A Day Of Disgrace
Its all I can do not to just break down in sobs !!
The damage the (D)s did to their Party, the Institution of Congress, the Military, and all of America today amounts to the greatest disaster this country has ever seen..
How can you fix somethin this FUCKED UP without first tearin it completely down and rebuildin the whole gotdam thang ??
The damage the (D)s did to their Party, the Institution of Congress, the Military, and all of America today amounts to the greatest disaster this country has ever seen..
How can you fix somethin this FUCKED UP without first tearin it completely down and rebuildin the whole gotdam thang ??
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero
posted by Wild Bill at 9:00 PM
58 Comments:
Second Amendment, WB.
I'm with you. The greatest enemy our country has ever faced is our own damn government. Why most of the population doesn't see this and rise up is beyond me. I'm ready to fight for our beloved country.
Well, time to go put my flag out and say a prayer for those poor souls that lost their lives to pure evil. Sad that so many today have forgotten the lesson we needed to learn six years ago - we are at war with Islam and need to crush those bastards.
Now it would seem our government is sleeping with the enemy. God help us all.
our own worst enemies reside about u.s. in the form of leftists - the enablers of the scourge that hit this nation six years ago and i've resolved to be a thorn in their side for the rest of my days!
i also have a tribute up at curtains if'n you get out and about.
thankx, wild bill, for the link you left at curtains - i watched it from another site yesterday. i'll never allow these b*stards to get the best of me!
Dear Wild Bill,
You left a mysterious post on nanc's blog, which you concluded with "May the Good Lord have Mercy on my Redneck soul for the contempt that I feel for the appeasers and apologists like you that caused the appearance of weakness that led to the loss of those people on 9-11-01.."
I am very interested in this new theory on the causes of 9/11 that you propagate, which is that some vague "appearance of weakness" perpetuated by "appeasers and apologists" caused 9/11. I really do wonder what you mean by this, because I always thought it was Muslim radicals and their crazy radical ideology that caused 9/11, and I would be very interested in hearing more on this intriguing new theory.
Thanks in advance,
Dora
Its not a NEW theory, Dora..
August 18, 2005
Washington , D.C. - The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States -- otherwise known as the 9/11 Commission -- was supposed to suggest changes in law and policy to help protect us from terror attacks. To make such recommendations, the commission needed to discern what happened. Regrettably, the commission's public hearings devolved into a political circus instead of a fact-finding exercise. Instead of solving the numerous riddles of how 19 terrorists murdered nearly 3,000 Americans, apologists for the Clinton administration used the hearings to deflect blame -- and point to the culpability of the Bush administration.
Consider this exchange between Democrat Commission member Tim Roemer and former Clinton administration official Richard Clarke on March 24, 2004:
ROEMER (to Clarke): I want to know, first of all: Was fighting Al Qaeda a top priority for the Clinton administration from 1998 to the year 2001? How high a priority was it in that Clinton administration during that time period?
CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting Al Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration -- certainly no higher priority.
"No higher priority?" Given what we learned this week from Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer, a retired U.S. Army intelligence officer, and newly declassified records from the State Department, Messrs. Roemer and Clarke may wish to -- in congressional parlance -- "revise and extend" their remarks.
LTC Shaffer was part of an undercover counter-terrorism unit code-named "Able Danger." When I spoke with him earlier this week he told me that the group, created in 1999, used open source "data mining" technology to identify and track terrorists. In 2000, the Able Danger unit identified the Al Qaeda cell led by Mohamed Atta, holed up in New Jersey . A year later, Atta and his fellow jihadists -- Khalid al-Mihdhar, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Nawar al-Hamzi -- would carry out the 9-11 attacks.
According to LTC Shaffer, on three separate occasions, officers in the Able Danger unit tried to pass information on the Atta-al Qaeda cell to the FBI but were blocked by military lawyers because of concerns about the legality of collecting information on foreign terror suspects in the United States. Atta had entered the U.S. on a legal visa, and the lawyers determined that he had to be treated like any U.S. citizen even though he was associating with suspected terrorists. "Our lawyers told us to leave them [the Atta cell] alone because that was the policy guidance at the time."
The "policy guidance" that kept intelligence agencies and domestic law enforcement officials from exchanging information had been promulgated in 1995 by Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration and later a member of the 9/11 Commission. Would passing the intelligence on the Atta cell to the FBI have prevented the 9-11 attack?
Congressman Curt Weldon (R-PA) thinks so. After learning of the Able Danger unit, he said, "If we had taken out that cell, 9/11 would not have occurred, and certainly, taking out these three principal players in that cell would have severely crippled, if not totally stopped, the operation that killed 3,000 people in America."
Whether the Congressman is correct, we will never know. But we do know that when the 9-11 Commission was holding its hearings and preparing its report -- they did not include the Able Danger information. Last week, a commission spokesman at first denied knowing anything about Able Danger and later the chairman and vice-chairman of the Commission -- Tom Keane and Lee Hamilton said it was not "historically significant."
Now, they claim that the commission didn't receive enough information on the Able Danger unit from the Pentagon. But LTC Shaffer says that in 2003, while in Afghanistan, he told commission staff members about efforts to pass the Atta cell information to the FBI. He also told me that he offered to brief the commission more fully in January 2004 after he had returned to the U.S. but that "the offer was declined."
Unfortunately for the 9-11 Commission, Able Danger isn't the only embarrassing recent revelation. Newly de-classified documents obtained by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act show that in the summer of 1996, intelligence analysts at the State Department warned the Clinton administration that Osama bin Laden's "prolonged stay in Afghanistan -- where hundreds of 'Arab mujahidin' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate -- could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum." A year earlier the Clinton administration rejected a Sudanese offer to have Bin Laden detained.
And then there is the strange case of Clinton National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger -- who earlier this year plead guilty to removing and destroying classified documents from the National Archives pertaining to terror threats on U.S. soil. The crimes were committed as Mr. Berger was preparing to testify before the 9-11 Commission.
Did the 9-11 Commission choose not to hear from the Able Danger officers because Jamie Goerlick was a member of the body? Were the commissioners aware of the State Department's 1996 warnings on Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan ? Were copies of the documents shredded by Sandy Berger ever placed before the commission?
All of these questions need to be answered for the 9-11 Commission to be considered as something other than a whitewash for the Clinton administration. Most importantly -- has the Bush administration solved the "communications problems" evident in the Able Danger case? If not, then we have learned nothing from the murders of 9-11.
from here:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2006/08/21/our_covert_enemies
Our covert enemies
By Michael Barone
Monday, August 21, 2006
In our war against Islamo-fascist terrorism, we face enemies both overt and covert. The overt enemies are, of course, the terrorists themselves. Their motives are clear: They hate our society because of its freedoms and liberties, and want to make us all submit to their totalitarian form of Islam. They are busy trying to wreak harm on us in any way they can. Against them we can fight back, as we did when British authorities arrested the men and women who were plotting to blow up a dozen airliners over the Atlantic.
Our covert enemies are harder to identify, for they live in large numbers within our midst. And in terms of intentions, they are not enemies in the sense that they consciously wish to destroy our society. On the contrary, they enjoy our freedoms and often call for their expansion. But they have also been working, over many years, to undermine faith in our society and confidence in its goodness. These covert enemies are those among our elites who have promoted the ideas labeled as multiculturalism, moral relativism and (the term is Professor Samuel Huntington's) transnationalism.
At the center of their thinking is a notion of moral relativism. No idea is morally superior to another. Hitler had his way, we have ours -- who's to say who is right? No ideas should be "privileged," especially those that have been the guiding forces in the development and improvement of Western civilization. Rich white men have imposed their ideas because of their wealth and through the use of force. Rich white nations imposed their rule on benighted people of color around the world. For this sin of imperialism they must forever be regarded as morally stained and presumptively wrong. Our covert enemies go quickly from the notion that all societies are morally equal to the notion that all societies are morally equal except ours, which is worse.
These are the ideas that have been transmitted over a long generation by the elites who run our universities and our schools, and who dominate our mainstream media. They teach an American history with the good parts left out and the bad parts emphasized. We are taught that some of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders -- and are left ignorant of their proclamations of universal liberties and human rights. We are taught that Japanese-Americans were interned in World War II -- and not that American military forces liberated millions from tyranny. To be sure, the great mass of Americans tend to resist these teachings. By the millions they buy and read serious biographies of the Founders and accounts of the Greatest Generation. But the teachings of our covert enemies have their effect.
Of course, this distorts history. We are taught that American slavery was the most evil institution in human history. But every society in history has had slavery. Only one society set out to and did abolish it. The movement to abolish first the slave trade and then slavery was not started by the reason-guided philosophies of 18th century France. It was started, as Adam Hochschild documents in his admirable book "Bury the Chains," by Quakers and Evangelical Christians in Britain, followed in time by similar men and women in America. The slave trade was ended not by Africans, but by the Royal Navy, with aid from the U.S. Navy even before the Civil War.
Nevertheless, the default assumption of our covert enemies is that in any conflict between the West and the Rest, the West is wrong. That assumption can be rebutted by overwhelming fact: Few argued for the Taliban after Sept. 11. But in our continuing struggles, our covert enemies portray our work in Iraq through the lens of Abu Ghraib and consider Israel's self-defense against Hezbollah as the oppression of virtuous victims by evil men. In World War II, our elites understood that we were the forces of good and that victory was essential. Today, many of our elites subject our military and intelligence actions to fine-tooth-comb analysis and find that they are morally repugnant.
