The left is abetting America's enemies

The Bush Left is selling arms to our Saudi enemies.

 

Our troops wore out their welcome in Viet Nam we were not wanted and so the fate of those who suffered was their own responsibility. This also holds true for Iraq as they show no willingness to hold on to the democracy that they have been given. Bush has done better in Iraq since Rumsfield has been gone but it may be a case of too little too late. Americans have lost trust in their President but lets put the blame where it truely belongs ----Bush and his pals.

 

Mr

The right abetted America's enemies by impeaching President Clinton for cheating on his wife.

 

If we had a conservative governing the country, the premise of the thread would be valid. Since we do not, its the same as saying Bush is abetting the enemy.

 

I'm just a bit confused here. Hillclimber 1 wants to supress criticism of the President because it is a communist plot to undermine the government.

But, isn't it the communists who advance their cause by suppressing criticism of the government?

These people who get upset because people exercise their constitutional right to free speech in criticizing a president who has been one of the most inept, incompetent individuals to ever occupy the office need to record their words and listen to how they sound. Compare them to some of the things that Josef Goebbels said and wrote during the Nazi era. Remember that? They supressed criticism of their leader, too.

 

That is a very excellent post. What should outrage each and every Christian is that this President ran on the false notion that he was conservative, able to govern, cared for the American people, and quite frankly, would stand up for Christian ideals. Never again will I vote for a Bush type candidate.

 

Excellent post Jack. I have long maintained that a patriot doesn't give unquestioning loyalty to a government; rather he/she always looks at the actions of government with a skeptical eye, guarding our precious liberty.

 

More historical revisionism I see. He was impeached and disbarred for perjury and obstruction of Justice. And this investigation was approved by Janet Reno. Nothing right about her.

 

This is an intentional mischaracterization. the issue isn't criticism. But how and when it happens. Our freedom to openly criticize the government officials should be balanced by how it might embolden the enemies. Anything else is irresponsible at best.

 

Sorry, but I'll side with irresponsible freedom over responsible censorship when the risk is a vague threat of "emboldenment" being propagated by supporters of the very people being criticized.

 

Nothing vague about it and it is sure to happen when done in an irresponsible way.

 

Right. And because you happen to support the very sort of men and policies being criticism, I'm about to take your word for it.

 

That is incorrect. You are making assumptions you have no evidence for.

 

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

 

And that restriction on freedom of speech is found where in the U.S. constitution?

 

I've not seen any posts that indicated such.

 

Which is worse I wonder...the left abetting them or the right recruiting, organizing, funding and arming them? Yeah, I know the left has funded and armed it's share of America's enemies (Clinton, Al Qeada, Kosovo) in the past too. But I imagine you were probably one of the people complaining the loudest about it then right? But now that it's "your side" doing it, it's either all cool now or you don't want to talk about it at all. Right?

Ever wonder where Al Qeada and the Taliban...America's "enemies" came from in the first place? The CIA helped recruit, organize, train and arm Al Qeada which was the name of the CIA database of foreign Arab "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. The Taliban is the creation of a joint effort between the CIA and the Pakistani ISI. So I ask you again which is worse...abetting them or funding and arming them?

Still can't make up your mind which is worse? How about a mini history lesson? That might help...(or better yet CLICK HERE and HERE for the big history lesson)

Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Azzam ran Maktab Khadamat al-Mujahidin al-Arab, the recruiting arm of the CIA-ISI operation against the Soviets in Afghanistan, responsible for organizing 35,000 Muslim radicals from 43 Islamic countries in the Middle East, North and East Africa, Central Asia and the Far East, as veteran Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid has noted. “Even conventional sources regard Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) as a CIA and ISI front organization. Moreover, MAK served as the offices of the World Muslim League and the Muslim Brotherhood in the northern Pakistan city of Peshawar,” I wrote in January, 2006. As I have explained elsewhere, Azzam’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood is significant:

Azzam’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood is a significant factor, considering the Muslim organization was long ago penetrated and made to jump through hoops for the sake of MI6 and later the CIA. “According to CIA agent Miles Copeland, the Americans began looking for a Muslim Billy Graham around 1955,” writes the Palestinian-born journalist and author Said K. Aburish. “When finding or creating a Muslim Billy Graham proved elusive, the CIA began to cooperate with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim mass organization founded in Egypt but with followers throughout the Arab Middle East.” In 1957, the CIA and MI6 collaborated to use the Muslim Brotherhood in an effort to destabilize Syria and assassinate its nationalist leaders (see Jean Shaoul, CIA-MI6 planned to assassinate Syrian leaders in 1957), a plan following the successful CIA-instigated overthrow of the popular and democratically elected Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh by a few years.
​

Azzam was simply one of a number of CIA-ISI operatives and patsies:

As is often the case with useful but ultimately disposable Muslim fanatics, Sheikh Abdullah Azzam was assassinated on November 24, 1989 and Osama bin Laden took his place. Indeed… “al-Qaeda” may be considered an outgrowth of MAK—or more precisely, an heir apparent as engineered by the CIA, ISI, and Saudi intelligence. MAK had served its purpose as a recruiter and proselytizer of Wahhabi fanaticism in Afghanistan and after the Soviets were ejected the services of Azzam were no longer required (and he was likely considered a danger to the next phase—the spawning and unleashing of “al-Qaeda” in the Balkans and Chechnya.) <--(Clinton, Kosovo)
​

“MAK was a front for Pakistan’s CIA, the Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate. The ISI was the first recipient of the vast bulk of CIA and Saudi Arabian covert assistance for the Afghan contras. Bin Laden was one of three people who ran MAK. In 1989, he took overall charge of MAK,” writes Norm Dixon, an indisputable fact admitted by MSNBC in August, 1998, before everything changed, including history as recited by neocons. Hekmatyar, closely associated with bin Laden and Azzam, according to Asia Times, was “an ISI stooge and creation” (see above link).

SOURCE

The last word goes to Zbigniew Brzezinski: “What was more important in the world view of history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few stirred up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”

SOURCE

Most of ya probably don't want to know this kinda stuff anyways so I'll let y'all get back to blaming the lefties for abetting our government's creations. Toodles. :wavey:

 

Thank you for the clarification. :thumbs: