Ripping into a Robotic Lapdog, just for Snooper!!!

I have often said that Democrats are the party of one brain, separately they simply cannot think for themselves and encourage the concept of simply repeating each others arguments, even when those arguments have been debunked, proven as lies and shown to be simple rhetoric.

The reason they can do this, is because their followerers allow it.

Yes, it is that simple.

Their followers, especially the far far left liberal Democrats will keep repeating tired old lines whether they are true or not, simply because they understand that it is not logic that rules their party, but it comes down to, whoever screams the loudest, gets heard and repeated.

Thanks to Snooper over at Take Our Country Back and his new blog Freedom Ain't Free because he emailed me to show me this idiocy and asked me to post about it. (This one is for you Snooper)

With that said, I strongly urge every democrat to follow the advice of the Our Karl Rove blog, it will make it all that much more simple for conservatives to kick ass in 2008.

Now, lets break down this stupidity point by point.

(Everything in RED is from the Our Karl Rove site)

From Our Karl Rove Blog:

Democrats,

First, let's get on the same page:

* This administration (and most Republicans -- especially those running for office) will only see the recent terror plot at JFK airport as a partisan political opportunity. Before accusing me of being cynical, remember that this administration simply believes that politics is its business. Governing is for others. If this doesn't immediately ring true, feel free to flip through any speech the Bush administration has made about Iraq, and think back about how we got into Iraq in the first place.

I would agree here 100%, but not for the reasons this fool is thinking. I would encourage strongly that we DO remember how we got into Iraq.

Taking Bush out of the equation, let us just look at the Democrats own comments about Saddam Hussein and Iraq before Bush even became President, which I showed in full in a post back in February called "Democratic lies vs Realty":

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb. 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D,CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Perhaps the "genius" over at Our Karl Rove didn't really want you to look tooooooooo closely at how we "got into Iraq in the first place", after all.

He should have heeded the old saying "watch what you wish for, you might just get it".

Now, how about what the DEMOCRATS had to say after Bush was elected President and before we took Iraq:

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue at a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec . 5, 2001

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27,2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10,2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23. 2003

Well , well, well.... The lies being told today are being told by politicians that hope we are forgetful and too stupid to look the "facts" up for ourselves huh?

The last few paragraphs from that previous post ask two questions:

Hillary's words are especially telling:

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10,2002

Gave aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qaeda.

This brings us to yet another huge lie we continue to hear from the left.

The lie? That WMD's were the only reason we invaded Iraq.

The reality?

Bush gave a nationally televised speech at 8:30 p.m. [CNN, 9/12/01, White House, 9/11/01], speaking for about five minutes. [US News, 9/14/01] In what would later be called the Bush Doctrine, he stated, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” [Washington Post, 1/27/02]

As Hillary pointed out in October of 2002, Saddam Hussein did, indeed sponsor terror by giving aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists and in her own words, to al-Qeada terrorists.

One has to wonder a couple of things here.

Do the Democratic politicians think their base is soooo stupid that they will allow them to lie and try to rewrite history?

The second question is, are they right in assuming that?

Our Karl Rove Blog just answered and gave us proof that, yes, the Democratic politicians ARE right in assuming that.

We already showed you above what Hillary Clinton had to say about Saddam Hussein sponsoring terrorism, so now lets show you what John Kerry had to say in 1997 (for those that are unable to add or remember dates, this was before Bush was elected as President).

This was originally showed to you in a Trip Down Memory Lane in February:

Now, during the past 2 weeks, Saddam again has raised his obstinately uncooperative profile. We all know of his announcement that he will no longer permit United States citizens to participate in the U.N. inspection team searching Iraq for violations of the U.N. requirement that Iraq not build or store weapons of mass destruction. And he has made good on his announcement. The UNSCOM inspection team, that is, the United Nations Special Commission team, has been refused access to its inspection targets throughout the week and once again today because it has Americans as team members. While it is not certain, it is not unreasonable to assume that Saddam's action may have been precipitated by the fear that the U.N. inspectors were getting uncomfortably close to discovering some caches of reprehensible weapons of mass destruction, or facilities to manufacture them, that many have long feared he is doing everything in his power to build, hide, and hoard.

