Tag Archives: rush limbaugh

Fox News Isn’t News But MSNBC, CNN and All the Other Networks Are?

Bookmark and Share   According to White House “Special Advisor to the President”, David Axelrod, Fox News is not a news network.

FoxDuring a tour on the Sunday morning television circuit, the guru behind President Obama’s election effort told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos “It’s really not news — it’s pushing a point of view. And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way. We’re going to appear on their shows. We’re going to participate but understanding that they represent a point of view.”

In recent weeks, some honest assessments by FOX News have prompted the White House to call a war of sorts on Fox. They refused to allow the President to appear on the network a few weeks back when he went on every network including the Spanish station Univision, to make a desperate pitch for healthcare and since then several hosts on different Fox programs have not even received responses to repeated invitations for interviews.

Clearly, the President does not like Fox. His own Chief of Staff and henchman Rahm Emanuel said on CNN’s State ofaxelrod The Union that Fox “is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective.”

What I find funny is not the White House’s dislike for Fox News. It is the reason why they dislike Fox and how since Rupert Murdoch’s premier news and opinion gathering outlet doesn’t simply rollover and kiss their collective arses, to a liberal, that is crazy rightwing radicalism.  Give    me    a    break.    Liberals of every color and stripe hate the station.   They all like to sit in the kitchen but they can’t take the heat. They can give criticism but they can’t take it.  For decades, the lamestream media has been dominated by a liberal bias.  That is acceptable to them but Fox News isn’t.

Try to be honest folks.  At least for just a minute.   I mean I can, so why can’t you?  I can admit that radio talk shows are dominated by conservative hosts.  From Limbaugh to Levine, Ingrahm to  Hannity, conservatives dominate the radio dial. There.  I admit it.   I have to, because there is no denying it.  I mean, beween the proliferation and popularity of consevative ralk radio and the dreary ratings and ongoing failures of  attempts to air liberal radio talkshow programs makes it quite obvious that there is a big market out there seeking the conservative perspective.  On the flip side, Air America has a an audience so small, that string and cups are all that is  needed to reach them.   These are the facts and I am honest about them and I do not deny them. 

For sure, Fox News does not glaze over facts such as that of President Obama’s approval numbers trending downward or that the more he pushed for his government run health management and care reforms, the quicker those ratings of his dropped. You can bet your butt that when the President goes abroad and calls America names, someone on Fox is going to point it out.

SOMEONE HAS TO!     

Because there is absolutely no journalistic integrity left in the business of news these days and no other network will bring it up.  The field of news is dominated by partisan liberal ideologues who use every gigabyte of the internet, every electronic transmission and every ounce of ink, to defend the President for anything that he does while at the same time, that which is indefensible, is simply ignored. 

These are facts folks. Those of you liberal lunatics who believe that two plus two equals three and that because it does not equal four, it can be considered a tax cut, need to get out of the parallel universe you float around.   Those of you liberal losers who are cursing me out at this very moment, yeah, I mean you, the Davids, the Scotts and Sammys or Sarahs, Sallys and Susies out there.  All of you who like to use Fox News as some kind of tool to fuel your hatred and blame others who disagree with you, of being brainwashed by Fox News, need to wake up.  Just because someone does not agree with your kumbaya, head up your hinnies, holier than thou mentality, doesn’t mean they are brainwashed or that Fox News is doing any brainwashing.  Do you really think that Fox is the only 24 hour news outlet that also carries commentators who state their opinions?    HAVE YOU PAID ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU WATCH?

matthews-obamaYou numbskulls really think that Fox is not a news outlet  because they also hav commentators that present their opinions?  Us that what even your leading numbskulls are actually going on national news to discuss?   You guys actually have the nerve to single out Fox News as being biased and condemn the station for that?

For What? …………For doing the EXACT same thing that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC do?

I have long held the belief that Democrats are hypocrites and that their  liberal ideology is hypocrisy based. That hypocrisy is usually demonstrated every time you open your dumb mouths. That is one reason why I encourage your comments and angry tirades. Through them, you prove me right all the time. But in the case of your infatuation with Fox News, your insanely unhealthy  infatuation with that network, and only them, makes  it evident to everyone other than yourselves that you are hypocrites

You actually have the nerve, gall and audacity to be disgusted with Fox News for not overlooking the flaws and foibles of liberals and then you call them a station promoting a conservative agenda while saying  nothing about literally every other existing network, media outlet and group of reporters and commentators on your favorite programs.

Please tell me where and when any of the following lamestream media liberals do not promote a pro-leftwing “perspective”;

  • Larry King, Wolf Blitzer, Katie Couric, Matt Lower, Meredith Vieira, Contessa Brewer, Campbel Brown, Ann  Curry, Katie Couric, Nora O’Donnell, John King, Kiran Chetry, Miles Obrien, Anderson Cooper, Candy Crowley, Mika Brezinski, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann.

And that’s to name just a few.

But go ahead, please tell me where these people deliver an unbiased news report.

You wanna claim that Fox is biased?   Who was Dan Rather working for when he failed to verify the validity of falsified documents that allowed him to falsely tell the nation that President Bush went AWOL and deserted his command in the Air National Guard?

Good Lord, you people are hypocrites. Your are shameless buffoons who live by double standards and survive on hypocrisy. You claimed it was patriotic to protest President Bush but now claim it is unpatriotic to disagree with President Obama. You are highly offended by fringe elements who depict President Obama as Hitler but you made copies of images that made George Bush look like Hitler and proceeded to laugh yourselves to tears.

You are hypocrites. Face it. You are lying hypocrites. So put those fingers down and stop pointing them at Fox News. Starti pointing them at the endless array of journalistic prostitutes that you TiVo and talk about around the office water cooler or, in your case, the unemployment line.

But before you get ready to shoot off one of your hypocrisy proving comments, I want to let you in on a big secret. Fox News is not liberal. Can you believe it?……… They are the only station that does not run with strictly liberal reporters, commentators and guests.   While Rachel Maddow shows clips of tribute to Nancy Pelosi and then cozies up to her for a softball interview,  Neil Cavuto will interview a Barney Frank and then turn to a Newt Gingrich for a counterpoint. Hmmm, maybe that is what is fair and balanced, while shows like Countdown to Nothing with Keith Olbermann or Softball with the Screwball Chris Matthews are unstable and biased.

Here’s another secret. While you are crying about what you believe is the overwhelmingly biased coverage of one, “one”station, that you think is conservative, all those other so called news outfits that you like and listen to, well their ratings consistently come in well under those of Fox. So while you may hate Fox, believe it or not, a lot more people like Fox than they do your favorite liberal network.

Oh, and one other thing. I am a conservative and I can tell you this, Fox News may not be a liberal based outfit, but they are not conservative . If you were to compare Fox to any partisan politician, you would have to label them as a Rhino.  And I do not like Rhino’s very much. 

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

GOVERNMENT TAKEOVERS, THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Bookmark and ShareAs Democrats begin to feel their oats, with control of all three branches of government, there has been a renewed interest inantfairnessdoctrine_front1 what liberals smartly, but improperly, call  the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine seeks to insure that the media allots equal time to both liberal and conservative viewpoints.

That sounds innocent enough on the surface but a cursory look under the surface reveals a twisted and tangled web of deceit and chicanery.

First of all, the Fairness Doctrine is anything but fair.

Is it fair to tell you what you must listen to or see? Is it fair to dictate what a private company sells outside of illegal trade?

Well the so called Fairness Doctrine does just that. It tells privately owned media outlets what they must air.

So if you are a liberal themed radio network, now you must change your format and become both a liberal and conservative network.

Attempts to reinstitute any type of Fairness Doctrine are attempts to undermine free speech, the free market and freedom of choice.

Liberal cries for a new Fairness Doctrine stem from a fear of conservative talk shows dominating the airwaves and over the years, they have become a thorn in the sides of liberal advocates. So much so that left leaning activists have tried and failed at creating their own liberal talk show ventures.

One such progressive station recently closed on February 5th. It was an AM station located at 1260 on the dial and called Obama 1260.

One of the most recent big liberal ventures was Air America. That went over so well that it went bankrupt in 2006.

Yet it seems that every day there is a new conservative oriented radio or television program cropping up. Be it Glenn Beck on t.v. or Mark Levine on WABC am radio, conservative hosts are increasing in popularity. They are getting more time on the air, more listeners and more money. Rush Limbaugh recently signed on to a decades long contract which made him one of radio’s richest hosts in history.

Why is that? Is it because the liberal oriented media moguls like these guys, or is it because they like the money that these guys bring in for them? Do they give these conservative hosts more time because their ratings are slipping or do they give them more time because when these hosts articulate the conservative cause, ratings go up?

The truth is that there are more people in America yearning for a comprehensive, logical, conservative oriented approach to government. Such an approach is not what they always see from their so-called political leaders. Voters are often disappointed by their political leaders who cave in on any number of political issues or votes. Yet conservative talking heads are able to  remain consistent in their views without having to bend to political compromise. So more often than not, conservative hosts are even more popular than some conservative legislators.

This popularity irks the left. They are frustrated by an articulation of conservative ideas that people listen to and want to listen to without having any desire to hear Al Franken, Randi Rhodes or Rachel “madcow’ Madow on Air America.

It is the free market which leads to the preponderance of conservative viewpoints that exists. It is driven by what is popular. Like any other commodity, radio and television is geared to what the people like. Would Milton Bradley keep on producing Monopoly if it didn’t sell? Would it be right for the government to come in and demand that Milton Bradley continue to make it if no one wanted to buy it?

Unless the government intends to confiscate the airwaves and all other forms of media, they have no constitutional right to control programming that does not violate the bounds of legal decency and ethics.

In the former Soviet Union the Fairness Doctrine had a different name. It was called Pravda. It was an official state sponsored radio and television agency which aired only what was approved or written by the government. It was an effective way to help maintain thinking in line with the way that the communists wanted the people to think.

If a Soviet Premier suddenly had a heart attack while having sex with a mistress, no one would ever know. In fact it could be weeks before the government decided to let anyone know that their leader was dead.

For communist Russians, it worked. But this is America. And in America, whether you call it fair or equal or anything else you might, it is not right. It is government control.

Government control seems to be the trend during this era of “spreading the wealth” but just how much government control do we want and where does the Fairness Doctrine draw the line?

Does the Fairness Doctrine eventually apply to the internet? Perhaps it will someday limit the internet to only a certain amount of conservative and liberal comments . Maybe servers such as aol or platforms such as wordpress can only be online at times of parody between Republican and Democrat commentary.

Will the Fairness Doctrine be strictly enforced in schools where every good word said about President Barack Obama is required to be followed by a good word about the Republican Senate Minority leader?

How far do we go?

I do know one thing for sure and that is that whenever government encroaches into new territory, they keep on going. When government creates a new tax that they promise to keep at a certain rate, they inevitably increase it.

When government regulates something, they rarely, if ever stop there. They regulate it more and more.

The saddest part of this whole discussion stems from the fact that the Fairness Doctrine is no where near being a sincere minded effort. It is a politically driven, partisan attempt to make censorship legal. It is an attempt to censor a free market society by the same people who try to claim that conservatives ban and burn books .

It is just another example of liberal hypocrisy.

Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow

Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow

But to add insult to injury let us look at liberal Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow.

Stabenow recently stated that she has begun the push for the Fairness Doctrine and feels that hearings on the matter are in the works.

That is interesting. Particularly in Stabenow’s case.

You see, you wouldn’t know it but Debbie Stabenow is also Mrs. Tom Athans.

Tom Athans is her husband and he is a radio executive.  A failed one but one who is still struggling to make his mark in liberal radio.

Athans is the co-founder of Democracy Radio and after failing as Vice President of Air America he founded another liberal talk show network called TalkUSA Radio.

For the sake of full disclosure I will add that, last year, Tom Athans was also arrested for hiring a prostitute for $150 bucks but that had nothing to do with Stabenow. However; for the the same sake of full disclosure, will Senator Stabenow disqualify herself from participating in measures that would in essence force demand for her husbands networks on to national airwaves and produce a great deal of personal wealth and benefit for the Athans-Stabenow family if those measures are approved?

Senator Stabenow with Husband Tom Athans

Senator Stabenow with Husband Tom Athans

Does anyone else not see the conflict of interest in Stabenow’s rush to push for the so called Fairness Doctrine?

Stabenow’s push to censor conservative talk shows and to call it a Fairness Doctrine is anything but fair or decent. It is censorship and in her case it is also an obvious conflict of interest.

Just as the infidelity of Stabenow’s husband is none of my business neither is radio or television any of Stabenow’s governmental business.

When I watch the Obama network, otherwise known as NBC or MSNBC, I do not believe that the government needs to intervene and needs to control their programming, I just do what most Americans do. I turn off MSNBC.

The same can be done with Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity or any other host or program that someone does not wish to see.

It just so happens that when it comes to liberal radio, few have been able to make a good case for liberalism. Hence the failure of Stabenow’s husband’s liberal programming career. It is a result of the free market. It is a victim of supply and demand. There is very little demand for a great deal of liberal propaganda so there is a limited supply of it coming from a market that is based on profit.

The funniest aspect to this whole hypocritical legislative initiative is that there are few people who will argue with the fact that most of the media already has a liberal bias. Even Hillary Clinton had a hard time containing her disdain for a liberal media that turned on her in favor of an even more liberal Barack Obama. Yet that is not good enough for greedy liberals like Stabenow.

Liberals like Stabenow want to stifle speech and profit from it too.

 

                                                                                                        Bookmark and Share
 
Photobucket

punchline-politics

A capitalist and a socialist are working on the side of a road when a rich fellow drives by in a Cadillac.

The capitalist says, “Someday, I’ll be driving a Cadillac.”

The socialist replies, “Someday, that guy won’t.”

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

POLITICS AND DINNER DON’T GO TOGETHER

I have to apologize here from the get go. The other night my partner Nick, and I went out to a local diner for a quick bite to eat. We were seated at a booth in between a group of four behind me and a group of three senior citizens behind Nick. While perusing the menu my ears caught the phrase “I don’t like Obama”. It came from one of the ladies in the group sitting behind Nick .

Being preoccupied by politics, certain buzz words like election, President, McCain, or Obama, catch my attention even when I am not paying attention.

So this older woman’s utterance of the word “Obama” lit up my on my radar screen. Even though it may have been impolite to pay attention to a conversation not involving me, I couldn’t help myself.

So I apologize for any impolite eavesdropping, that I may be guilty of. It wasn’t my intent but I’m a political junkie, and as such, this election season is for me what Christmas is to a wide eyed, little boy.  It’s like the Super Bowl to football fans and I am just in tune to any references to politics. Besides, to put it nicely, this woman was not using her inside voice. So curiosity got the best of me and I paid attention to the political opinion that was unfolding.

The woman went on to say “I don’t like Obama but he’s got my vote”. The woman explained further “those Republicans are only for the rich and big business”

At this point the waitress came over to take the orders of Nick and I. Being distracted, I let my partner order first and I than quickly determined what I wanted. With my attention taken off of the conversation that I was not a part of, Nick and I started our own banter.