We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few until the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes. They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools and mainstream media to the point that they are the default assumptions of millions. Our covert enemies don't want the Islamo-fascists to win. But in some corner of their hearts, they would like us to lose.
from here: http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson100306.html
October 3, 2006
Traitors to the Enlightenment
Europe turns its back on Socrates, Locke, et al.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
The first Western Enlightenment of the Greek fifth-century B.C. sought to explain natural phenomena through reason rather than superstition alone. Ethics were to be discussed in the realm of logic as well as religion. Much of what Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and the Sophists thought may today seem self-evident, if not at times nonsensical. But that century was the beginning of the uniquely Western attempt to bring to the human experience empiricism, self-criticism, irony, and tolerance in thinking.
The second European Enlightenment of the late 18th century followed from the earlier spirit of the Renaissance. For all the excesses and arrogance in its thinking that pure reason might itself dethrone religion — as if science could explain all the mysteries of the human condition — the Enlightenment nevertheless established the Western blueprint for a humane and ordered society.
But now all that hard-won effort of some 2,500 years is at risk. The new enemies of Reason are not the enraged democrats who executed Socrates, the Christian zealots who persecuted philosophers of heliocentricity, or the Nazis who burned books. No, they are a pampered and scared Western public that caves to barbarism — dwarves who sit on the shoulders of dead giants, and believe that their present exalted position is somehow related to their own cowardly sense of accommodation.
What would a Socrates, Galileo, Descartes, or Locke believe of the present decay in Europe — that all their bold and courageous thinking, won at such a great cost, would have devolved into such cheap surrender to fanaticism?
Just think: Put on an opera in today’s Germany, and have it shut down, not by Nazis, Communists, or kings, but by the simple fear of Islamic fanatics.
Write a novel deemed critical of the Prophet Mohammed, as did Salman Rushdie, and face years of ostracism and death threats — in the heart of Europe no less.
Compose a film, as did Theo Van Gogh, and find your throat cut in “liberal” Holland.
Or better yet, sketch a cartoon in postmodern Denmark, and then go into hiding.
Quote an ancient treatise, as did the pope, and learn your entire Church may come under assault, and the magnificent stones of the Vatican offer no refuge.
There are three lessons to be drawn from these examples. In almost every case, the criticism of the artist or intellectual was based either on his supposed lack of sensitivity or of artistic excellence. Van Gogh was, of course, obnoxious and his films puerile. The pope was woefully ignorant of public relations. The cartoons in Denmark were amateurish and unnecessary. Rushdie was an overrated novelist, whose chickens of trashing the West he sought refuge in finally came home to roost. The latest Hans Neuenfels adaptation of Mozart’s Idomeneo was silly.
But isn’t that precisely the point? It is easy to defend artists when they produce works of genius that do not offend popular sensibilities — Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa or Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws — but not so when an artist offends with neither taste nor talent. Yes, Pope Benedict is old and scholastic; he lacks both the smile and tact of the late Pope John Paul II, who surely would not have turned for elucidation to the rigidity of Byzantine scholarship. But isn’t that why we must come to the present Pope’s defense — if for no reason other than because he has the courage to speak his convictions when others might not?
Note also the constant subtext in this new self-censorship: fear of radical Islam and its gruesome appendages of beheadings, suicide bombings, improvised explosive devices, barbaric fatwas, riotous youth, petrodollar-acquired nuclear weapons, oil boycotts and price hikes, and fist-chanting mobs.
In contrast, almost daily in Europe, “brave” artists caricature Christians and Americans with impunity. Why?
For a long list of reasons, among them most surely the assurance that they can do this without being killed. Such cowards puff out their chests when trashing an ill Oriana Fallaci or Ariel Sharon or beleaguered George W. Bush in the most demonic of tones, but prove sunken and sullen when threatened by a Dr Zawahri or a grand mufti of some obscure mosque.
Second, almost every genre of artistic and intellectual expression has come under assault: music, satire, the novel, films, academic exegesis. Somehow Europeans have ever-so-insidiously given up the promise of the Enlightenment that welcomed free thought of all kinds, the more provocative the better.
So the present generation of Europeans really is heretical, made up of traitors of a sort, since they themselves, not just their consensual governments or some invader across the Mediterranean, have nearly destroyed their won freedoms of expression — out of worries over oil, or appearing as illiberal apostates of the new secular religion of multiculturalism, or another London or Madrid bombing.
Europe boldly produces films about assassinating an American president, and routinely disparages the Church that gave the world the Sermon of the Mount, but it simply won’t stand up for an artist, a well-meaning Pope, or a ranting filmmaker when the mob closes in. The Europe that believes in everything turns out to believe in nothing.
