May 31 2008

John Kerry Takes Liberal Denial To New Heights

John Kerry is the classic liberal in denial about Iraq. All of a sudden, with both war fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq going well, the liberal denials and finger pointing at the right are coming fast, furious and ludicrous. Kerry muttered what has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life regarding 9-11 (and I have read a lot of dumb things coming from the leftward fever swamps):

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) believes that on September 11 “we were basically at peace.”

Asked to clarify his remarks, specifically asking about the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole during Barack Obama campaign conference call, Kerry said, “well, we hadn’t declared war,” The Hill’s Sam Youngman reports.

Asked if al Qaeda was a threat at the time, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee said, “well yes, obviously they were a threat. But, fundamentally we were not at war at that point in time.”

Kerry also called John McCain “out of step with history and facts.”

Emphasis mine. What a liberal clown. The entire purpose of the comment is to show Bush and the GOP as warmongers (clearly the latest rounds of talking points given what the liberal posters here have said, what Nancy Pelosi coughed up about Iran being the force for good in Iraq, etc).

No Johnny-boy, America had not yet declared war even though al-Qaeda had openly during Clinton’s terms. And that declaration made a lot of sense given the attacks on the US during Clinton’s term (like the first WTC bombing, the bombing of two of our embassies, the bombing of the USS Cole). Clinton tried to pretend to America there was no threat, there was no war with Islamo Fascists. He had his lawyers out trying to use legal actions against Bin Laden and his gang because he did not want to give the impression there was a clear and present danger. He hesitated to use military force when any people were around (sending cruise missiles to hit empty aspirin factory, empty training camp, etc). He followed the liberal path to defense, take the hit and hope they don’t hit again.

Kerry is trying to do what the left must do right now, but won’t be able to pull off without snickers galore. They must claim there was no reason to go to war in the first place, because now that we are winning the wars that is the last bastion of power mad cowards who must try and steal credit from President Bush. Kerry said what liberals think perfectly, and it would be rolling-on-the-ground hilarious if it wasn’t so dangerous naive. The liberals were always going to be the first to fold and run in a long fight. They did, they folded two years after 9-11 while the bombings were still going off in Europe and elsewhere, while massive plots to destroy 12 planes full of people over the US were being executed. All this time they have been trying to surrender to al-Qaeda – and failed.

The only ones who have been defeated are the liberals and the Islamo Fascists. Which is good for America all around, as I see it.

The Democrats have a well earned and proven deficiency on National Defense. They deserve every derisive comment about their willingness and ability to protect the people of this country. Going this deep into denial, because they went so deep into predicting an American defeat, is dangerous. As far as Kerry is concerned all was well on 9-11 – until 3,000 people died of course.

22 responses so far

22 Responses to “John Kerry Takes Liberal Denial To New Heights”

  1. gwood says:

    Now we have the admission from Norm that it is an “upside” that Saddam is gone, to add to his statement that Iraq has achieved a “semblance of security”. I think there’s hope for Norm, many liberals will never concede either.

    I will not argue that the removal of Saddam has somehow made Iran weaker, but the specter of the presence of a functioning democracy cannot possibly be a good thing for the theocratic regime in Tehran. Iran surely has squandered its possibilities of being an ally of the new government in Iraq, by attempting to prevent it from forming. We’ll see what form the relationship between Iraq and the US will take, but how could it be worse than when Saddam was in power?

    Israel will become decidedly less safe when and if the Great Satan leaves the Middle East, until then, I wouldn’t look for Iran or anyone else to try something stupid, even Hillary said she’d hit back.

  2. VinceP1974 says:

    All we need to do is look at Israel’s pull-out of terrority to come up with an idea what might happen if we were to leave.

    Israel left it’s Lebanon occupation zone in 2000 unilaterally. It did so without defeating Hezbellah. It did so because the govt caved into the war-wariness of the Israeli left.

    Israel left Gaza in 2005. It did so without defeating Hamas or the PLO. It did so because they were sick of being occupiers and they thought that by giving the Arabs all of gaza that they woudl see it as a goodwill gesture.

    Well.. they were stupid. Hezeballah claimed it had won the war with Israel (i’m talking about in 2000). They came to the conclusion that the military was not invincible and that if they cause just enough misery, the Israelis will fold.

    This laid teh framework for hezballah to turn South lebanon into a giant missle silo.

    In Gaza, Hamas also concluded that it had driven Israel out and that it had won. It concluded what Hezbellah did.. that if you cause enough problems, you will get Israel to surrender.

    And this the Democrat plan. They want us to just get up and go because of a few car bombs.

    Their wreckless ignorance is appalling.