When the waitress returned with our drink orders, both Nick and myself happened to hear that same woman I overheard earlier say “and that “McCann”, “he just wants to give tax breaks to big companies”. At this point I had just begun to take a sip of my Pepsi with lemon and no ice when she continued “and who are those big businesses to make as much money as they do. They shouldn’t be allowed to make that much money in the first place”.

Upon hearing that , I gagged on my soda. Having caught that remark from right behind him, Nick knew what the cause of my discomfort was.

We were about to eat and after having heard what I just heard, I could not allow myself to pay any further attention and still be able to stomach the meal I was about to eat.

Nick knew my blood pressure was rising and quickly tried to establish our own conversation and provide a diversion from that which had me fuming. Our food came and we discussed the details of the event we were heading out to DJ.

Through it all, I could not help but allow the words of that woman to echo in my head. I couldn’t stop wondering if she actually knew what she said. Did she really believe, that in America, people should only be allowed to make a certain amount of money? Did she actually believe Democrat talking points and accept them as the truth?

I thought to myself, how little this woman really knew and how misinformed she was. Yet, despite her lack of understanding , awareness and information, she threw her words out with total conclusiveness and decisiveness. This is a woman who referred to John McCain as “John McCann”. She didn’t even know his name yet she acted like a brilliant sage who proclaimed Republicans are only for the rich and that businesses should only be allowed to make a certain amount of money.

What this woman neglected to realize was that Republicans and “John McCann” do not believe in penalizing success. They do not support limiting opportunity or making our government some type of communist politburo that does everything from control your wages to determining what, how and where your children are educated. She didn’t understand that Republicans were not for the rich or sponsors of class warfare but that they didn’t believe in penalizing success or taxation that goes so far that it taxes the dead and buried. This bitter, jealous woman could not wrap her head around the fact that “John McCann” is not trying to keep her down but that he is trying to prevent government from holding her back.

All these thoughts raced through my mind as Nick and I ate and as I tried to focus on our own discussion.

We chatted away and finished up our meal but in the back of my head I could not stop thinking about how gullible this woman was. She actually believed in the liberal bumper sticker slogans and campaign catch phrases that promoted liberal socialist policies in brightly colored wrapping paper and big ribbons and bows. She admitted that she didn’t even like Barack Obama. Yet because he was a Democrat and since they were against the rich, she was for them.

Beyond angering me, it worried me. I worried about how many more people in America held her thinking and how many despised the free market that comes with our democracy? How many Americans were actually supporting socialism and wanted to adopt it as our way of life?

With our meal finished, I got up before Nick to find our waitress. I put on my McCain-Palin jacket, prominently, found the waitress and asked her for not only my check but for the check of the people at the table behind Nick. I told her that I wanted to pay for it. The waitress was taken back for a moment and said “Oh, Ok, here ya go”. After paying and getting my change, I asked if she could give me a blank dinner check to write a message on and that she could give to the customers I paid for. She handed one to me and I wrote:

 

“Dear Fellow Americans;
I paid your check.
I did so because this is still America and in it I can still make as much as my ambition, skill, and willingness to make allows. In it I am also still allowed to keep enough of it so that I can spend as much of it as I want and on what I want. If Barack Obama is elected he will determine all that for me. So enjoy my generosity while you can because if you get your way, we will all be losing our own ways.

P.S.: John McCain is the man trying to preserve democracy. Tom McCann is the company you buy your shoes from.”

Upon leaving the diner with Nick, and after paying for more meals than I expected, just to make a point, I realized that just like the government should do, I too should mind my own business.
Photobucket
POLITICS 24/7 AUTHOR BOOKED ON TALK RADIO

After reading POLITICS 24/7‘s post on Keith Olbermann, conservative talk show host Tim Conway, Jr., has booked it’s author, Anthony Del Pellegrino on it’s show Thursday, October 23rd at 9:15 pm (pst).

