|
« War on Iraq
Main |
December 08, 2003
Hillary gets it right, shock
Those who just can't figure out why Tony Blair should be on the same side as George W Bush over Iraq should read the remarks made by Hillary Clinton. As William Safire reports in the New York Times, she startled her conservative detractors (and doubtless anti-war democrats) by her hawkish stance on Iraq, saying more troops were needed there. But it is these remarks that should give our own appeaseniks pause: 'When Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" gave her the opening to say she had been misled when she voted for the Senate resolution authorizing war, Senator Clinton countered with a hard line: "There was certainly adequate intelligence without it being gilded and exaggerated by the administration to raise questions about chemical and biological programs and a continuing effort to obtain nuclear power." ..."I think that Saddam Hussein was certainly a potential threat" who "was seeking weapons of mass destruction, whether or not he actually had them." ' Bill Clinton has said pretty much the same thing, too. So why would the Clintons line up on this issue with their political enemy George? Smart politics on Hillary's part, without a doubt. But the overwhelming reason why Hillary, Bill and Tony always said and still say that Saddam posed a WMD threat of which the west could not wait for the physical proof is that it was true. Posted by melanie at December 8, 2003
Comments
C'mon... this is a no-brainer. She said this for the same reason that Bill once went before a dinner hosted by a Pro-Israeli lobby group and swore blind that while sure, he HAD dodged his nation's draft, but he would just lurve to go off and fight for Israel, if only he could. Israel, and its legion of loyal supporters (Jewish and Gentile alike) around the western world very much wanted the invasion to go ahead. Hillary has constantly curried the Jewish-American vote, mainly because it is so easy to procure. Just be more vehemently Israeli than the Israelis themselves, (and the politician next to you, who is doing the same thing) find no fault with them or their policies, EVER, and if you can, dig up evidence of a remote Jewish ancestor someplace. Just like Hillary did. "Hillary has constantly curried the Jewish-American vote, mainly because it is so easy to procure." Mike, Yet another, barely veiled, anti-Semitic comment. Some of you people are on a real roll. FYI—anyone's vote is easy to "procure." All the politician has to do is to "promise" to deliver what they think the people want. I would rather have an intelligent woman who is "dumb" about her choice of men in the White House, than a man who is really dumb, not to mention ignorant—as is the case now. Four more years of GW and the US will really be in bad shape both nationally and internationally— which should really please all of you "down with the US" types in both Europe and the UK. Then you all can pay for your own defense, peace keeping and take over leadership for whatever goes wrong in the world. Bonne chance! Careful what you wish for. ;-) Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 8, 2003 03:23 PMIf it is as you say it is: "FYI—anyone's vote is easy to "procure"", then don't Jews also fit under that category? And doesn't your statement merely serve to reinforce mine? Lilith, I can be critical of who and what I want, so long as that criticality is not based upon idiotic racialist notions. If Muslims, Christians, Jews or Buddhists seek to classify themselves as a well defined cultural group, with well-defined objectives as a group, then they can be criticized as a group, without it having to do with Nazist philosophies of Eugenics. No-one Lilith, at least no-one on this planet, is above criticism. And that includes Israel, its government, and those people who do bad things, but also just so happen to be Jewish at the same time. Lilith, you puzzle me. In the previous post you write "It is very disturbing that the people and governments of the world who will not meet their responsibilities with respect to stabilizing Iraq and stopping the proliferation of Islamic terrorism. That, it seems to me, is the responsibility of the WHOLE world and not just the US!" Then in this one you call the one world leader who actual lead on this issue an idiot and further claim that the USA will be worse off for his policies, the foremost one of which is "stopping the profileration of Islamic terrorism". Are there two of you here? Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at December 9, 2003 12:28 AMYeah, one of them's Frasier's ex. And she's stoopid too. Posted by: slatts at December 9, 2003 01:16 AMTalisman, certainly you may criticize anyone you want. I also can do the same thus, I criticized you for what I perceived as an anti-Semitic statement. I criticize Israeli policies all the time, particularly the settlements. I criticize Islamic policies even more. You presume that the Jews have one ideology under the Torah, like Muslims under the Qu'ran. That is not so. Most Jews are secular even in Israel. That cannot be said of Muslims. There are plenty of Jews, both in the US and in Israel, whose votes are not "procured" as you say. Note the Geneva Accords as well as the Jewish peace movement. I have yet to see a great body of Muslims criticize radical, murderous, jihadi Islam—not to mention doing anything about it on their own or under any sort of Ulema leadership. All the Islamic clerics ever do is scream for murderous jihad from their mosques while all too often the people dance in the streets when innocents are murdered. Somebody is funding Islamic terrorism and it isn't Lutherans in Scandinavia or Hindus in India or Buddhists in Tibet or Catholics in Italy. Muslims are funding terrorist via their zakat—those "charitable" donations. "Then in this one you call the one world leader who actual lead on this issue an idiot and further claim that the USA will be worse