Blame America First, Last and Always

The explanation you are looking for is as follows:

There may be a few left-wing wackos who genuinely hate America, just as there are some right-wing wackos who hate America, but that does not describe the majority of either left, right or middle.

What you right-wingers seem to have a hard time understanding is that there are many causes to events such as this. The proximate cause of the bombings in Iraq and Istanbul is obviously the muslim extremist wackoes who did the bombing. They should be pursued, prosecuted, eliminated.

Among the deeper causes, however, are the policies that the US has followed in the region, particularly under the current administration both pre- and post- 9/11. These policies have alienated much of the muslim world, turned moderate Muslims into anti-western extremists and turned pro-western Muslims into ineffectual moderates.

You can invade, bomb, occupy, kill as many terrorists (and others who get in the way) as you like. If you do that you can portray yourself as taking tough action against terror, but unless you attend to the deeper causes, your actions are only superficial and in the long run (if not the short run) will mean more terror, not less. We see that happening in the daily newspapers.

We here in the US can't do much to change the mind of a young radical who has decided to meet his maker with a load of c4 strapped to his chest, but we can do something about who is leading our foreign policy. *That* is why we speak up. We do so because we love America (and the rest of humanity).

Whilst I'm always willing to read links 15 pages of chat is not really my idea of a fun afternoon. Could you possibley sum up the content?

Just to play devils advocate, what exactly is it you disagree with in this post? It doesn't seem all that unintelligently written. Or is it merely that you disagree with his/her political beliefs?

"she has an extremist (and dangerous, IMO) point of view."

which is?


p.s sorry for not reading it all, maybe if you tell me what pages are of interest I can find out myself?

There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason. Some people obviously hate the President more than they love their country. HoWEIRD Dean for example, has gone on record as accusing the President of knowing about the 9-11 attacks ahead of time. A serious charge that amounts to the murder of over three thousand people and is impossible to prove, one way or the other. He cares more about his own political career than this great nation, or he wouldn't be so irresponsible with his words. This is part of an article that explains why Dean's comments are harmful to America.

As the Stomach Turns . . .

Commentary on the News
Monday, December 15, 2003
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor
The Democratic nominating process is turning out to be as much a soap opera as was Election 2000, only without the drama. Just the suds. Democratic front-runner Howard Dean has decided to run his campaign by lending credibility to the urban legend that President Bush knew in advance of the September 11 attacks, but did nothing to stop it.


Dean laid the charge first on National Public Radio on December 1, and then repeated it again on "Fox News Sunday" on December 7.

In his Dec. 1 interview on NPR's "The Diane Rehm Show," Dean was asked about allegations that President Bush is suppressing information that he was warned about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. "The most interesting theory that I have heard so far . . . ," Dean responded, "is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis."

A week later, given the chance to recant, Dean said that HE doesn't believe it . . . sort of. "I don't believe that," the candidate said, then added: "But we don't know, and it'd be a nice thing to know."

He concluded: "Because the president won't give information to the Kean Commission, we really don't know what the explanation is," Dean told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.

I found it interesting that not ONE of the other nine candidates called Dean down on his comments, as desperate as they are to make him look bad and advance their own campaigns. When debate moderator Scott Spradling did, Dean defended putting the charge out there, despite subsequently calling it a 'crazy theory.'

Does that mean that Liebermann, Edwards, Kerry, etc., believe that George Bush bears personal responsibility for September 11? That seems unlikely in the extreme.

Robert Novak quoted a 35-year Democratic political operative saying, "Dean doesn't understand that he's accusing Bush of something worse than an impeachable offense. It's treason."

In point of fact, if true, it would be more than treason. Dean is accusing the sitting President of the United States with more than three thousand counts of murder.

So why didn't the rest of the Democratic hopefuls leap on the opportunity to make Dean look like a loose cannon? The reason is simple. As ridiculous as the charge is, nobody wants to sound like they are defending the hated George Bush.

Dean's comments were immediately picked up by the wire services and flashed to every newspaper editor in the world.