[...]

We should all be encouraged by the reactions of many of our allies, who are evincing the same objections to Iraq's course that are prevalent here in the United States. There is an inescapable reality that, after all of the effort of recent years, Saddam Hussein remains the international outlaw he was when he invaded Kuwait. For most of a decade he has set himself outside international law, and he has sought to avoid the efforts of the international community to insist that his nation comport itself with reasonable standards of behavior and, specifically, not equip itself with implements of mass destruction which it has shown the willingness to use in previous conflicts.

Plainly and simply, Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to get away with his antics, or with this latest excuse for avoidance of international responsibility.

[...]

We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent--and that the United States should support and participate in those steps.

The suspended reconnaissance flights should be resumed beginning tomorrow, and it is my understanding they will be. Should Saddam be so foolish as to take any action intended to endanger those aircraft or interrupt their mission, then we should, and I am confident we will, be prepared to take the necessary actions to either eliminate that threat before it can be realized, or take actions of retribution.

When it meets tomorrow to receive the negotiators' report and to determine its future course of action, it is vital that the Security Council treat this situation as seriously as it warrants.

In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior.

This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out.

Of course, Mr. President, the greatest care must be taken to reduce collateral damage to the maximum extent possible, despite the fact that Saddam Hussein cynically and cold-heartedly has made that a difficult challenge by ringing most high-value military targets with civilians.

As the Security Council confronts this, I believe it is important for it to keep prominently in mind the main objective we all should have, which is maintaining an effective, thorough, competent inspection process that will locate and unveil any covert prohibited weapons activity underway in Iraq. If an inspection process acceptable to the United States and the rest of the Security Council can be rapidly reinstituted, it might be possible to vitiate military action.

Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted--which I hope will not occur and which I am pleased to say at this moment does not seem to have even begun--the United States must not lose its resolve to take action. But I think there is strong reason to believe that the multilateral resolve will persist.

Read the WHOLE speech John Kerry gave because it is a great example of what was believed before Bush ever took office, as well as the intelligence that was handed down to Bush from the Clinton administration.

I am not blaming Clinton for anything here. I am pointing out that Bush inherited a problem, just as Clinton did, as well as intelligence, that showed the connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

The next point he makes is this:

Using this foiled terrorist plot as a political tool, this administration (and most Republicans) will look to take some kind of credit for intercepting the plan. "Staying tough," "Not backing down," and "Continuing to be on the offense" are the most likely memes that will be transmitted by all who support the so-called "Bush Doctrine."

He actually just does exactly what he accuses the Republicans of possibly doing. Using the JFK plot as a political tool.

Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot!!!!

For the record, "Staying Tough", "Continuing to be on the offensive" and "Not backing down" is exactly the reason we foiled the JFK plot as well as exactly the reason the UK foiled the plot involving planes and flights from there to the US, as well as a number of other attempts to cause this country damage.

Without any of those catchy phrases, backed up by action, Our Karl Rove mentions, any one of those plots would have not been detected and would have gone off without a hitch as the 9/11 attacks did.

This next paragraph made me laugh so loud and so hard I had to go have a smoke before I could respond and you will see why.

This is a critical time (and a political opportunity) for Democrats to convey a clear, strong message that this event is yet another indication that the Bush Doctrine is failing.

So, in what passes as this mans mind, foiling the plot shows the Bush Doctrine is failing?

ummmmmmmmmmm, so what would it have been called had the plot not been foiled and they actually DID blow the gas lines under JFK?

Success for the Bush Doctrine?

Ok, laughing again now...

I think I have the "giggggles" under control now, so lets continue before I start again.

Next this brilliant Democrats gives us some scenerios with his suggestions as to how to respond in said scenarios and any democrat reading this....PLEASE, PLEEEEEEEAAASSSEEEE, take his advice and do it, I am begging you!!!!!

