Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Original Sensible Seeds Shop: USA West Coast Strains

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
Hypocrites
    #2560414 -

The liberals who cried 'didn't do enough!'
Michelle Malkin (archive)


April 14, 2004 | Print | Send


The Bush-bashers who have relentlessly accused the president and his War on Terror team of acting like jack-booted bigots are now imperiously attacking them for acting like light-footed fumblers. This self-serving display of liberal hypocrisy has provided more idiotic entertainment than "The Nick & Jessica Variety Hour."

In an editorial this week that embodies the Left's unmitigated gall, the New York Times castigated President Bush for not doing enough after receiving an Aug. 6, 2001, briefing memo warning vaguely of bin Laden-planned domestic terrorism. According to the Times, Bush should have "rushed back to the White House, assembled all his top advisers and demanded to know what, in particular, was being done to screen airline passengers to make sure people who fit the airlines' threat profiles were being prevented from boarding American planes."

That's right. The same editorial board that has barbecued the Bush Justice Department after the Sept. 11 attacks for fingerprinting young male temporary visa holders traveling from terror-sponsoring and terror-friendly nations (editorial, June 6, 2002); temporarily detaining asylum seekers from high-risk countries for background screening (editorial, Dec. 28, 2002); and sending undercover agents to investigate mosques suspected of supporting terrorism (editorial, May 31, 2002) now expects us to believe it would have applauded Bush for his vigilance if he had swiftly ordered airport security officials to stop thousands of young Middle Eastern men at airports during the summer of 2001 on the basis of an ill-defined threat.

Rear-view mirror know-it-alls from Bob Kerrey to Maureen Dowd berate the Bush Justice Department for ignoring the "Phoenix memo" -- a prescient July 2001 warning about Arab flight students from Arizona-based FBI agent Kenneth Williams. The memo revealed that Arab terrorists had infiltrated Arizona civil aviation schools and urged the FBI to check on the backgrounds of flight students nationwide.

When the Phoenix memo surfaced two years ago, the Times characterized the FBI's failure to heed Williams' recommendation as "one indicator of the paralytic fear of risk-taking" at the bureau. But the Times smugly ignored the real problem that the racial grievance-mongering newspaper itself has contributed to: the fear of a politically correct backlash from civil liberties absolutists, ethnic lobbyists and open-borders activists. As one law enforcement official close to the Williams investigation told the Los Angeles Times, "If we went out and started canvassing, we'd get in trouble for targeting Arab Americans."

In addition to the Phoenix memo, Bush critics have resurrected Minnesota-based FBI agent Coleen Rowley's May 2002 memo complaining about legal barriers to searching terrorist suspect Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop and residence. The duplicity of civil rights absolutists attacking the FBI for upholding the probable cause standard in this case is simply stunning.

While they heap praise on Rowley for her post-Sept. 11 analysis, Richard Ben-Veniste, Jamie Gorelick, and the other finger-pointing blabbermouths on the 9-11 Commission refuse to credit the Bush administration for its use of immigration law to detain Moussaoui in mid-August 2001 (he had violated the terms of the Visa Waiver program). This unheralded enforcement decision before the terrorist attacks quite possibly saved thousands of lives. Transcripts of interrogations with al Qaeda's purported operations chief, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, released three weeks ago reveal that Moussaoui was training for a post-Sept. 11 suicide mission on the West Coast.

At the time Moussaoui was detained, the Justice Department had no evidence he had done anything illegal other than overstay his visit to the U.S., a transgression that is routinely pooh-poohed by liberals and other open-borders advocates as a "minor" or "technical" immigration violation that shouldn't be punished.

Unsurprisingly, when Attorney General John Ashcroft acted decisively to detain more than 1,200 potential Zacarias Moussaouis after Sept. 11 he was lambasted by Democrats, the ACLU, minority groups, and, yes, the New York Times editorial board, which attacked Ashcroft's "extreme measures" (Nov. 10, 2001) against illegal alien detainees who were merely "Muslim men with immigration problems" (Sept. 10, 2002).

Like the boy who cried "wolf," the liberals who cry that the Bush administration "didn't do enough" to fight terrorism should be dismissed as sniveling children stuck in an indulgent world of make-believe.


Link


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypocrites [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2560425 -

You're reaching, man. You're really reaching here.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypocrites [Re: silversoul7]
    #2560439 -

Open your eyes.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypocrites [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2560462 -

They're quite open. Are yours? Can you seriously not see the difference between chastizing Bush for not doing what was in his power(without resorting to fascism) to prevent 9/11 and its unnecessary restriction of people's rights post-9/11? Do you seriously not have the ability to look at a Town Hall or NewsMax article without thinking critically about it?


