Tonight at Denny's we had the luck to be seated next to four of the most obnoxious people I've ever had to sit next to in my life. They were democrats (this isn't bad in & of itself, everyone's entitled to their opinion), but they were LOUD and didn't hesitate to throw around F-this and M-F that. One went so far as to say that his wife gave someone else a b-j and swallowed (Hello? I'm trying to freaking eat here). In addition, we were treated to a 40 minute debate on the evils of George W. Bush. I swear they had just come from seeing Farenheit 911. So, the following is my rant for the 4 rude ass people we had to suffer through tonight:
1. "Iraq wasn't doing anything to us, we should have just left them alone." #1 - Iraq was thumbing it's nose at us for 12 YEARS by ignoring the terms that they agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War. #2 - No WMD's? Then what about the Iraqis who have told us that Saddam had a system of dispatching his trusted Iraqi Intelligence Service to the Syrian border where they would send border inspectors away? That was followed by the movement of trucks in & out of Syria suspected of carrying materials banned by U.N. sanctions. Once the shipments were made, the agents would leave and the regular border guards would resume their posts. (Read it here)
You also stated that Colin Powell had no idea about the war in Iraq until it was decided (which I find hard to believe in & of itself). The reason for this, you said, was because "someone who knew what was going on would have tried to convince Bush that this was a bad idea". If that was the case, why did TOMMY FRANKS himself say that "Given the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, this (the invasion) was a sensible request."? Mr. Franks *also* stated that the leaders of Egypt and Jordan told him that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. Why is it so hard to believe that Iraq had them & that they were clever enough to hide them from us? We got sucker-punched by Al-Queda, why can't we be deceived by Saddam?
2. "Why are we invading countries that haven't done anything to us?" Let's see. Perhaps it's to try to stop another terrorist attack BEFORE it happens? Would you prefer, instead, that we sit back and hang out here at home until another 9/11 happens, and *THEN* go after terrorists? Oh, but wait. Even then we couldn't go after the countries that harbor these terrorists because these countries technically "Haven't done anything to us" (other than allow terrorists to plot their evil)- countries like Afghanistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia (I don't even want to go into what problems that freaking country has), countries that *support* what they are doing. Should we just sit back waiting for them to plan their attacks? No. We should take the offense for once and disrupt these attacks, with whatever means we have at our disposal.
3. "Bush didn't do anything to prevent 9/11" First of all, he was only in office for 9 months prior to the attacks. Not sure how much he could have done since NO ONE expected what happened to happen. As Heather MacDonald says "For two years now, left- and right-wing advocates have shot down nearly every proposal to use intelligence more effectively—to connect the dots—as an assault on “privacy.” Though their facts are often wrong and their arguments specious, they have come to dominate the national security debate virtually without challenge. The consequence has been devastating: just when the country should be unleashing its technological ingenuity to defend against future attacks, scientists stand irresolute, cowed into inaction." I'm all for civil liberties, but you know what? If someone wants to search my purse, go ahead. If you want to force me to show you my ID when I walk in a mall, go ahead. Metal detectors? Bring them on. I have nothing to hide & I'll feel a little safer because of the measures being taken to protect us. Besides, what did Clinton do to protect us from 9/11?
Oh lord, I am tired. Just tired. Those asses had the gall to compare Bush to Hitler. HITLER! *sigh*
One last political related thing before I go. John Kerry can't even decide what he's for and against! Take a look:
Welfare Reform: 1988 - voted against a proposal to require at least one parent in any two-parent welfare family to work a mere 16 hours a week, declaring the work requirement "troublesome to me." 1996 - Voted for the stricter welfare reform law that Clinton signed into law.
Mandatory Minimums: 1993 & 1994 - Voted against mandatory minimum sentences for gang activity, gun crimes, drug trafficking, and drug sales to minors, explaining that long sentences for drug dealers who sell to minors would be "enormous injustices" and that some convicted drug offenders were "so barely culpable it's sad". He also said congressionally imposed mandatory minimums made no sense. Today - strongly supports mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes, including the sale of drugs to minors.
Affirmative Action: 1992 - argued that affirmative action has "kept America thinking in radical terms" and helped promote a "culture of dependency". Today - His website vows to "Preserve Affirmative Action," noting that he "consistently opposed efforts in the Senate to undermine or eliminate affirmative action programs, and supports programs that seeks to enhance diversity."
Death Penalty: 1996 - during one of his debates, ridiculed the idea of capital punishment for terrorists as a "terrorist protection policy," predicting that it would just discourage other nations from extraditing captured terrorists to the U.S. Today - still opposes capital punishment, but now makes an exception for terrorists.
Health Care: 1994 - said Democrats push health care too much. Today - calls health care his "passion".
Tough on Castro: "I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world, and I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him." TRUTH: Kerry voted *against* Helms-Burton along with 21 other senators. See for yourself.
The Patriot Act: Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. Today - Denounces the act and states the American people must stand up to protect the Constitution.
And this is the man we want in office? At least Dubya's lies are consistent!
posted by Chris O. @ 8/16/2004 09:58:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home