bombing in Israel. Both interviewees were asked what they wanted. The Israeli said that they just hoped to live in peace. The Palestinian said they wanted to kill as many Israelis as possible.

So, Malone, what do you recommend to appease a person like the Palestinian? What would you offer him to make him happy? Given that he already admits that killing as many Israelis as possible is his goal, I think that there's not much we can do to make him MORE dangerous. On the other hand it's clear how to make him LESS dangerous--and it's also clear that there's only one way to do it.

Intune
October 23, 2004, 09:38 PM
Cool Hand, thanks for the good laugh!

Malone, these people don’t need a recruiting tool. They hear it every day in their classrooms and mosques. As long as someone, much less, a bunch of someone’s, wants to kill us for our cable tv, automobiles, Christianity, “Western” ways, etc. I say, martyr on Islamofascist. We will eventually kill enough of them and introduce a better way of life. It’s not a short road here and I am in for the long haul. That’s why I early voted for President Bush today. These people know no better. It’s up to us to show them an option. Freedom will open their eyes where oppression has clouded their vision.

Make no mistake, I voted for GW because he is the lesser of two evils. There are many things about this administration that I take exception with (to?)

A government for the people, by the people. Alas, a concept that I feel is long gone. Possibly never reattained. Sad, really. I think a lot of us feel the same way no matter which side of the political fence we are on in this election.
:(

Don Gwinn
October 23, 2004, 10:19 PM
Yup. And remember, children, if some drunk punches you right in your mouth, don't hit him back. Since he wants to fight, if you stomp his butt into a mudhole and walk it dry, you're just playing right into his hands. Why, that makes you his best friend.
:rolleyes:

Intune
October 23, 2004, 11:16 PM
Don, that sounds like something my TX father in-law would say. Makes one think, hmmm... Thinkin', what a concept. And then when you ask granddad what'd you do? He says, " set him right on his kiester of course, what was I 'spossed to do?" Luv it.

roscoe
October 23, 2004, 11:20 PM
This is a pretty funny thread, since the first post is dead wrong about Iran. Remember, get your facts straight, folks, before getting all frothy:

October 20, 2004
The Associated Press reports:

TEHRAN, Iran -- The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's "axis of evil" label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions for the country's nuclear ambitions.

Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.

"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.

Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.

"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked whether Iran was supporting Democratic Sen. John Kerry against Bush.

"It's not an endorsement we'll be accepting anytime soon," Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said in response. "Iran should stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and if they continue in the direction they are going, then we will have to look at what additional action may need to be taken, including looking to the U.N. Security Council."

Intune
October 23, 2004, 11:27 PM
You find humor in that Roscoe? What if you were a terr and finally realized that Pres. Bush has a darn good chance of winning? Would back-pedeling not be in order? Which dog you got in this fight if you don't mind my asking?

roscoe
October 24, 2004, 03:25 AM
Stand down, pardner! My point is that a bunch of conservatives here started jumping on the bandwagon: 'oh yes, all the international thugs want Kerry to win because he is a wimp on terrorism' when that is total BS. This thread is just an excuse for Kerry-bashing, which is OK, but you better make sure you are right on your facts, otherwise you look a bit foolish. In this case, the entire premise of the thread was flawed from the start.

I might add that only if you draw the invisible line between Osama and Saddam do you buy the idea that Democrats are less effective on terrorists. My read (based on Richard Clark and the 9/11 commission, among others) of the past 12 years is that Clinton did a better job preventing terrorism than Bush did. Bush merely stirred up the hornets (for a variety of flawed reasons) without a notion of how to finish the job, and the US is less secure and the world less stable than it was 5 years ago.

So my dog is the US of A, not the Republican party, if that is what you are asking.

What if you were a terr and finally realized that Pres. Bush has a darn good chance of winning?

Don't make me laugh - Bush is in way over his head, and he is the best recruiting tool Osama has. You think Osama wants a moderate in the White House? The best way to raise armies of suicide bombers is to use Bush as the prime example of how aggressive the west is.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
October 24, 2004, 08:36 AM
I might add that only if you draw the invisible line between Osama and Saddam do you buy the idea that Democrats are less effective on terrorists. My read (based on Richard Clark and the 9/11 commission, among others) of the past 12 years is that Clinton did a better job preventing terrorism than Bush did. Bush merely stirred up the hornets (for a variety of flawed reasons) without a notion of how to finish the job, and the US is less secure and the world less stable than it was 5 years ago.

Would that better job on terrorism that Clinton accomplished include refusing credible offers from two seperate Middle East nations to hand over Bin-Laden?, the cut-and-run from Somalia?, the wag-the-dog-Monica-diversion missle attacks on a baby formula plant in the Sudan? etc.

8 years of Clintoon Admin. incompetence is was what allowed the 9/11 attacks to succeed.

As for the Iranians, it was the Liberal Democrats and their invertebrate "human-rights" foreign policy emphasis that facilitated the rise to power of Khomeni's murderous Islamic-fundamentalists in Iran back in '79, despite what this Iranian Governmant flack has to say. If Reagan had first been elected in '76 as opposed to '80 the Pahlavi family would most likely still be on the Peacock throne, and about 10 million people would still be alive as a result.

