Nov 01 2006
Liberals Using Fraudulent Soldiers To Fool Dumb Voters
Is there anything more disrespectful than using faked up Iraq war veterans in Democrat commercials? Wesley Clarke and Clare McCaskill have been using a soldier who seems to have been padding his resume so he would be ‘believable’ on the issue of Iraq. Brave men and women went into Iraq to try and turn a brutal and corrupt and angry region towards a path of success and peace for all of us (and yes John Kerry, they are educated AND believe there was a need to deal with Iraq – like our educated Commander in Chief – so stop ridiculing people you disagree with). So why is it Dems have to manufacture a faked up veteran? Why can’t they find an honest and open person to front for their surrender policies? Do the feelings about ‘uneducated’ rubes on the left encompass the voters as well? Apparently so. Why else put a facade up in a drop-dead serious debate on this nation’s future? Dems, why not represent the real heroes from Iraq, and not these hollywood wannabes?
You seem to be on a roll, AJ. They are filling them up with something, and they are for allowing it. ::grin::
Well, that didn’t work. Whadido? A Kerry moment? The punch line got left off. ::grin::
And they are fools for allowing it.
Shucks. You caught it. ::grin::
You can delete my posts. I won’t be offended.
Sue,
No! I was getting a call from my daughter to fix my typos while you posted. The record shows I screwed up! No problem0 (not like it never happens). I want people to know they were not seeing things.
Cheers, AJStrata
I was trying to make a play on words as I did yesterday with your even better typo, but it got lost (I refuse to take responsibility for screwing up my own joke, and I have precedent on my side in this argument).
Hi to your daughter! She has a smart dad.
Why? Because they’ve been getting away with it, with a big assist from their pals in the media. Ever notice how quickly any quote by a service member that can even be considered anti mission and so forth is drummed up by the media, while thousands of pro mission quotes are ignored?
Why can’t dems find a authentic left hero? There is no such animal. The left do not volunteer. They stay all cozy and warm and safe in their little nests and sneer at the very people who make this possible. Everyone they have come up with has lied about their service and/or showed their disrespect for America and their fellow soldiers. I’m still trying to figure out why Paul Hackett volunteered. Maybe he was one of those who volunteered because he thought it would be easy money and an easy way to get a college education or maybe he wanted to go into politics even then. But, you know, that is the trouble with the left, they don’t think ahead and sometimes not at all.
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Always good to have the Zogby Poll at hand.
Strata says two things “brave men and women went into Iraq”
…to turn a brutal and corrupt and angry region towards a path of success”….and that “yes,John Kerry they are educated.”
But the Zogby Poll reveals a huge majority believe they are
in Iraq (not a ‘region’ AJ) primarily to punish Saddam for helping
Osama do 9/11.
This is the result of the purposeful pre-war impression left by the dishonest Bush Administration which knew better and proves the troops, though brave , are not “educated,” but indoctrinated.
pssssssssssstttttttt….Ken?…….shhhhhh….Zogby is a Zionist poll, careful there buddy.
Zogby is an Arab American often accused of bias against Israel , rhyme without reason.
But Ken, he is Lebanese Catholic……..so he’s gotta be a Zionist…..I mean…..isn’t everyone on your planet a Zionist?
Ken, the only people that EVER say that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 is looney lefties and dumbasses. And since you brought it up again, which of those two are you?
“primarily to punish Saddam for helping
Osama do 9/11.”
The loonies want to say conservatives believe this as justification for Iraq, but that’s a losing cause because they only convince more loonies.
The dumbasses, they just don’t know any better.
It makes no difference to me which of those two you are, there is no difference. Do you have a preference.
Ken,
You are an MSM victim.
YES,
1. There were Iraqi-al Qaeda connections
2. Saddam was part of the overall terrorist enterprise
3. Part of that enterprise perpetrated 911.
So, it’s a meaningless distinction to say Saddam had nothing to do with 911. And I suspect the soldiers understand that. They can see through all the artificial distinctions and sophistry of the Left and the Managed Media.
Macker just proved to For Enforcement he is a “looney leftist,”
and to him you can add Cheney who continued to link Saddam and Osama even after the official government report repudiated the lie.
Saddam’s Baathism, indeed, as I told Lancelot Finn’s blog, “Toward a Good Samaritan World” was THE effective enemy of “Islamicism.” (Finn, in his Wilsonian world-improving mode of confusion, believes American invasion and occupation of Iraq,which unleased it, should be praised for a great gambit against Islamicism.)
Rhyme without reason Limerick should be appraised, The Christian
Maronite (Catholic) Aoun has aligned his powerful militia…
WITH Hezbollah, in disgust at Israel’s barbaric raid.
Ken, ole buddy, it only proves you can’t read and comprehend.
“Macker just proved to For Enforcement he is a “looney leftist,—
There is a difference in being involved in 9/11 and being responsible for it. I realize you probably don’t understand that tho.
Macker understandw reality, you, in contrast, don’t have a clue.
If you don’t believe there was a “link” between Saddam and terrorists at the time of 9/11 then your education has been a total waste.
Ken,
You need to read Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, also in book form, who exhaustively documented the Iraqi-Al Qaeda connections. And you can visit Captains Quarters to read translated Iraqi documents proving WMD programs and intentions. None of this would escape the MSM screed. So if you are one of their victims, I suppose we must make allowances.
The 911 Comission was heavily politicized and, besides, didn’thave the latest info.
The soldiers can see for themselves the nature of the enemy.
Rhyme Without Reason calling Ken….Ken? You there Ken?……
I actually thought Israel did a pretty good job on Lebanon. I am proud that America suckled Israel at her breast. He has turned into a strong young man. More then capable of defending himself.
What I love about you Ken is you stick up for the loosers! Everyone needs a supporter and believe me I would much rather you support the enemy then support America.
Oh, and Ken?….don’t worry Ken….it really isn’t the Stern Gang who plants those weeds in your yard every night.
Stephen Hayes’ work has been thoroughly discredited ,which is why Bush and Co. won’t go near it and why the extreme neocons in disrepute beg Bush and Colin Powell to use his work and the CQ mistranslations in vain. And why the LAST word has been
“no working Saddam/Al Qaeda cooperation.”
Macker uses weasel words like “intentions.” Saddam wouldn’t have been much of a leader if he didn’t have “intentions” ultimately to free himself from a submissive-to-the- US/Israeli combine which
had him restrained.
In fact the new Iraqi government will have anti-American “intentions”
involving weaponry as soon as it’s stabilized, or it too will be
overthrown by its own people as an American/Israeli puppet.
None of which gave Bush ethical freedom to wage a pre-emptive war.
Now you have a stronger enemy, Iran,made so by Bush, with “intentions” you warmongers probably hope Bush will attempt to thwart and cause an even greater calamity for US interests than is Iraq.
Now who’s the “The Macker” guy? He ain’t me that’s for sure!