Dec 23 2006
Al Qaeda Offer Dems Terms Of Our Surrender
Al Qaeda is impatient for the Democrats to make good on their election year promises (yes, Al Qaeda is that naive as to believe a US politician in DC). In fact, they have now offered up terms for our safe surrender of Iraq to Bin Laden so that the Democrats know for sure that they can surrender safely (if not at a high price):
The leader of an al-Qaeda-backed group offered US forces safe withdrawal from Iraq within a month if they left their heavy weapons behind, according to an audiotape posted on the internet.
I am awaiting the response of Leaders Pelois and Reid, and the master of surrender himself, Murtha. A little more information on the offer here.
Al’s-kay-duh-ring. If Lucy’s football, in the Charlie Brown cartoon, had a sound. This contant noise would be heard, too.
As to the thin margin of victory sitting in Congress; instead of 50/50, you could call it: LOGGER-HEADS.
And, ya know what? The Media’s not on the side of the majority of Amerian voters. So what you hear? Is phoney news. As if the HOUSE OF SAUD, the POWER behind all this global terrorism, doesn’t own large swaths of the media arm!
Good season to be aware of false prophets.
Lay off the spiked nog, Strata. CIA reports, as well as Iraqis themselves, say they can drive the modest portion of foreign
jihadists out of Iraq more effeciently than we can, after we
leave. Our presence, all confirm, ASSISTS al Qaeda’s goals in Iraq.
Carol_Herman
We know who owns the bigger chunk of the American media
and it is those who have portrayed Israel as a necessary ally
and kind friend rather than an albatross which makes America
unnecessary enemies, some terrorist, spanning the Moslem
world.
These people evidently don’t understand our system. They are perhaps familiar with a parlementary system wherein a vote of confidence or a majority vote can bring down a prime minister. They think that since the dems are said to have won that means they will call the shots. And that Bush will have to step down as president. Neither party will call the shots and little will be done which might be a good thing in itself. We are actually safer when congress is not in session.
However, thank goodness, no matter who is elected to congress the president stays power for four or in Bush’s case eight years regardless. And he is the one in charge of the military and will decide to continue in Iraq or not. The dems are divided on the cut and run strategy anyway and would not get a majority to cut off funding. There are some dems who are not suicidal.
But these Al Quaeda really think they have us by the short hairs. They will soon find that they don’t. Leave our heavy equipment behind indeed. Their gall is unlimited.
AQ may be naive about our politicians, but they’re very savvy about our media.
Are you inferring the media should not report news?
Erp
Very true.
Just like a jack-in-the-box Ken pops up with inanities.
Barbara
I used inane with reference to the master thereof, FE. Now you
offend him by misspelling Al Quaeda. He must be offended because he’s a stickler for exact spelling. Then again, he only seems to get his
boxers in a bunch when a war opponent misspells a word ,so you might be in the clear.
Wow, Ken wrong again. I couldn’t be upset. There are about 30 correct ways to spell al Qaeda, the one Barbara used is one of the correct ones. That’s one of them there interchangeble words you like to refer to, like Moslem. Even UBL has about 10 versions of how to spell his name. So quit trying to correct American spelling, you are just losing something in the French translation.
I guess you are happy with the surrender offer we got. But you’re going to be disappointed, We’re not going to be accepting it. Pres Bush won’t be leaving it up to Murtha. Even Pelosi has deserted Murtha. They bailed out on him as if he smelled like that pile of “defecient” you were talking about.
Yea, I realize I used the French version of the word. But what the hell, I went out and got me a copy of that French Muslim/English thesaurus also.
Get back into your straps Ken.
“Are you inferring the media should not report news”
They already don’t. They are just liberal rags for the dems and progressives. Damn Ken, you already knew that.
You have already called newswires eg AP,”rags,” senile one.
“Rags” is slang for cheap periodicals of one sort or another.
You have also called American Conservative Magazine a
“liberal rag,” but I suppose your military honor prevents you
from being consistent and calling conservative General
William E Odom a liberal because he has opposed the Iraq War
from the outset and call it what it is—unwinnable.
It is very likely also that al Qaeda is simply baiting Bush, getting a little pub and realizing our presence there keeps their recruitment rate accelerating worldwide.
Tell me Ken. Do you collect all the asinine sayings of every anti-American in the world and quote them? Do you collect the excessive variety of poll syou quote from the same kind of source?
As far as Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols go, I was under the impression you had a lot in common with them. You are as anti-American as they are and were. You are as anti-government as they are and were. And you are as anti-establishment as they are and were. Also you don’t care whether our military die or not. Only recently have you been sobbing in your beer (I am assuming you are old enough to drink beer) about our casualties. Before that you said they deserved to die for being in Iraq in the first place. Can’t have it both ways, fella.
BTW, the only offensive person I have found on this site is you, dear.
You’re lost in a politically suicidal haze, dearest. it is you who don’t care about the soldiers’ lives or you would join the Honorable war hero Jack Murtha in calling for their removal from danger.
Do you and the 20% of Americans who still support the war,collect the lies of the neocons in a desperate attempt to justify what is increasingly apparent to be both immoral and unwinnable?
Ken, I wouldn’t know conservative General William E Odom if he walked in my front door. Never heard of him. You say you’re a conservative, as him, but that doesn’t make you one. And it doesn’t make him one. And even if he used to be conservative, if he said what you quote him as saying, it sounds as if he has now walked off the deep end and it’s a good thing he’s retired.
Yes, I see you did understand that I have the AP the correct category of liberal rag.
Ken, you didn’t educate me on “neocon”. I see you still don’t understand what neocon is, again, I guess it loses something in your French translation.
You don’t seem to understand that people can change their positions, as you have. If in fact, you used to be conservative as Gen Odom used to be, then you and he both may have walked off the deep end at the same time.
Don’t try to blame your, or his, anti-Americanism on me.
Your cage door is awaiting.
To all,
Are we benefiting from Ken’s rantings? Is he adding to the debate or free exchange of respectful opinions? If you do consider that you benefit, please keep responding to him.
If you do not, please join me in ignoring him. I promise you that if you ignore him, he WILL go away. I am just so fed up with wading through his postings looking for commenters, regardless of political orientation, with something meaningful or interesting to say.
(Repeated comment from a nearby post)
Gotta know,
the only benefit to Ken, that I see, is we get to see the rantings of a true Anti-American jew hater, al Qaeda sympathizer right here on this site without having to go over to the blogs that feature guys like him all day long. He keeps us fully informed on their thinking process, first hand.
I’ve personally tried to ignore him a couple times, but he resorts to calling me names and lying so much about my position that I find it hard not to try to correct him. I realize that’s he’s just pulling my chain, so I like others, will attempt once more to ignore him. But I’m sure he will be vicious.
Senile one, try and grasp this:
One contemptibly eccentric crank who still believes in the impossible -to win Iraq War does not get to redefine who is “conservative” by the latter individual’s position on that war.
Now if you can show where Odom has generally abandoned
conservative positions please do so.
Nor does a senile crank get to redefine “neoconservative”
by his eccentric whim—not for anyone other than himself.
Now when your definition spreads to others outside this site,
please link me to the examples.
And “jew hater” gets you nowhere in poltiical debate anymore.
That went out about 1990 when the world got fed up to the brim
with Israel’s barbarism….
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/23/iraq.politics.ap/
Strata’s best-laid hopes fizzle…
Ken, the simplest request you ever made:
“Now if you can show where Odom has generally abandoned
conservative positions please do so.”
Read the article you linked that was by him. That’s all we need to know.
For definition of neocon, go to dictionary.com.
You used the term Jew Hater very recently.
Geez, as usual, you have to be corrected on everything. Your rabies shot is awaiting as soon as you return to your cage.