Third, examine why all these incidents took place in Europe. Since 2000 it has been the habit of blue-state politicians to rebuke the yokels of America, in part by showing us a supposedly more humane Western future unfolding in Europe. It was the European Union that was at the forefront of mass transit; the EU that advanced Kyoto and the International Criminal Court. And it was the heralded EU that sought “soft” power rather than the Neanderthal resort to arms.
And what have we learned in the last five years from its boutique socialism, utopian pacifism, moral equivalence, and cultural relativism? That it was logical that Europe most readily would abandon the artist and give up the renegade in fear of religious extremists.
Those in an auto parts store in Fresno, or at a NASCAR race in southern Ohio, might appear to Europeans as primordials with their guns, “fundamentalist” religion, and flag-waving chauvinism. But it is they, and increasingly their kind alone, who prove the bulwarks of the West. Ultimately what keeps even the pope safe and the continent confident in its vain dialogues with Iranian lunatics is the United States military and the very un-Europeans who fight in it.
We may be only 30 years behind Europe, but we are not quite there yet. And so Europe has done us a great favor in showing us not the way of the future, but the old cowardice of our pre-Enlightenment past.
http://rednecktexan.blogspot.com/
2007/05/our-enemies-plan-exposed.html
Dear Wild Bill,
None of these articles actually offer any support to your theory that "the appearance of weakness" led to 9/11.
First of all, let me reiterate that these are all opinion pieces. The first article points out to real weakness, not the appearance of it, in our national security before 9/11.
It also very conveniently fails to mention some facts:
in the summer of 1996, intelligence analysts at the State Department warned the Clinton administration that Osama bin Laden's "prolonged stay in Afghanistan -- where hundreds of 'Arab mujahidin' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate -- could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum." A year earlier the Clinton administration rejected a Sudanese offer to have Bin Laden detained.
Interesting. The article points out that a year EARLIER Clinton rejected the bin Laden offer. It is conspicuously absent from this opinion piece that a year later, Clinton bombed Afghanistan. Is that an appearance of weakness.
The second article was so poorly thought out and laden in unbelievably broad and ignorant generalities that the only thing than can be said about it is, "That's not right; that's not even wrong." (a quote from Wolfgang Pauli, Nobel Prize winning physicist)
As for the third article, again, I don't see what it has to do with pre-9/11 appearance of weakness causing 9/11, but i will address the facts stated in the article:
"Just think: Put on an opera in today’s Germany, and have it shut down, not by Nazis, Communists, or kings, but by the simple fear of Islamic fanatics."
The opera actually was un-cancelled and ran, with extra security, and there were no incidents.
"Write a novel deemed critical of the Prophet Mohammed, as did Salman Rushdie, and face years of ostracism and death threats — in the heart of Europe no less."
But he was hiding in England, had a fatwa on his head, and survived thanks to European protection. Perhaps you've also followed the events that he was recently awarded knighthood by the queen, and despite protestations from Muslim leaders, it was not rescinded or compromised in any way.
"Compose a film, as did Theo Van Gogh, and find your throat cut in “liberal” Holland."
But he was killed by a deraged Muslim man who is now in prison. I'm not really sure how this is an example of European weakness.
Or better yet, sketch a cartoon in postmodern Denmark, and then go into hiding.
The government of Denmark stood firm and refused to censor (which it had no ability to do in any case) or reprimand the cartoonists.
Quote an ancient treatise, as did the pope, and learn your entire Church may come under assault, and the magnificent stones of the Vatican offer no refuge.
The church came under verbal assault from liberal Europe for its retrograde views, not from Muslims. Again, i don't see how this is relevant.
Should we not criticize each other for fear of looking "weak"? Should we suppress liberal-minded dissent for fear of looking weak? What about our most cherished values of freedom of speech?
You have shown no evidence than an appearance of weakness that liberals are responsible for has caused 9/11.
From the mouth of the murderous dirtbag himself..
http://www.freerepublic.com/
focus/f-news/542192/posts
Q: Last February you called a jihad against the crusaders and the Jews and, in particular, against the Americans. This call came at a time many of the movements who had walked the path of armed struggle started to cease such activities and to start participating in their countries' parliaments. Don't you think that by calling a jihad you are going against the trend?
OBL: Those Muslims who say that these are not times for jihad are gravely wrong.
Following the absence of jihad from our Umat for such a long time we acquired a generation of people seeking education who had not experienced the reality of jihad, and they have been influenced by the American culture and media invasion that stormed the Muslim countries. Without even participating in a military war we find this generation has already been psychologically beaten.
What is true is that God granted the chance of jihad in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Bosnia and we are assured that we can wage a jihad against the enemies of Islam, in particular against the greater external enemy - the crusader-Jewish alliance.
Those who carried out the jihad in Afghanistan did more than was expected of them because with very meagre capacities they destroyed the largest military force [the Soviet army] and in doing so removed from our minds this notion of stronger nations.
