Not spreading freedom

Our flag stands for freedom, a principle we want to spread throughout the world. And in every Muslim nation, there are many who yearn for freedom — freedom to dress as they please, speak their mind, read what they want and marry whom they wish. Yet as Americans, we have seriously betrayed these Muslims’ hopes for freedom.

Inadvertently but predictably, we have strengthened the hands of the most backward, belligerent and oppressive segments of Islam. They have been organized and motivated by resistance to our invasion and occupation of Muslim countries.

While President Bush claims to be spreading freedom, America actually is galvanizing oppressors, even in a democracy like Turkey, where radical factions now are gaining strength and demanding strict Islamic law.

Inadvertently but predictably, our actions have shamed our flag and the most important principle for which it stands — freedom.

Sorry, Old Glory.

Fred Slough
Kansas City

Comments

[irishguy]

Yes, CRD, according to our friend armi, the world would be a much better place to day had Bill Clinton:

1. Balanced the budget.

2. Reduced unemployment.

3. Reduced poverty.

4. Presided over the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history.

5. Reduced the abortion rate.

6. Reduced the violent crime rate.

7. Brought peace to Northern Ireland.

8. Brought peace to Bosnia.

9. Deposed Slobodan Milosevic.

10. Contained Saddam Hussein.

11. Advanced Middle East peace.

OOPS! He did all that!

Matter of fact, he left the country in pretty doggone good shape. Much better shape than it's in now.

[irishguy]

Think back to those glorious years of 1998 and 1999 when Clinton did take action against al Qaeda.

What was your reaction, armi?

Was it, "Wag the dog"? Or was it "He bombed an aspirin factory"?

Or was it, in the true spirit of you ideologues with terrible memories of your own inconsistences, BOTH!!

How typically dishonest of you to criticize him when he does take action, and when, instead of starting a war and handing it off to Bush, he took the more prudent course.

Damned if he did, damned if he didn't. That's the way it works, armi? Maybe in the work of the 30 percent or so who still think Bush is doing just a dandy job.

[CRD]

Like I said, in the world according to Armi, each and every event since Bush took office can be blamed on Clinton.

And in the world according to Garp, we're all terminal cases.

[Arminius]

irishguy:

"By the way, armi, Sandy Berger indeed did brief Condi Rice and her staff in detail about what actions they were taking against al Qaeda and the plans for further action."

I assume that was a very short briefing since the Clinton administration took no action against al Qaeda after the bombing of the USS Cole even though they had more than three months to do so.

In any case, karennkc claimed that the Clinton administration turned over the detail polan to the Bush administration. That is a falsehood.

"Finally, on Dec. 20, the Joint Chiefs produced a WAR PLAN calling for an invasion of Afghanistan and military strikes against al Qaeda targets."

This is another falsehood. That so-called plan did not call for an invasion of Afghanistan. In any case, it was never implemented by the Clinton administration.

"No, Berger did not give Rice the WAR PLAN. But he briefed her about it, told her the Joint Chiefs had it, and they never bothered to ask the Joint Chiefs about it until AFTER 9/11."

That is yet another falsehood.

Face it. If the Clinton administration had a brilliant plan to go after al Qaeda, they would have used it in 1998 or 1999.

[Arminius]

irishguy:

"Your apology is accepted. Now sit down and be quiet like the good little boy we know you are."

There was no skewing of the facts there. The Star did not complain about the traffic snarls during Clinton's 1999visit. Check the archives.

[irishguy]

By the way, armi, Sandy Berger indeed did brief Condi Rice and her staff in detail about what actions they were taking against al Qaeda and the plans for further action.

What he testified before the 9/11 Commission was that he didn't turn over a detailed WAR PLAN that the Clinton Administration had been pressing the Pentagon for months, well in advance of the Cole bombing.

Clinton wanted a "boots on the ground" plan involving Delta Force to invade the al Qaeda camp where bin Laden was hiding and kill him. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Shelton drug his heels on that, warning the Clinton people that it would be extremely difficult to pull off.

Finally, on Dec. 20, the Joint Chiefs produced a WAR PLAN calling for an invasion of Afghanistan and military strikes against al Qaeda targets. It was one of 13 different alternatives for action that they presented to the Clinton Administration.

The Clinton people decided to take no action on the WAR PLAN because they would, in effect, be starting a war then handing it over the Bush Administration in a month.

No, Berger did not give Rice the WAR PLAN. But he briefed her about it, told her the Joint Chiefs had it, and they never bothered to ask the Joint Chiefs about it until AFTER 9/11.

[irishguy]

Just one Armi?

How about the most ridiculous? The one that exposed you pretty much as a laughingstock?

I am, of course, referring to your defense of Bush's crosstown, morning rush hour, traffic-snarling biscuit run by saying, to the effect: "But Clinton spoke at the VFW Convention and you didn't complain then!"

Your apology is accepted. Now sit down and be quiet like the good little boy we know you are.

[Arminius]

CRD:

"I simply direct the reader to almost any of your reality-challenged posts. :-)"

Since you made the charge that all my posts skew the facts, I think you're obligated to cite at least one example.

You've gone from saying you would have to cite all of my posts to now saying :almost any" of my posts. Perhaps we'll evenutally get you to admit that none of my posts skews the facts, which would be the case.

[CRD]

I simply direct the reader to almost any of your reality-challenged posts. :-)

[Arminius]

CRD:

"[laughing] You're unbelievable, man! :-) I do admire your reserves of energy, delusional as they may be."

Only only digging a deeper hole for yourself. You made a claim that you obcviously cannot substantiate.

[CRD]

[laughing] You're unbelievable, man! :-) I do admire your reserves of energy, delusional as they may be.

[Arminius]

CRD:

"We'd have to cite every one of your moonbat postings, Armi."

No, you wouldn't. I asked you to cite just one. Your inability to do so tells us all we need to know.

[CRD]

Nah, he just thinks he can needle me. ;-) It is kind of amusing to watch.

[solomon]

Liked that one huh, GCYL?

Just coined it this morning.

[solomon]

irishguy,

I do agree though that I was drawn in by her male hatred and blanket contempt. I respect women but she's a tough one to converse with and keep a civil tongue. Hopefully my last acknowledgement of her.

[GCYL]

“He's best ignored -- or egged on. It drives him nuts when people poke holes in his unreality. ;-)” -CRD

[Laughing]

Another case of the pot calling the kettle a cooking utensil.

[solomon]

iriishguy,

Considering the spats I've witnessed you take part in on this blog your post right now is a prime case of the pot calling the kettle a cooking untensil.

[CRD]

We'd have to cite every one of your moonbat postings, Armi.

[Arminius]

irishguy:

"One example, armi? You are practically incapable of offering a defense of Bush policy without including the word "Clinton.""

Well, duh. If karennkc claimed that the Clinton administration gave Bush a detailed plan on how to go after al Qaeda, how do I respond without including the word "Clinton"?

The fact is there was no such plan, and Sandy Berger admitted this before the 9/11 Commission.

You moonbats simply cannot cite an example of me skewing history.

[irishguy]

Solomon, could you and Karen please knock it off and stay on topic? You've pretty much made this thread a waste of bandwidth.