I took the opportunity this morning to listen to our dear leader's latest whine fest on Gitmo. Amongst the brilliant things the TOTUS had to say was that (I'm paraphrasing), our "values" are what keep us safe and that holding the head choppers in Gitmo "compromises national security".
Neither of those declarations make one bit of sense. First, "our values" are precisely why radical Islam has a bulls eye on America to begin with. Our values, or what used to be our values, of individual freedom, religious freedom, economic freedom, etc, etc, are a direct contradiction to the ass backward, Western civilization killing tenants of Islam. Come on Mr. President, have you crawled so far down the multicultural hole that you see no differences between the culture of death and human misery and that of life and human liberty?
As for national security: how in blue blazes does detaining the mass murderers of an evil cult cause us to be "less safe"? I mean, seriously Barry, you must have toked up a ton of that Maui Wowee during your formative years. By your standards, we would be "safer" if Charles Manson was still roaming the streets. It is the same no deterrent argument that those opposed to capital punishment love to make; but it defies reason. An extra crispy mass murderer ain't causing any problems; and neither is a deranged Mohammedan facing east from his cell at Gitmo. And we've already seen the recidivism rate of "detainees" returned to their clans. Furthermore, this particular brand of Islam, you know, the brand that wants to kill free people, would still be plotting destruction whether Gitmo was in business or not. It seems that according to Barry, it simply has to be our fault that they hate us and want to kill us.
As his speech meandered along, I realized that President Obama, despite the accolades attributed to his speaking abilities, has all the engaging qualities of Charlie Brown's school teacher: wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah; and not nearly the intellectual depth.
(thanks for your wonderful comment at my place to the Frenchman, he needs support like that, Larry..just great of you)
ReplyDeleteNOW: Here's a LUCY MOMENT: "WHAT? BUT OBAMA...YOU THOUGHT THE WAR MADE MORE TERRORISTS YET YOU WANTED TO RELEASE CIA MEMOS AND PHOTOS UNTIL SOMEBODY CONVINCED YOU HOW WRONG THAT WAS...MUST HAVE BEEN THE GREAT PUMPKIN, EVEN HE PULLS HIS HEAD OUT OF THE DIRT ONCE A YEAR!.........ARE YOU THINKING, OR IS YOUR HEAD AS EMPTY AS THAT OL' FUR LINED JACK'O'LANTERN PIG PEN'S MOTHER STILL HASN'T REMOVED FROM THEIR CREEPY BACK PORCH!? WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOUUUUU? NOW GITMO'S IN YOUR HANDS? ....WELL, THEN, I HAVE A FOOTBALL FOR YOU TO KICK AND I PROMISE I WON'T MOVE IT...YOU GO RIGHT AHEAD! I'D RATHER HAVE AMERICA IN ..CHARLIE BROWN'S HANDS! ARGH!!!!!!!! "
I like taking a moral stand but at the same time, I like being alive. Terrorists do not understand moral stands, they understand force.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, this particular brand of Islam, you know, the brand that wants to kill free people, would still be plotting destruction whether Gitmo was in business or not. It seems that according to Barry, it simply has to be our fault that they hate us and want to kill us.
ReplyDeleteI am bewildered by the continued use of the argument that things like Guantanamo Bay, the War in Iraq, and rough interrogation techniques are responsible for inflaming the apparently justified sensibilities of those inclined to terrorism. These people - and I use that word loosely - hate people in Western countries because they see them as infidels.
Why does President Obama think the World Trade Center in New York was attacked in 1993? Because of the War on Terror? The War in Iraq? Guantanamo? Waterboarding? None of those things had yet happened back in 1993. How about the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996? Oops! Before time, too. Okay... the USS Cole in 2000? Hmm... too early still. Well, surely 9/11 was so big that it had to have a provocation that is America's fault - how else would those hijackers have been recruited?
Wait a minute - you mean that among the list of things Obama enumerates as provocations to terrorism, none had yet occurred by September 11th, 2001?
Does anyone remember this one: a bombing of a French tanker ship in 2002? That's a French tanker. Not an American one. That's French. As in, y'know, France, where the population is already 10% Muslim; where the former president (Chirac) tried to make a deal with Iraq (prior to his presidency) to build a nice, modern nuclear plant (called the Osirak reactor, nicknamed the O-Chirac reactor - guess why?), only to have the thing blown to smithereens by the Israelis; where the same dude (Chirac) opposed almost from the get-go any and all cooperation with the United States after 9/11....
So why did the terrorists target a French tanker? "Because they're infidels," said the mastermind of the attack. (I will find you the source for this quote, Larry, when I have a minute.)
Now, let's take a look at what's happened since the inception of all the things Obama blames for the continued recruitment of terrorists:
No terrorist attacks on the United States homeland since 2001.If you haven't read the full text of Obama's and Cheney's speeches yesterday, I encourage you to read them both from start to finish. Permit me to say that I am extremely thankful that Dick Cheney was the Vice-President of the United States from 2001 to 2009.
Here´s the video (1 of 4, but you can follow the links) of Cheney´s speech.
ReplyDeleteHere´s the video of Obama´s (just scroll down a bit until you see "watch" - sorry, it´s on HuffPo).
To me, the most glaring observations are 1) Obama´s arrogant attempt to portray himself as someone who has actually had a part in keeping America safe 2) Cheney´s attempt to humbly convey the successfull role he played in protecting American´s from another terrorist attack.