DNC official: GOP siding with terrorists

Actually the democrats are siding with the terrorists because they do not want to defeat them in Afghanistan.

 

Actually both parties need the terrorists. It would be much more difficult for them to subvert the constitution, grab up and centralize power, treat us all like criminals, put military troops in the streets to police civilians, crack down on dissent and free speech, have a military doctrine of "premption" and keep pouring billions into the pockets of the elite who own and control the arms trade and mass media.

There is no motivation to stop terrorism because it serves the purposes of the combined political, financial, and military elite in both parties too well. But they all talk a good game don't they?

 

Only those terrorists conjured by by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield to keep the country in a continual state of fear have been rejected. There are real terrorists in the world but not in that category,

-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com...arance-of-osama-bin-laden-by-gary-sudborough/


After the attacks on the twin towers on 9-11, former President George W. Bush proclaimed in the jargon of the old west that Osama bin Laden was wanted: “Dead or Alive.” George W. Bush claimed that he was going to smoke him out of his cave, as if this whole sophisticated operation had been planned and coordinated from a cave in Afghanistan. Then, came the war against Afghanistan, ostensibly because the Taliban were protecting Osama bin Laden, and there was no other way to capture or kill him.

After a period of time, former President George W. Bush was asked a question at a news conference about the progress in capturing Osama bin Laden. His response was: “I really don’t give it much thought.” Now this is a radical departure in thinking from “Wanted- Dead or Alive” to “I really don’t give it much thought.” It indicates that the real purpose of invading Afghanistan had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. How hard can it be to capture a man who needs kidney dialysis and would need to move from cave to cave with all his equipment at high altitude?

There is a controversy about whether Osama bin Laden is alive or dead. Newspapers like the Pakistan Observer and the Sydney Morning Herald have proclaimed him dead as early as 2001. The French Secret Service believes him to be dead, and Benazir Bhutto on David Frost’s program, shortly before her own assassination, claimed a man named Omar Sheikh had murdered Osama bin Laden.

American spy satellites have astounding magnification and resolution and they are trained all along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. For Osama bin Laden to remain alive it seems he would have to go to even more remote areas like the Himalayan mountains and that would be even harder on his health. Then, there remains the question of whether the US is interested in capturing him at all, considering his value in inspiring fear in the American people. There was the claim that he was in a cave in Tora Bora in 2001 and they surrounded only three sides of the cave complex, and they allowed him to escape. It seems very stupid, unless that was their intention.
=====================================================

If bin Laden had died in Dec. 2001 as many researchers believe, would George Bush have been reelected in 2004? It would have been a real challenge even for his vote fraud operation.

 

The American Right shows its true allegiance

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1009/DNC_official_GOP_siding_with_terrorists.html


DNC official: GOP siding with terrorists

A top Democratic National Committee official reacted furiously to a statement from Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele mocking -- and describing as "unfortunate" -- President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.

"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. "Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party.

"The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim," Woodhouse said.

 

I am no fan of the GOP, but to equate dismay at the president's choice as Nobel Peace Prize winner with terrorism is the ultimate absurdity.

Liberals all across Europe are also dismayed, so why not equate the GOP with them?

 

It appears both mods are away at the moment. I merged the two threads on the same topic.

 

Equating the RNC as aligning with terrorists is a huge stretch. However, because of their voiced opposition to Obama receiving the NPP will be seen by many as sour grapes. Surely it will not win them many if any friends. But I suppose they have to keep singing to their choir to keep them happy. I simply write it off as politics as usual for the RNC.

 

Equating the RNC as aligning with terrorists is much more than simply a "huge stretch" - but I suppose they have to keep singing to their choir to keep them happy. I simply write it off as politics as usual for the DNC.

 

only alatide would come on here and defend such an ugly, ridiculous statement.

Of course, when you think George Bush knocked down the WTC on 9/11...how much lower can you go? It's been said many times...alatide, when someone hates an individual as much as you hate GWB, it's not healthy, it's sinful, and it ruins your testimony. Get a grip. Your hatred is an affront to God...if that kind of thing bothers you.

 

Believe it or not, I agree with your last half. The RNC should just keep their mouths shut on this one...nothing is gained by complaining. We all know this was a, "Here's your prize for not being George W. Bush." It had nothing to do with Obama's acheivements (none).

But the first half of your statement is inaccurate. "Huge Stretch?" Try "disgusting, hateful, ridiculous," and more. The DNC shoudl be ashamed of itself for such a statement. Compare the statements, and tell me who was more out of bounds:

The DNC: Republicans are like the murderous, evil, dangerous Taliban, who kill innocent mothers and celebrate it.

The RNC: Obama shoudn't have won the award. He didn't deserve it.



When you put it like that (plain), it's pretty obvious who is more deficient in character.

 

How about this:

democrats are like the murderous, evil, dangerous Taliban and Al-Qaeda. They slaughter innocent unborn babies and celebrate it.

Republicans oppose the slaughter of unborn children.

When you put it like that (plain), it's pretty obvious who is more deficient in character.

 

A totally idiotic statement.

 

I guess the DNC sided with the terrorists in their hatred of Bush ? Gotta play to the base, y'know. And it was Obama's buddy that bombed the Pentagon, just like the terrorists.

 

Not just like the terrorists... by bombing the Pentagon, Obama's buddy is a terrorist.