For east coasters thats 12:15 am, which technically makes it Friday, October 24th for us.

But regardless, east coast, west coast and everyone in between, I hope you call in with your two cents. 

In fact, if you are a conservative put a bucks worth in.

I hope to hear from you. 

 

 

 

Nights in Southern California are always brighter with Tim Conway Jr. weeknights from 8PM – 11PM.

Conway is in his 11th year at 97.1, treating Los Angeles to a wide variety of topics ranging from ‘LIVE’ Police Chases to the ‘World of Entertainment.’ With Tim’s amazing sense of humor (that he obviously acquired from his mother’s side), listeners know that they’ll always learn something and smile at the same time!

Tim Conway Jr. was born and raised in Southern California; living in the San Fernando Valley. He attended Portola Junior High in Tarzana and finished his education in Van Nuys graduating in 1981 from Birmingham High. His down-to-earth humor brings a sense of refreshing levity to all of us surrounded by lunatics in Southern California.

The Tim Conway Jr. Show is designed ot help Southern California wind down after a hellish day avoiding bullets on the local freeways. Conway hosts the longest running radio game show ever Thursday night at 8PM, “What the Hell Did Jesse Jackson Say?” Conway also features the David Letterman “Top 10 List,” an exclusive audio recap of one of TV’s hottest benchmarks.

The Tim Conway Jr. Show…the new and improved comedy talk show in town and the only place ot find out what’s going on in this crazy city of ours! Weeknights from 8PM to 11PM…only on 97.1 the FM Talk Station

punchline politics

  A Quickie 

One day George W. Bush and Dick Cheney walk into a diner. A waitress walks up to them and asks if she can take their order. Bush leans close to her and says, “Honey, can I have a quickie?”

The waitress is appalled and yells at the President about women’s rights and storms away.

Cheney then says to Bush, “George, its pronounced ‘quiche’.”

Photobucket

5 Comments

Filed under politics

THEY STILL SAY THE WAR WAS WRONG


There are those who claim that the Bush presidency is a debacle. They claim he destroyed our economy and entered into a unnecessary war.

They make these claims despite the facts. They claim that the economy is bad, yet they do not claim the truth. They deny that for the first five years, our economy maintained a historic, almost none existent, unemployment rate. But they run with a meaningless headline that states that unemployment is at a five year high. They claim that Bush put us into tough economic times, not acknowledging that the economy enters cycles and that our economy is strong enough to endure this perceived rough patch or that in the last year of Clinton’s presidency we were in a downturn that even 9/11 did not prevent this administration from bringing us out of.

On a larger front they claim “Bush lied, People died” and that we entered into a war without legitimate reason and that we need change in direction.

Well, let us look at why these people are wrong. Let’s go back into time to all the events, prior to 9/11 and after 9/11, which indicate the needs for our actions against potential threats and against terrorism.

Former deputy undersecretary of defense John A. Shaw was responsible for tracking Hussein’s weapons program before and after Operation Iraqi Freedom. At an intelligence summit in Alexandria, Virginia he explained that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that were purchased from Russia were moved to Syria and Lebanon before the war began. According to Shaw Russian Spetsnaz units “were specifically sent to Iraq to move weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence. According to this report the removal of evidence “was a well orchestrated campaign using two neighboring client states which Russian leaders had a longtime relationship with”

Further evidence was found in 2006 when over 5 hundred munitions containing degraded WMD in Iraq. The discovery of projectiles filled with mustard and and saran proved that Saddam lied about his WMD and that he violated his agreement to dispose of such weapons. It is further proof that the left’s claim that there were no WMD is false and a lie.

On top of that, George Sada, who was a Christian member of Saddam’s inner circle and General in his army declared….