From Our Karl Rove:

Let's get right into the immediate if/then scenarios:

1. If this administration has the inclination and gall to somehow tie the busting up of the JFK airport plot to "staying tough" on the Iraq War, then here is a strategic response:

"Stopping terrorist plots is the most critical job for the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and local law enforcement agencies. They are all to be commended for their leadership in undermining this terrifying plot. This demonstrates how critical it is to our national security that these agencies are well-managed.

However, it is the job of our President to reduce or eliminate terrorism. This means, it its simplest terms, that we need to start playing offense, not only defense.

In the business of terrorism, defense means breaking up existing plots. Contrary to this administration's belief, "offense" does not mean taking over Iraq. No, playing offense means making sure there aren't terrorist plots in the first place. Our foreign policies need to focus on the elimination of violent hatred towards America so terrorist plots are not planned in the first place."

There is so much, so wrong in these three paragraphs, I almost do not know where to start, so I will start with the first one:

"Stopping terrorist plots is the most critical job for the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and local law enforcement agencies. They are all to be commended for their leadership in undermining this terrifying plot. This demonstrates how critical it is to our national security that these agencies are well-managed.

Critical job for the Department of Homeland Security, yes, the agency that BUSH set up.

From Wiki:

On September 20, 2001, in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks, President George W. Bush announced the establishment of an Office of Homeland Security (OHS) to coordinate "homeland security" efforts, to be headed by Governor Tom Ridge with the title of Assistant to the President for Homeland Security. The name is reminiscent of the British WW2-era Department of Home Security. The official announcement stated:

The mission of the Office will be to develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks. The Office will coordinate the executive branch's efforts to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks within the United States.

Former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge took up his duties as OHS director on October 8, 2001.

So, he commends the DHS, FBI and local authorities for their "leadership", neglecting to tell his readers that it was Bush that gave them the tools to be able to do this job.

FBI and local law enforcement agencies which BUSH tore down the walls that prevented them from communicating so that they could do their jobs

NEXT two paragraphs:

However, it is the job of our President to reduce or eliminate terrorism. This means, it its simplest terms, that we need to start playing offense, not only defense.

In the business of terrorism, defense means breaking up existing plots. Contrary to this administration's belief, "offense" does not mean taking over Iraq. No, playing offense means making sure there aren't terrorist plots in the first place. Our foreign policies need to focus on the elimination of violent hatred towards America so terrorist plots are not planned in the first place."

Heh, this is as easy as taking candy from a baby.

Contrary to this persons belief, offense does indeed mean going after states that sponsor terrorism and as we showed you above, the Clinton administration already provided ample proof that Saddam Hussein in Iraq, was, indeed sponsoring terrorism.

From a piece I wrote in December of 2006, called "Lies from the Left" we showed you some of the documentation of Saddam "sponsoring terror":

There is plenty of proof showing Saddam Hussein and Iraq did indeed "harbor" and "support" terrorism, and further "proof" that he also aided members of al-Qaeda. These are called facts, provable fact, those pesky little things members on the left hate. (Hat Tip to Gateway Pundit for the link)

Those same members on the left, when faced with the actual proof, would rather act like children, put there fingers in their ears and sing la la la la la la la, so as to not have to admit those facts are there. Well they are there and denying it simply makes you look foolish and uneducated.

Have they found WMD's in Iraq yet? NO. Have they searched more than 10% of the suspected sites yet? NO. Has this administration made mistakes in Iraq? YES. Does that negate the facts that Saddam Hussein was a monster and provided aid, money, medical attention and sponsored terror. NO.

Below I will list excerpts from the page linked to above.

Let’s start with money. At a minimum, we know that Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government’s underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.

“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported the next day.

The linked page above also has pictures of those checks to pay for the "terrorism".

"Nations that harbor or support terrorism". Iraq continually provided safe harbor for terrorists.

Beyond cash and diplomatic help, Saddam Hussein was the Conrad Hilton of the terrorist world. He provided a place for terrorists to kick back, relax, and reflect after killing people for a living.

After escaping Italian police in October 1985 following the Achille Lauro hijacking (thanks to his Iraqi diplomatic passport), Abu Abbas finally ended up in Baghdad in 1994, where he lived comfortably as one of Saddam Hussein’s guests. U.S. soldiers caught Abbas in Iraq in April 2003. This time, he did not get away. He died last March 9, in American custody, reportedly of natural causes.

Abbas' Baghdad sojourn was not an isolated incident. Saddam Hussein granted avowed international terrorists refuge in Baathist Iraq. Terror mastermind Abu Nidal also enjoyed his hospitality.

Nidal lived comfortably in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002. As the Associated Press reported on August 21, 2002, Nidal’s Beirut office said he entered Iraq “with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.” 13 Prior to his relocation, he ran the eponymous Abu Nidal Organization — a Palestinian terror network behind attacks in 20 countries, at least 407 confirmed murders, and some 788 other terror-related injuries. Among other savage acts, Nidal’s group used guns and grenades to attack a ticket counter at Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci airport on December 27, 1985. Another cell in Austria simultaneously assaulted Vienna’s airport, killing 19 people.

Among the five Americans that Abu Nidal murdered that day was John Buonocore III, a 20-year-old Fairleigh Dickinson College student who had studied in Rome that fall semester. Buonocore was shot in the back while checking in for his flight home. He had hoped to return to Wilmington, Delaware to help his father celebrate his 50th birthday.

We then move on to debunk the lefts outright lies or lack of eduaction with the question:

But is there any evidence that Iraq sheltered those responsible for attacks on America? SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO glad you asked!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Enter Abdul Rahman Yasin, pictured below in a U.S. State Department "Wanted" poster.

This Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared terrorist remains wanted by the FBI for his role in the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center attack. President Bill Clinton's Justice Department indicted Yasin for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded in the parking garage beneath the Twin Towers, killing six and injuring 1,042 people in New York.

Soon after the smoke cleared, Yasin returned to Iraq. Coalition forces have discovered documents that show he enjoyed housing and a monthly government salary.

The site I linked to above also goes on to show further proof, showing how Abu Musab al Zarqawi ran to Iraq and received medical attention, then again we already know, as facts, that Abu Musab al Zarqawi was there.....it is where we killed him.

For many more examples of Saddam's sponsoring of terrorism, click here and follow all the links, the checks to suicide bombers families, the documentation, everything is there and it is soooo easy to find, yet people like Our Karl Rove Blog writer "Jon" is either too lazy to look or simply figures if he ignores it, his readers will too.

On to Jon's second scenario, even more amusing than the first:

2. If this administration has enough self control to not conflate Iraq with this terrorist plot, then you need the discipline and thought leadership to do exactly the opposite:

That one line proves everything we have said about Bush Derangement Syndrome.

It doesn't matter if Bush, Republicans and the administration are right or not, Democrats are being told that right or wrong, Democrats must disagree and take the opposite stance, National Security doesn't matter....OPPOSING the Administration is what matters.

Next.

We simply cannot afford to continue to play defense with people trying to destroy American cities and lives. We need a new foreign policy that is focused on eliminating people's violent hatred of America so that they no longer want to hatch horrible plots against us. We simply cannot expect that people from foreign lands will want what's best for America if we continue to appear violent and dangerously militant while having the most powerful armed forces in the world.

Like everyone else, I am so relieved that our federal, state, and local agencies were able to work together to stop this terrorist plot. But there will be more. Make no mistake, it is our President's responsibility to stop people from plotting against us... and not just run interceptions."

VERY very amusing here since it is the far left liberal democrats that do everything in their power to prevent the president from doing exactly that very thing.

They oppose the Military Commissions act, they oppose the NSA program, they oppose every tool that out DHS, FBI and local law enforcement agencies need to protect America against these types of plots.

The Democratic politicians also encourange the enemies hatred of America by showing their own hatred of America as well as playing footsie with our enemies every chance they get, one quick example being Pelosi's lovefest with al-Assad in Syria as well as Baghdad Reids public declaration about the U.S. having lost in Iraq, while our troops are there winning every single battle they engage in, and they tell us this in their letters, emails, faxes, phone calls and blogs!!!!

They wish to tie Bush's hands and feet together, then ask him to accomplish the goal of running around the track.

HELLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO? Anyone home?

Consider this a Conservative public service announcement.

This one was for you Snooper!!!

.