Russia's Pravda ['pravda' in Russian, means 'truth'] jumped on it immediately, reporting Dean's charges as fact. News media in other countries simply carried the Pravda report without comment, others ran stories saying approximately; 'Pravda reports that George Bush had prior warning of September 11, but allowed the attacks to take place, according to presidential candidate Howard Dean.'

To make it more interesting, Pravda didn't say the Saudis warned Bush. The Russians claim Bush was warned by Moroccan and Jordanian intelligence.

The average butcher, baker or candlestick maker abroad, already conditioned to believe anything negative about America, [especially the Europeans] then tells his friends, 'Hey, did you hear about George Bush?'

Allow this to sink in for a minute. Are these candidates even AMERICANS? Are they under some delusion that the rest of the world knows the difference between Republican and Democrat?

Or that the rest of the world thinks there are 'good' Americans or 'bad' Americans and that they are identifiable by party affiliation? This isn't about politics -- this is about AMERICA!

How could anyone claim to have America's best interests at heart and then claim that it is, in effect, a criminal enterprise run by a treasonous mass murderer?

No matter how blind their hatred of him is, George Bush is their president, too, unless they have renounced their US citizenship.

To the rest of the world, George Bush IS America. He is the President of the United States, and even those simple-minded enough to believe he 'stole the election' know that at least half of America voted for him.

To allow such an outrageous lie to stand unchallenged is only one step short of endorsing that lie. But it doesn't hurt George Bush domestically, it hurts America internationally.

Only the most dedicated Bush-haters would buy the conspiracy theory. If it had 'legs' as they say in the newspaper business, Bush wouldn't be fighting impeachment, he would be running from a lynch mob. And party affliation wouldn't mean a thing.

Dean's charge is more than irresponsible. It is libelous, which is why Dean was careful to say that he 'doesn't believe it' himself, but by implication, many Americans do. That's good enough for the foreign press.

America is a nation at war. We are in a battle for our national lives, against a world filled with enemies. Even our alleged friends are suspicious of our motives, prepared to accept any story that confirms their pet suspicions, to the point that even when confronted with the evidence, still condemn us for removing Saddam Hussein and his terror machine from power.

And most of the anti-American propaganda abroad is being spread by American politicians so hungry for power that America's national interests are secondary to partisan propaganda.
from www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=2184

^^^i absolutely agree. here are some excerpts from another site i peruse. shocked to read this, but some of these same users are from the initial site i posted.

it's another long thread (7 pages) so here are some examples: i've also included the link if you have the time to get truly disgusted and read about how they actually felt "sorry" for Saddam when they saw him after the capture and he looked so "worn out" and "sad". Please!!!!!!!!!!

www.prosemarket.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=5036&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

"He concluded: "Because the president won't give information to the Kean Commission, we really don't know what the explanation is," Dean told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday"

What is this Kean commision and why is Bush needed in it/not in it at the moment?

"So why didn't the rest of the Democratic hopefuls leap on the opportunity to make Dean look like a loose cannon? The reason is simple. As ridiculous as the charge is, nobody wants to sound like they are defending the hated George Bush."

I don't doubt that one bit. But that's the nature of politics. Politicians, whatever party they are from, will spin and scheme to get into power.

"The average butcher, baker or candlestick maker abroad, already conditioned to believe anything negative about America, [especially the Europeans] then tells his friends, 'Hey, did you hear about George Bush?'"

Oi, what you got against candlestick makers?

"Allow this to sink in for a minute. Are these candidates even AMERICANS? Are they under some delusion that the rest of the world knows the difference between Republican and Democrat?"

Are you sure that's a delusion? The rest of the world knows a lot more about America than America knows about the rest of the world. I'm not saying that as a slight against Americans, it is because US media is more available to us lot than our media is available to your lot.

"To the rest of the world, George Bush IS America. He is the President of the United States"

Rubbish. People arn't stupid. They can tell the difference between parties and politicians and I am unaware of anyone in a developed, democratic nation that cannot distinguish between a state and its present govermment.