We believe that America is weaker than Russia and from what we have heard from our brothers who waged jihad in Somalia, they found to their greatest surprise the weakness, frailness and cowardliness of the American soldier. When only eight of them were killed they packed up in the darkness of night and escaped without looking back.
So you're saying that it was the US withdrawal from Somalia by Clinton that gave an appearance of weakness? What should have Clinton done instead, according to you? Was it right of Bush I to go into Somalia in the first place?
Moreover, if you want to take causality that far, have you thought about the CIA funneling weapons to the Afghanistan mujahedeen through Pakistan? This helped create the Taliban, which later harbored al Qaida very well for many years. Perhaps it was not an appearance of weakness, but more American shortsightedness in arming the Taliban?
I thank his words are crystal-clear and plain enuff that they dont need any spin from me as to their meanin..
I you caint see the meanin in em then it aint cause it aint there, its cause YOU DONT WANNE SEE IT !!
Its his own words sayin what he thanks.. Nothin more.. Nothin less.. DEAL WITH IT ..
I get what he's saying, i'm asking you what Clinton should have done to avoid this unforeseeable (or was it foreseeable) outcome of the Somalia intervention.
In other words, how would a non-liberal president have handled the Somalia situation differently, so as to avoid the "appearance of weakness" result?
I'm not privy to the Intel and Info needed to make that judgement, but the Attitude Adjustment dished out to the IGC not long ago had the desired effect..
I also see that tactic bein dusted off to be implemented in the Tri-Border area before too long too..
So, if you are not privy to the intel and info to make that judgment, perhaps it's possible that someone who was privy to the intel and info made the best call possible to withdraw the troops?
Also, how likely do you think it is that someone in 1994 could have foreseen that withdrawing troops from a UN mission in Somalia would have conveyed this appearance of weakness? Do you think a non-liberal president would have foreseen that?
Black Hawk Down wadnt a Humanitarian Mission..
And it looks like history PROVES that it wadnt such a good idea to withdraw.. All anybody had to do was look back to 1978 and Iran to get the idea that weakness wadnt such a good policy or maybe to Britain in 1939..
WB, don't get your blood pressure up over Dora the Clown. She wants to bait you and defend that asshole Clinton - the worst president next to Carter.
Dimmocrats just will not accept the truth.
I don't have time to research the questions asked, nor do I want to. However, if this idiot continues I suppose I'll find the time. One good resource is the Eagles forum. You know, the place where patriots and supporters of our military and country hang out.
Actually, Cheryl, its had a rather calmin affect..
I still had a few questions of my own that I wanted answered and did a little diggin in the CIA Files..
Never in my wildest dreams would I ever have thought that the CIA would have documented the MASS INCOMPETENCE of the Slick Admin. and the (D)s that I have been readin..
If I had thought that Dora was serious bout wantin to get the scoop on Black Hawk Down I would have refered her to Black Five .. Matt was privy to the INSIDE of that ordeal and shared some of it a coupla years ago..
But my little talk with Dora has also brought back some fond memories too.. When she mentioned Slick bombin The Stan I was reminded of someone, I dont remember who, that said of the bombin, " they took a $1 million dollar missile, shot it thru a $5 dollar tent, and hit a $10 dollar camel in the ass !!" ..
In the CIA Files I saw where Madeleine Halfbright had given Osama notice of WHEN and WHERE they were gonna be doin the bombin !!
Its been interestin..
WB - Just continue taking names and kicking ass. There is no one better at it! Perhaps - although I'm not holding my breath - you might educate one of these idiots.
I read Blackfive all the time, and it is an informative site, I agree.
Love the name you came up with for what passed, ostensibly, as a Secretary of State under Slick.
I hate to interrupt this love-fest, but I'd just like to note that the US presence in Somalia was in fact part of a UN humanitarian mission to assure that food shipments were getting to starving people.
You haven't really answered the question, though:
"So, if you are not privy to the intel and info to make that judgment, perhaps it's possible that someone who was privy to the intel and info made the best call possible to withdraw the troops?
Also, how likely do you think it is that someone in 1994 could have foreseen that withdrawing troops from a UN mission in Somalia would have conveyed this appearance of weakness? Do you think a non-liberal president would have foreseen that?"
How could it have been the BEST CALL POSSIBLE, when it aided in leadin to 9-11 ??
And it was VERY LIKELY that someone or a BUNCH of someones in 1994 foresaw that withdrawl from Somalia was a dead-giveaway that the U.S. was weak.. They just didnt happen to be advisors to Slick !!
It wouldnt have to be a non-liberal leader to see withdrawl as weakness, as a matter-of-fact, I'm sure Slick also saw it, he just didnt care..
Hey, Dora, I know WB can take care of himself and answer your "questions" better than I. However, I will address one sentence in your post. I consider WB a friend, an honored vet, a very intelligent man, a staunch patriot, a caring human being and a happily married man. I am insulted by your denigrating and belittling use of "love fest".
Of course, you are a liberal, a Clintoon lover, and a believer in the UN. Hell, I bet you even know the words to Kumbaya. I suppose I should consider your rather skewed view of the world and not get so upset.
Cheryl, your friend WB called me a "cunt" on another blog, so I think it's okay for me to say "love fest.
I'm sure you'll come up with some defense of WB's use of "cunt," such as "she is a liberal lesbian heathen Clinton-loving slut who deserved it." But as you can probably tell, that's not very convincing...
How could it have been the BEST CALL POSSIBLE, when it aided in leadin to 9-11 ??
And it was VERY LIKELY that someone or a BUNCH of someones in 1994 foresaw that withdrawl from Somalia was a dead-giveaway that the U.S. was weak.. They just didnt happen to be advisors to Slick !!
It wouldnt have to be a non-liberal leader to see withdrawl as weakness, as a matter-of-fact, I'm sure Slick also saw it, he just didnt care..
(1) This is all pure speculation on your part, it's all just made-up hocus-pocus to bash Clinton. Do you have any evidence that back when Clinton decided to withdraw from Somalia, there was anyone saying taht this is a sign of weakness that would lead to catastrophe?
(2) More importantly, surely then, you have similar "lack-of-foresight" blame for Bush Pere for having the CIA funnel weapons to the mujahedeen in the 1980's in Afghanistan. Do you think someone should have foreseen that this would lead to the Taliban giving harbor to al Qaida which would lead directly to 9/11? Do you think they knew this was a bad idea (it doesn't take a genius to think that is a bad idea) and just didn't care that it would lead to terrorism?
Its not speculation, Dora.. Its in the CIA Files I was readin..
You should go back and re-read the interview of OBL too.. I thank there may be a few thangs you must have missed in it..
You really do need to work on your Knowledge Retention Skills tho !!
The CIA files you was readin? You got a link to those CIA files?
And c'mon Wild Bill, surely you must have readed some CIA files that said something about Bush I stupidly arming islamic militants? Not just the mujahedeen, mind you, but the Pakistani ones as well, because the fee Pakistan charged the CIA for funneling those weapons into Afghanistan as to keep a few of those shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles and some such bizness for their own purposes...
And then you wonder, how did al Qaida manage to get some of those same said surface-to-air missiles to fire at that El Al plane in Kenya? Remember that?
Whatever happened to Cheryl? Could she not handle it that the object of her affection Wild Bill called someone a cunt? I doubt it.
Actually, Dora, it was "COMMIE CUNT" !!
what I actually said:
Dora, go ahead and spread your BULLSHIT from the JANE FONDA PLAYBOOK and soon you will have the reputation of bein just as big of a COMMIE CUNT as your IDOL, JANE FUGGIN FONDA !!
back to present day:
And anybody that has a problem with me callin Jane Fonda a CUNT can just SUCK OL BUCK !!
This conversation took place here:
http://rednecktexan.blogspot.com
/2007/09/
irans-ahmadinejad-has-proof-us-wont
.html
But you have the affection part wrong.. The affection part is mine towards her, and I have no problem tellin you or her that I love her and have great admiration for her..
I also love Papa Ray and have great admiration for him too.. So much so that I would take a bullet for either one of em ANY DAY !!
And I caint leave MamaBear out cause I include her in this "love fest" too.. And include Sherry too, and most of the folks that you see that visit me..
CONVERT, Dora !! Come on over to THIS SIDE, and be SAVED !!
Be part of the solution and not more of the problem.. Give us reason to love and respect you too, and turn away from bein a follower of the Cult.. Be a Good Sheppard and not a lost sheep..
Come help us build that Shinin City On The Hill and Live and Learn and Love..
The Material World holds no promise.. Look where Madonna is today.. She is in Israel tryin to be a Good Sheppard and not a lost sheep, and has probably NEVER felt as close to God, Earth, and Nature as I have out at my small farm..
Trade-in those trips on the "L", or is it the "E" for rides on horseback, and poundin the concrete with walkin barefoot in the fresh cut grass, and drop the briefcase for the hand of a lovin man, and the horns honkin and the cabbies shoutin for the call of the Mournin Dove and the Whipperwill..
Well, that's lovely Wild Bill, but I've lived in Northeast Texas before, and as lovely as it is for nice, upstanding white Christian people like yourself, it's not so great for folk like me, we ain't welcome.
I've tried it, WB, and I left, I ran to the East Coast.
Dora, you have highly mistaken me to be somethin that I aint !!
I havent crossed the threshholde of a Church in years, yet I hold an unshakeable Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.. That tends to leave me in the disgrace of the Congregations, but when Minister or Messenger come to visit they tend to leave in AWE and sometimes fear of the presence of the Lord..
And as far as not bein accepted in Northeast Texas cause of anythang short of bein a Tazmanian Devil is beyond me !!
And I spent a few years in South Texas too and I never encountered what you speak of..
I dont care if you wear a full burqa, or a Mennonite floor-length dress, or a Barbie miniskirt, if a Redneck feels like comin up behind you and wedgin a fanger in the crack of your ass and yellin "GOTCHA" somebody is gonna thank thats the funniest fuggin thang that they have seen in a long time .. And it aint sexual harrasment and a means for some fuggin lawyer to buy a new condo on the Atlantic Coast !!
Soon, it may be hard to find a better, more faithfull friend than BUBBA, with his Faith and Forgiveness..
And I know this is against my better judgement, but, come on down and spend time with me at the farm .. I promise to leave my Viagra at home and that you will be sexually safe at all times.. YOU seem to have a problem with this, not me..
If you have a problem with me killin and cookin our meals then we can eat from a can then .. Not zactly my favorite but still beats Sonic !!
I'm still baffled by what could cause you to ESCAPE East Texas for the East Coast ?? I've seen some funky shit here and I never seen anybody pack up an haul ass !!
I left, Wild Bill, because I didn't like the xenophobia, the small-town attitutes towards everything not from Northeast Texas.
I'm a naturalized citizen, moved from the USSR. So, of course, I was a "commie" to all the kids at school. And I am Jewish, so for some reason, these nice church-going Christian children decided they didn't know the difference between that and "Satan."
I'm not bitter about it, but I got tired of every supermarket clerk asking me "where 'yall from?" and "say something in Russian." I got tired of the homogeneity and religion being pushed down everyone's throats at all times. I got tired of the driving culture, the lack of a walkable urban area, tired of not living in a city, with lots of stuff to do, plays to see, music to hear, museums to visit, restaurants of all kinds.
It just wasn't for me. And the xenophobia and homogeneity was pervasive.
See, many of my old classmates from Texas are now married with children, while I live in sin in a city of sin. It's a different life. I feel much more at home here than I do in middle America.
But, you see, I dont encounter any of that animosity that you speak of here where I am..
We have many ethnic, cultural, religeous, and any other division you would imagine here and we for the most part accept it..
I'm not gonna deny any of what you say of East Texas, but I'm also gonna ask that you consider the situation of a Redneck in your area!!
Or maybe not even in your area but just north and east of Texas .. The closest I had to havin to shoot somebody was in Knoxville, Tenn. ..
of course you feel at home, dora - you are a slut. you feel at home in a gutter.
wild bill - a word to the wise - this one is a case in study - ask anybody who's encountered her.
Nanc, please, don't butt in when the adults are talking. Go back to working on that GED.
Wild Bill, I'm going to have to correct you here. Unlike Fonda, It/Dura isn't a commie cunt, its a "cunt louse".
No one can feel as sorry for it as it feels for itself by witness of that same boring story it tells in an ever refined fashion.
"I be a poor Russian/Jew and E-vile Texan Christian devils called me Satan!"
Boo hoo boo hoo. But, (sniff, sniff), I don't feel sorry for myself; you miserable Christian pieces of crap!
Its amazing how a totally self-absorbed neurotic can practically drool venom and then act surprised that the same attitude is returned in kind.
This one is a troll, it is disruptive and adds nothing. It only posts meaningless written diarrhea seeking to waste your time.
You're best to ignore it or ban it completely.
Tell me Dura, why is it that my insults to you seem to reappear directed at others?
i.e. "don't butt in when the adults are talking"
Only I believe that I told you to run along and play so the adults could talk.
BTW Dura, I will delete any post you make at my blog from this point forward.
Bu Bye, cunt louse!
:^)
Warren, don't you have go rape and beat your cow of a wife?
Also, talk about diarreah of the mouth, Warren.
As I've said before, is this houw Jesus would talk? I'm sure Jesus would run packing heat random women random names.
I think you've got some unresolved mental problems...
Yeshua would tell you, dora - "go and sin no more." we've been trying to tell you that for months - Yeshua did not turn his other cheek to judas - remember that.
Yep, i'm gonna hazard a guess that talking to me like Warran does is a sin. What do you think, o biblical scholar?
bora-screeeeeeeeeeeee...
tmw
Get outta Dodge, and stay out...for your own sake! And you better apologize, quickly!
tmw
Good heavens, cunt louse, why would it be a sin? Speaking truthfully is never a sin.
Can you site me chapter and verse?
The disciples carried swords, short swords, the "pistols" of their day.
Can you comprehend anything beyond a kindergarten level?
As I've told you before, I owe you nothing but the back of my hand and I'm not Jesus. But its typically liberal to believe you speak with the authority of God.
If I were you, (and thank God I'm not), I would admit myself for psychological evaluation and possible electro-convulsive therapy. I'd suggest a prefrontal lobotomy but your already self lobotomized.
You're not a "random woman", I doubt that you are a woman at all and you're certainly not random. You've manage to troll at least six blogs that I know of and stalk Nanc around the Internet. And really, going around portraying yourself as some kind of victim to garner sympathy is simply over the top!
All this, Jesus this and Jesus that, isn't getting you anywhere. As a matter of fact, coming from a self described atheist, it seems rather psychotic, (to say the least).
So why don't you go diddle yourself with a barbed wire dildo and crawl back under the rock you slithered from? I imagine that your fellow slugs are missing you. We won't!
I'll tell you what Dura, I'll offer you the same thing that Beamish offered jb. Just preface each of your posts with a disclaimer that its made by a total moron and I'll let you post on my blog.
Its only fair. Unsuspecting people shouldn't have to waste their time thinking that your comments are satire or parody and read all the way to the end for a punch line that doesn't exist.
:^)
bu bye sweetie!
bora-You occupy one of the lowest levels of humanity possible, in fact, you are in a 'class' all your own. The only denizen as low as you, is jobro, pol pot, stalin, hitler and couey. You intrude yourself, you smear crappe all over places and people who never did anything to you, except have the gall to exist outside your sick little world.
You are a liar, you are scum, and you are boring.
You denigrate those who you disagree with, you poop in their spaces and then wonder why you are despised. You are a fool, and you are a sneering, obnoxious piece of trash. You are a whore(in your own mind, I doubt every word out of your keyboard)and you swim in sewage.
But what you have had the gall to say, about an innocent LADY is unconsciable! If you have a fight with one of us, then keep the fight amongst us. But dragging in unsuspecting spouses is the work of such delightful leftista characters as the ones mentioned above. You are crass, you have no class and I spit on you!
I know Warren's wife, and she has more class in her toenail clippings then you will ever have in your entire life!
You are too dry to be wiped off my shoe, and too wet to be knocked off.
As for my brother...be very careful.
tmw
TMW, excuse me, bitch, is that a threat?
And Warren's wife, haha, the fact that she married someone like Warren says more than enough for me.
Now go play St. Therese, aching to have sex with her husband, Jesus.
TMW,
Don't worry about it, what else would you expect from Dura?
Isn't that right, Mandavoshka!
You talking to me, snip? Say Mrs. if you call me that.
You are a graceless whore, and too stupid to realize how you are being used. You are a fool, and have bet on the losing side. In the long run, you lose. Even when it looks like you are winning, it is very short term.
I was giving you fair warning, because gentlemen, which you obviously are not well acquainted with, tend to defend LADIES. And Warren is a gentleman...but then, you are probably too stupid to know when to apologize and get out of trouble...
tmw
Oh Warren. I bet you were a nice little kid, but maybe your dad wasn't there or he beat you, or he beat your mom, so now you feel like you have to compensate for this early feeling of impotence in your life by projecting a large persona, omnipotent, protecting of the wimmins, with all your guns and tough talk.
It makes sense. But therapy would definitely do you some good, I think.
Oh, no, of course, you don't need no stinkin' therapy, it's for the weak and faggots, right? Real men don't have problems. Real men just bury all their problems, right?
I hope you get better.
You know what I think is funny: rightwingers think that the worst possible thing you can say to a woman is that she is a whore. The underlying assumptions are interesting: that the most valued thing for a woman is not being a whore, her "honor," her "chastity." It's not intelligence, independence, charm, her accomplishments in life, etc. It's her "chastity."
It's almost endearing, sweetly retarded. Is your most treasured possession your sexual honor, TMW? Is that the summum of your life?
Why is it that you sound so much like Iranian and Wahhabi clerics with all your "defend the ladies" and "whore" talk?
And I hasten to add, i am not sure who I am being used by...
You are such an a&&, you don't even realize that you are leading with your fanny.
Why don't you run back to your happy little fantasy world and lose the key?
tmw
You're a grown woman in the year 2007, in the most free, progressive country in the world, and you can't say "ass"?
The code of conduct you adhere to is very much like the code of conduct conservative muslims adhere to, do you realize this?
Projection again Dura?
My goodness, what a mess your psychoanalyst has to clean up. I do believe I struck a nerve. Its babbling like more of an idiot than usual!
BWA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Warren, just get help, seriuosly. It will help you and your family and especially your children, if you have any.
You love your children, don't you? Do you want them to grow up all screwed up in the head, like you are?
(Yawn)
yes warren.
let's go have our nap.
::yawn::
Excellent choice of verbiage Wild Bill.
I have always loved yer ability to use the english language with succinct directness. Gotta love it.
Dora....dealing with a CC at work and had to Goggle the term......Narcissistic Personality Disorder...Just a thought and a tip for the day.
Would never engage you in dialogue...for you a mirror would suffice.
Post a Comment
<< Home