Hkmp5sd
October 24, 2004, 09:31 AM
My read (based on Richard Clark and the 9/11 commission, among others) of the past 12 years is that Clinton did a better job preventing terrorism than Bush did.
You need to do some more reading. Clinton did nothing to fight terrorism, unless of course, you count turning down bin Laden's head on a platter as doing something.

big poppa
October 24, 2004, 11:42 AM
having been a new member for a short time and an avid reader of this fourm,i can say that"charlie,s in the wire!"we have some people who come in here as left wing socialist infultratiors trying to convince us were wrong,they are such a slave to their ideology, that they are drinking DEEP from the kool-aide barrel, and argueing with them is like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer.this is another reason why kerry cant win, he is at the head of this mindset. the poster"atone" is just another example of this drivel, chanting the left wing mantra like lemmings over the cliff, these people if they come to power will ruin us all,in all my life that i have been politicaly aware, i have never see a campaign like this one. the left have pulled out everything,and it goes to the top,the out and out blatant lies. kerry is the most disingenious do anything say anything political whore ive ever seen, HE IS THE CONSUMMATE POLITICAL FRAUD!! why cant people see this!if an old broken down truck driver from virginia can see this, why cant some of these so called sophisticated intellectual liberial elitists see it? heck why cant everybody see it?:fire:

Hkmp5sd
October 24, 2004, 12:24 PM
why cant some of these so called sophisticated intellectual liberial elitists see it?
They can see it and using their highly evolved intellect, they can convince themselves that just because something looks, smells and tastes like manure, it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Look at their love affair with Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Uncle Ho. The end always justifies the means in their book.

Gary H
October 24, 2004, 12:50 PM
charlie's in the wire

A flash from the past. Yes, that is undoubtedly true. We have a few genuine gun people that maintain politics that are harmful to gun ownership. Others are trolls that come here to pick a fight and see if they can get everyone upset. The former hold reasonable discussions, whereas the latter are busy typing and not reading.

Intune
October 24, 2004, 12:57 PM
I think it’s their absolute hatred for George Bush. The way he talks, his down-home folksy manner, his inability to pronounce certain words, his face, his body, his manner of walking… You name it, they hate it.

I have yet to find one person who supports John Kerry. Oh, I’ve met a bunch who are voting against President Bush but not one who says “I love Kerry’s record and have had my eye on him for the country's highest office for years and the Dems picked the right guy for the job.” Any/all of Kerry’s faults/voting record are negated/obscured by the one simple belief of “he’s not George Bush. ANYBODY would be better than George Bush.” So that’s what the Dems are left with. The most liberal senator in the country and they HAVE to support him. Ouch. Having to gild a pile of poo can’t be enjoyable to a sensible person but it is amazing how many seem to have an affinity for the task.

big poppa
October 24, 2004, 02:23 PM
correct me if im wrong, but didnt LENIN call these people "USEFUL IDIOTS" AND DOESN,T THAT SAY IT ALL?

Intune
October 24, 2004, 08:24 PM
Roscoe,
This is a pretty funny thread, since the first post is dead wrong about Iran. Remember, get your facts straight, folks, before getting all frothy:
What part of my original post do you refute? Is the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei misquoted or possibly Aryo Pirouznia? Is it Hassan Nemazee’s admission of raising $500,000 for Kerry’s campaign? Was it more?

Malone LaVeigh
October 25, 2004, 01:11 AM
Inquiring minds want to know:

Why do atone and big poppa have the same writing style, and has anyone ever seen them in the same place?

Just joking.

roscoe
October 25, 2004, 12:19 PM
What part of my original post do you refute?

The part that says that the Iranian government would prefer Kerry to win, which was the implication of the second half of your post.

I think it’s their absolute hatred for George Bush. The way he talks, his down-home folksy manner, his inability to pronounce certain words, his face, his body, his manner of walking… You name it, they hate it.

No, it is the fact that he is so confident that he is doing God's work, without really considering the fact that he may just be a ordinary politician making huge mistakes. But you are right, many of us don't like Kerry, it is a question of the lesser of two evils.

charlie's in the wire

I guess that's me, although I have been in the wire for a long time. If you can't think of something incisive to say, you can always call me a socialist. Of course, Democrats say the same thing when I tell them I oppose gun control.

Intune
October 25, 2004, 01:00 PM
charlie,s in the wire!
Naw, I think he meant atone.
The part that says that the Iranian government would prefer Kerry to win, which was the implication of the second half of your post.
They gave half a mil to Kerry's campain but come out on the 20th officially endorsing President Bush. Welcome to the Middle East. :scrutiny: BTW, the info in that article I posted was from a few months ago.

I never got the feeling that the President thinks he is doing God's work. (Shouldn't God have a good handle on that?) I realize he prays for guidance and direction but for many that's a good trait.

If you enjoyed reading about "From Iran To Arafat: Kerry`s The One" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!