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypocrites [Re: silversoul7]
    #2560478 -

I have no trouble seeing what you obviously can't. Had the feds done as suggested....


was being done to screen airline passengers to make sure people who fit the airlines' threat profiles were being prevented from boarding American planes."

the howls from the likes of you and the ACLU would have been deafening.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypocrites [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2560835 -

luvdemshrooms said:
I have no trouble seeing what you obviously can't. Had the feds done as suggested....


was being done to screen airline passengers to make sure people who fit the airlines' threat profiles were being prevented from boarding American planes."

the howls from the likes of you and the ACLU would have been deafening.


indeed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypocrites [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2560951 -

Who cares what he did before: morons. Bush coddles Saudi's. Who cares about the rest of this shit:  people who aren't paying attention. If you're sheilding the Saud's your supporting terrorism. If your not getting on Bush's case to stomp some Saudi ass you is playing his game, not the game.  Bush missed his chance to do some rightous ass kicking and the US of A gets to play cuckold for 30 years.
OoH I can't go after the Saudi's they have their hand on my balls (pocketbook).

of course Bush might just plant democracy in Iraq  :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypocrites [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2563523 -

there's a difference between security checks at
the airport and sneeknpeek searches or suspension
of habeus corpus.

it's alll hindsight, but if they had provided the citizenry
with details regarding the impending plot, I doubt
anyone (less the ACLU) would have complained about
security checks at the airport.

didn't care before, overzealous after...

it's all repugnant.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypocrites [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2563706 -

The Bush-bashers who have relentlessly accused the president and his War on Terror team of acting like jack-booted bigots are now imperiously attacking them for acting like light-footed fumblers. This self-serving display of liberal hypocrisy has provided more idiotic entertainment than..."

That's enough of that shit.  :grin:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypocrites [Re: Xlea321]
    #2564345 -

I notice you only stick around when you can easily be disingenuous.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypocrites [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2565273 -

So prior to 9/11 Bush was no better than Clinton, or Bush Sr., or Reagan, or Carter, etc... as far as tealing with terrorism.

We spent how many times more money and resources fighting the drug war than terrorism in the last 20 years?

This doesn't mean that Bush doesn't suck, it just means that America is stupid. Everybody got a wakeup call on 9/11. Jack booted thuggery may not be the best, or only answer to the problem.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypocrites [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2565488 -

Quote:
Jack booted thuggery may not be the best, or only answer to the problem.


I don't advocate nor do I wish to see jack booted thuggery. I do wish to see more realistic treatment of the problem. Searching kids and old ladies should not be our first choice of action. Go after those whom are actually likely to cause problems.

And those assholes from the NY Times need to stop being hypocrites.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypocrites [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2565559 -

c'mon....if the ACLU jumps at anything it's
'going after those whom are actually likely
to cause problems'

pretty fucking retarded if you ask me.

racially profile the world!


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypocrites [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2565592 -

Quote:
So prior to 9/11 Bush was no better than Clinton, or Bush Sr., or Reagan, or Carter, etc... as far as tealing with terrorism.



Not according to Richard Clarke. But who's going to believe the nation's top anti-terrorism advisor?






--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: Wild Things- Another Colored Ink Drawing (A.C.I.D.)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypocrites [Re: Learyfan]
    #2565607 -

I might be a little more inclined to believe him if he weren't trying to cash in on his "story".

What exactly did he have to say about the Clinton admistration's efforts at thwarting the terrorism?

Was he Clinton's terrorism guy?


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Edited by Baby_Hitler (04/15/04 09:46 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypocrites [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2565625 -

He's not partisan dude. He worked for both Clinton and Bush Sr., and he said that they both did a good job with terrorism, but that Dubya didn't show any interest in it.






--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: Wild Things- Another Colored Ink Drawing (A.C.I.D.)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypocrites [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2565650 -

I don't blame bush for 9-11, but that article was stupid for not understanding the very simple idea that 'liberals' were saying bush did not do enough to fight terrorism before 9-11, then overreacted afterwards . whether or not the claim is unfounded (and i think it is), there is a difference between the two and therefore such claims are not contradictory.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypocrites [Re: Tao]
    #2566201 -

more apples and oranges from newsmax...


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypocrites [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2566383 -

Baby_Hitler asks:

Was he Clinton's terrorism guy?

Sure was. And he was mightily pissed when Clinton turned down Sudan's offers to hand over bin Laden several times. Oh, wait a minute... no he wasn't pissed at that.

What exactly did he have to say about the Clinton admistration's efforts at thwarting the terrorism?

A whole bunch of stuff in his book. But when he was asked by the 9/11 commission (Slade Gorton, to be precise) whether following Clinton's plan to the letter could in any way have stopped 9/11, he answered, "No."

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypocrites [Re: Phred]
    #2567623 -

Quote:
Sure was. And he was mightily pissed when Clinton turned down Sudan's offers to hand over bin Laden several times. Oh, wait a minute... no he wasn't pissed at that.


If I recall correctly, Sudan offered to turn him over to Saudi Arabia, not the US. Of course Saudi Arabia didn't want him, so he went to Afghanistan.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Original Sensible Seeds Shop: USA West Coast Strains

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Rice Faults Past Administrations on Terror PsiloKitten 379 0 10/31/03 05:03 PM
by PsiloKitten
* What Some Don't Get About Terrorism lonestar2004 765 5 07/12/05 02:02 PM
by Prosgeopax
* Clinton calls terror a U.S. debt to past
( 1 2 all )		 Ellis Dee 4,044 25 01/01/02 03:49 AM
by Ellis Dee
* The WAR of Terror Psilocybeingzz 585 0 11/11/03 01:47 AM
by Psilocybeingzz
* On Terrorism and the War Against it
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Ped 5,995 68 07/12/05 07:22 PM
by Los_Pepes
* Terrorism foiled in LA?
( 1 2 all )		 Redstorm 1,344 31 05/01/09 04:30 PM
by Redstorm
* "Iraq a new terror breeding ground" says CIA think tank Aldous 570 2 01/18/05 01:01 AM
by Gijith
* The War on Terror Is Not a Crime
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Luddite 4,481 67 04/30/08 02:45 AM
by johnm214

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,052 topic views. 0 members, 40 guests and 20 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.