“When Saddam finally grasped the fact that it was a matter of time until Iraq would be invaded by American and coalition forces, he knew he would have to take specific measures to destroy, hide, or at least disguise his stashes of biological and chemical weapons, along with laboratories, equipment, and plans associated with nuclear weapons development. But then, much to his good fortune, a natural disaster in neighboring Syria provided the perfect cover story for moving a large number of those things out of his country”

Furthermore; After the original Gulf War Saddam signed treaties promising to stop the production and procurement of WMD. He made a commitment to permit UN weapons inspectors to verify that he was not in breach of these treaties and he was also not allowed to oppose our enforcement of U.S. no-fly zones. But for the twelve years after the Gulf War, Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of the cease fire agreement that he had with the U.S.. He denied weapons inspectors proper access to establishing proper inspections. He also repeatedly shot our aircrafts in the no-fly zones and violated seventeen Security Council resolutions requiring that he rid himself of WMD.

On November 8, 2002 The U.N. adopted resolution 1441 by unanimous consent of the fifteen member security council and affirmed the world’s uncertainty of Saddam’s WMD. But WMD was not the only reason for this resolution. It declared that Iraq defied it’s obligations under UN Resolution 687, which was enacted after the Gulf War.

According to liberal lion, Ted Kennedy in an interview on October 6, 2002…….”Saddam Hussein is a dangerous figure. He’s got dangerous weapons”

The liberal Democrat, Senator Robert Byrd stated around the same time ” The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked upon on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities”

During the democratic Clinton administration liberal leader, Nancy Pelosi said ” Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of WMD technology which is a threat to countries in the region and has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process”.

On December 16, 1998 high liberal lord Al Gore said, “If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons”.

President Bill Clinton said on February 4, 1998, “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line”

Before his campaign for the presidency of the United States was official, the last liberal standard bearer of today’s liberal Democrat party, John Kerry said, ” Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime…..He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction….So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real”

Now, given the events of 9/11 and our understood need to take out threats before they materialize, and based on the facts that existed before and after George W. Bush took office, what was the prudent thing to do? After diplomacy did not sway Saddam Hussein to do the right thing and despite the U.N.’s unwillingness to hold Saddam Hussein to their own resolutions, Operation Iraqi Freedom accomplished what everyone wanted to accomplish……the threat of Saddam Hussein was eliminated.

Add to this the evidence that indicates Saddam’s ties to terrorists and terrorist groups and you have all the right reason to do all the right things.

The only thing that I hold against George Bush is the fact that he did not learn from past wars and throw all that we had into the fight in Iraq after Saddam was removed from power. In the days after his overthrow, Iraq become a vacuum that attracted terrorists to try to undo what we had done in Iraq and in those days, we did not have an adequate supply of forces to thwart and eliminate those terrorists. John McCain and Condoleezza Rice continuously urged for an increase in forces but Bush, faced with a liberal media that downplayed success and tried to indicate that Operation Iraqi Freedom was wrong, rejected such calls until he could not deny the need for them himself. But once he did, it worked.

You may want to deny the words of Generals and the evidence of Saddam’s ominous intentions but people like myself do not. You may want to claim that since there have been no attacks similar to 9/11 since that time, that there are no real threats or that terrorism does not exist anymore but I see that the efforts we undertook and that we are undertaking are helping to prevent them from occurring.

Some may be willing to ignore facts but I am not. The evidence was there before George Bush took office and is there while he is still in office.

To say this was all wrong places the burden of proof on those who say it.

Disprove to me the facts and possibilities which indicate that WMD’s were moved out of Iraq under the guise of aid to areas that were struck by earthquakes before the war began. Prove to me that the words of a General in Saddam’s army are wrong. Prove to me that existing stockpiles of WMD in Iraq were not intended for use by Saddam. Prove to me that the known visits to Saddam by known terrorists did not indicate a connection to terrorism.

The burden of proof pertaining to why Operation Iraqi Freedom and our subsequent assistance to Iraq in fighting terrorism was wrong, is up to you. I have the facts that indicate otherwise.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics