Pages

Search Ratttler

Friday, August 18, 2006

NEOCON ANGST



Bush's reaction to his wiretapping program being ruled unconstitutional by a Federal Judge.
Posted by Anonymous at 7:32 AM

6 comments:

Attila the Hen said...

Okay, I'll bite. YOU LIBERALS WILL GET US ALL KILLED. And there may be nothing more important for our nation to understand than the reality of that statement.

You ultra left wingnut Liberals don't have a clear cut sense of right and wrong. You're completely fuzzy when it comes to moral absolutes, and you sure don't seem to have a clue when it comes to national security.

Don't believe me? Then how about a refresher?

We started seeing it years ago when liberal broadcast outlets like CNN were caught red-handed tailoring the news from their Baghdad bureau to meet the criteria of Saddam Hussein. It was amplified even more slightly when Dan Rather made trips to interview Saddam, Osama, and other world leaders that hated America. Heck, even CBS finally had enough when he just flat out started making things up using forged memos during the election. But now they've hired Katie Couric -- so has the “EYE” really learned anything? (That was rhetorical question.)

Fast forward a bit to when the last liberal presidential candidate decided that he was for fighting terrorists before he was against fighting them.

Liberal voices in the press have been reckless both with what they did report (secret programs aimed at giving us the upperhand in a fight with those who would like to sever our head from our bodies). And what they didn't (discovery of enough WMD in Iraq to kill 8.3 million persons - like the isle of Manhattan or the entire urban metro of Chicago).

Take the New York Times for example. In their direct reporting of how we were spying on conversations that Al Qaeda was having with sleeper cells in our nation via specific types of cell phones - guess what? Those who would behead us all stopped using that type of communications method. So, now we don't quite have the same advantage we did before about knowing their whereabouts because some liberal who doesn't believe he would ever be beheaded thought he'd win a Pulitzer Prize.

Then there's crazy Uncle Jack. Jack Murtha, "the Congressman who can't", propagated the theory that our young Marines should have allowed IED's to not only blow their fellow soldiers to smithereens in Haditha, but when they took fire, they should have never fired back. See the pattern? With liberals it's always American citizens who should be killed, not those who would behead them. Now it turns out that someone let crazy Uncle Jack near the defense appropriations at the last congressional booze-fest and his anti-war views have actually possibly benefited several people who have relatives in the democratic caucus in Congress.

Of course the New York Times couldn't bring itself to report on that because it would, well... it's just not useful for their particular viewpoint.

The same could be said for the discovery of 500 chemical weapons in Iraq that defied the U.N. Security Council resolutions, proved that Saddam Hussein lied about possessing such weapons, and still in fact exist in lethal forms in Iraq. No, the New York Times would prefer that these weapons be ignored so that the insurgents actually find them first and, of course, begin to use them against American troops. (Remember - Americans are the only ones who should die - not those who would behead!)

And the New York Times has grown a malignant offspring on the West Coast, and between the two papers they believed it right and proper to announce to all the terrorists who use the internet, how we are tracking the funds they're funneling toward future attacks. Using this method we were able to actually catch the man responsible for the Bali bombing, and an Al Qaeda operative in Brooklyn who had funneled $200,000 to operatives in the Middle East. This program was actually helping to save American lives, so of course, it must be stopped!

In the meantime Senator John Kerry (yes, him again) is running around running for president -- and watching his legislative efforts fall short in the Senate by like 86-13. Now I know I grew up in Texas and all, but that sounds like a whoopin' where I come from. His legislation called for the immediate pullout of our troops from the Global War on Terror. It probably didn't help him that we had hit the number one War on Terror target just hours before. But imagine if we hadn't. Then Zarqawi would have been free to run around the countryside beheading even more Americans - something you lefties always smile upon.

Then there were the five liberal members of the Supreme Court wjp said that the killer beasts being held in camp GITMO must be given access to the U.S. Criminal Courts, Miranda rights, fair trial, blah, blah, blah... What those five justices seem to forget is that were any one of these 450 animals to get loose from their chains once on American soil, they'd just as soon behead one of them as anyone else.

This most recent ruling against America and for the terrorists is just the cherry on top of your sundae, isn't it? Yup, you liberals will get us all killed.

8:45 PM
Anonymous said...

She's basically a compilation of every false, fallacious or mendacious Right Wing Slime Machine talking point. Every one of her points are hopelessly specious, but the tactic is to spew so much nonsense that your opposition gets tired of correcting you.

JC

9:15 PM
Attila the Hen said...

Which is, uh why you searched me out in Social Issues saying that I was your "hero" after reading my emails to the Tattler and begging me to write for your blog, JC? Since it likes big words now, try these on for size: Your statements (which I cannnot in good conscience call arguments) are nothing more than fallacious prevarications. You may have to think on that one after you look up the definitions. My initial impression of you was dead on the mark: You're a laughable little sycophant. Now, Olivida, it's time to change your baby's diaper, smells like he just dropped ANOTHER load.

11:55 PM
Attila the Hen said...

Another thing I noticed about BOTH of you "mental giants" was your inability to answer my comments. In typical fashion you merely attacked me. I suppose it's simply because you don't have the wherewithal to debate any issue intelligently. And one last thing -- what WOULD you write about or talk about if it WEREN'T for Virgina and her blog or Archie?

12:01 AM
Attila the Hen said...

I do love it. Once again, even though the challenge was blatant and I threw down the gauntlet, you answered with a ridiculously weak attack on me, rather than a response to what I said.

Livid, you sure make an easy target of yourself, you pinhead, but even so, this will be my last post. This striving to be even a 222nd rate blog, whose very name is an emulation of The Tattler, isn't worth of my time. Its ambitions, much like your own I'd venture, fall far short of the mark of any semblance of success. You have neither the Tattler's writing skill, sense of fair play, humor or humanity. Oh, sure you can look through The Tattler (or Reuters, the NY Times, and the London Times too) and find a misspelled word or something that isn't grammatically perfect, but you can't come close to matching the content or wit of The Tattler, who is a prolific, prodigious wordsmith, day in, day out. LOL, even with all of your so-called "contributors" you can't even muster up a new thought between you on a daily basis and have to rely on The Tattler and Virginia's blog for content. I will try to help you a bit with the mechanics though.

"Note the use of "fallacious prevarications" and her apparent belief that such words (although used incorrectly in redundant combination)..."

*clearing my throat* Please be advised, dipstick, that fallacious is an adjective; prevarication is a noun. Most 5th graders have already been taught that adjectives are used to describe nouns, e.g. pompous dumbass comes most immediately to mind. Further, redundancy is perfectly correct useage when making a point. Additionally, please take note that the correct spellings of some of the words you TRIED to use are:

Dementia, not "dimentia"
Accelerated, not "accelorated"
Lobotomy, not "lobobotomy"

Obviously nothin' can be done short of an emergency remedial writing course. Spelling primer for dummies, please!

5:50 AM
Attila the Hen said...

For those of us with a sound command of the language and the ability to use it, the words "fallacious prevarications" clearly mean unsound arguments that pervert the truth.

I feel I owe you an apology. I knew your capabilities didn't extend to the abstract and you would be left with only precise definitions -- given the correct spellings, of course. Therefore I took unfair advantage of your limitations. Because of that, I don't mind tossing you this crumb: Aspiring pedants, such as yourself, should read the book instead of relying on the CliffsNotes.

Ta now, you no longer need me. I'm sure you'll continue exposing yourself as a ignorant buffoon all on your own.

3:51 PM

Post a Comment

Pageviews