Jan 19 2006

Feingold’s Folly: US Unfair To Al Qaeda

Published by at 4:11 pm under All General Discussions,Bin Laden/GWOT

I am officially pulling the hook out of my mouth. Enjoy the joke on me!

Folks, I am still a newbie blogger and I’m still human. And I am still laughing at this one. Sad thing is, it sounded so plausible!

I am trying to confirm this comment. But I trust the site posting this so I am going on the assumption this is accurate.

Russ Feingold must have a political death wish as he responds to the Bin Laden peace offering. He has to be infected with BDS to make the idiotic statement he apparently made today, as relayed by Protein Wisdom:

Russ Feingold was quick to blame the Bush adminstration of “Bin Laden’s” failure to spell out the condition of the truce in detail, pointing to the “chill” in fruitful terrorist / US “conversation” since the NYT broke the story about the NSA potentially spying on foreign agents and their embedded operatives.

“When this country surrendered its civil liberties for a modicum of security,” Senator Feingold informed a supportive crowd of students and faculty at George Washington University, “the terrorists had already won. Today’s refusal on the part of al Qaeda to provide us with any information about the conditions of a potential truce simply reinforces that message: you can’t fight terror by fighting terror in a way that fights terror unfairly..

“As far as I’m concerned, George Bush is not only responsible for al Qaeda’s ultimate victory. But now, these jihadists are just, y’know, doing an elaborate, theocratic end zone dance that, had America not surrendered the moral highground, would most certainly be flagged by officias for excessive celebration—particularly the part where they lop of the head of that CS Monitor reporter.”

Emphasis mine. Feingold says in one breath that we lost the war on terrorism, and now we don’t know hnow to sue for a truce because Bush was monitoring terrorists calls into the US….

Russ is desparate to surrender – because we lost! And he can’t figure out how because Bin Laden didn’t tell us how. He is angry at Bush because he made the terrorists angry and we will not get our chance for a truce (surrender).

I think Russ just lost his Senate seat.

12 responses so far

12 Responses to “Feingold’s Folly: US Unfair To Al Qaeda”

  1. patch says:

    Actually, Senator Feingold has lost his mine.

  2. HAHAHAHAHAHA! First Bin Laden, and now Feingold. Things are unfolding just as designed. Next thing you know, Iran will fall without a shot being fired (by the U.S.).

    What a great, great day!

  3. AJStrata says:

    Sorry folks, that is what you get for reading a newbie blog!

    7 months in and I am still human!

    AJStrata

  4. No apologies necessary! (though thanks for the correction- I couldn’t disprove it)

    Besides, it’s fake, but accurate!

  5. Sorry. I kinda like to use these ironic “responses” to point up a certain plausible idiocy.

  6. mary mapes says:

    Geez. Irony isn’t even distinguishable when it comes to left these days.

    Dollars to donuts, it gets featured on Kos and Feingold ’08 picks up MAJOR steam!

  7. Larwyn says:

    Mary Mapes:
    You are so correct!
    “Geez. Irony isn’t even distinguishable when it comes to left these days.”

    Recall that one of the Senate committees was going to use quotes
    from Senators since the late 90′s on Iraq and their WMD – but
    were not going to identify the Senator.

    The Dems went crazy as usual.

    Hope someone is compiling all the quotes from past 5 years for
    a quiz – Actual or Satire?

    We forgive you AJ – it is hard to tell the difference anymore.

  8. MerryJ1 says:

    I don’t know where to post this, but do want AJ and his readers to see it as many had expressed interest in a law suit against the NY Times & Wash Post.

    I checked a few places which seemed likely for directions and assistance, if nothing else. Although a few failed to respond, the replies I did get are pretty nicely summed up by the following email I received from Landmark Legal Foundation (which apparently has their own plan for fighting back). The email follows:

    (End email)

    Landmark Legal is the organization Mark Levin is associated with, and if they have something going to counter some of the subversion we’ve all been worried about, it should be interesting.

    Merry Whitney

  9. MerryJ1 says:

    Oops. I don’t know how that happened? The cut-and-paste disappeared. Second try:

    (End email)

  10. MerryJ1 says:

    Now, how wierd is that? OK, Plan B:

    (end email)

  11. MerryJ1 says:

    OK, I give up. That time, I copy-typed it, pulling up my mailbox, typing a few words, pulling up … etc. I don’t know what the glitch is – but bottom line, Landmark said there were “procedural and jurisdictional problems” with what we proposed, and that they have something in the works aimed at accomplishing what we all want to see accomplished.

    Merry Whitney

  12. mary mapes says:

    Merry

    Now that is weird that it didn’t like the text I guess.

    Anyhow, the news is good regardless. Thanks for keeping us posted.

    Larwyn

    The ultimate irony? Kennedy grilling Alito on the CAP article that turned out to be… irony! Doesn’t get any better than that.