off for his policies, the foremost one of which is "stopping the profileration of Islamic terrorism". Are there two of you here?" Annoying Old Guy: I didn't say he was an "idiot". He isn't very bright though; that is a verifiable fact. Not to mention that he rubs a lot of people the wrong way, me included. Those beady little eyes, those simian ears, that beak nose and that tight little mouth don't help the bugger look appealing. At least your Blair isn't hard to look at (even if he needs rouge.) GW might be "charming" at a BBQ or even at the Queen's tea party, however, he has made a mess of things and it is not getting any better. The administration has had to do a lot of backpedaling. They are not minding the store, plenty of articles have been written on that. I don't consider what GW did "leading," I consider it arrogant, cowboy politics that has made the US a lot of enemies and caused us to lose face in the world. (Not that I give a fig what the Arabs—particularly the Saudis— think of us, since they are merely business partners and not allies regardless of their claim to be our "friends".) The US is in rather bad shape regardless of what the so-called "growth" figures say. Who knows if those are accurate anyway? Given how much this administration has lied it would not surprise me if the 7 plus % growth were all made up. The fact is that millions are out of work and their jobs won't come back. Our deficit is out of control as is the national debt. The big Wall Street crooks don't seem to be going to prison and the elderly are being cheated. Not to mention that our hard won environmental policies are being dismantled and over 40 MILLION of our people don't have health insurance. In the mean time, the Repugs are getting richer. The fact is that they planned the war and did not plan anything else, like how to stabilize the country. It was rather naive to believe they would unseat Saddam and all the Iraqis would go back to work on Monday morning after having a flower-throwing party for our soldiers. Now, "Bob's your uncle," as you say on that side of the pond. Certainly the war in Iraq has not stopped Islamic terrorism. The idiotic idea that this is a "fly paper" policy is just that—STOOOPID!!! It is more like a terrorist encouragement policy. There are 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world. It is estimated that 10% may be fundamentalists. That is how many MILLION potential terrorists? Our grandchildren will curse us for the "leadership" of GW Bush! He will be happily collecting his retirement pay in Crawford. Regardless, that does not absolve the world from assisting in stabilizing Iraq. They ignored the problem for far too long. Now, it's time to pay the piper. What the Germans and the French did was as equally as reprehensible, in my book, as what GW did. Ditto for the Arabs, those Muslim "brothers" of the Iraqis. No one seemed to care about the long suffering Iraqis when Saddam was maiming and murdering them by the millions. It would be a good thing if the whole world worked together against radical Islam in a constructive way. That is not happening because of GW Bush as well as the Germans and the French. Divide and conquer is the Muslim mission—it appears to be working rather well. This will get a whole lot uglier before there is light at the end of the tunnel. Lili
Hey... eh... Annoying Old Guy... Maybe we shougld stop messing with Lilith. Here's why: http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/Garden/4240/apndx.html Lilith is Evil! Some examples for those too lazy to check out the site: "The Lilith Relief" (circa 2000 BCE) The Talmud (400 CE) Isaiah 34:14 (circa 900 BC) "The Nippur Bowls" (circa 600 CE) The Alphabet of Ben Sira (800 CE) Book of Raziel (circa 1100 CE) The Zohar (1200 CE) Hebrew Amuletic Tradition (circa 900-1800) Paradise Lost (1667) I am off to buy a "Talisman" right now. Heh. My goodness! Talisman has done some work. LOL Don't you "boys" know that "Lilith" was created first, before Eve? She was too independent for Adam, who wanted a more submissive mate and complained to God. Lilith got tired of wimpy Adam too and took off. Whereupon God gave Adam, Eve who then led the testosterone impaired, simple boy astray with that "apple," and got them both thrown out of Paradise. Apples originated in central Asia. So, unless the Muslim Garden of Eden was in Kazakhstan instead of Arabia, the fruit in question was probably not an apple. But, knowing men, Adam probably would have kissed the snake to get to Eve. Most of the Jews and the Christians finally got over believing that woman was the cause of all temptation for man, the "root of all evil" (besides the love of money) and even the "original sin" bit—but the hung-up Muslims have been afraid of that voracious, female sexuality ever since. They simply cannot deal with those female "ornaments." That is why their women are ordered to cover these up in the Qu'ran. It is also why Muslims lock women up as much as possible. Just too exiting to see some finger tips or the back of a woman's neck. Might make men lose control. . . " . . .Islam has refined the tastes of Islamic society and its sense of beauty. It no longer seeks the lewd and licentious type of beauty. It has a refined human sense of beauty. Modesty shows a clean type of beauty that refines man’s sense. It is the type of beauty worthy of man, because it imparts a sense of purity and chastity.. . " There are exceptions though: ". . .Another exception applies to slaves: “or those whom they rightfully possess.” Some scholars say that this applies to women slaves only, while others include men slaves because a slave does not look up to his mistress in a carnal way. But the first view is more logical because a slave is a man with all the desire a man has, even though in a particular period of time he is placed in a special or unfavorable situation. Also excepted are “such male attendants as are free of physical desire,” who may not be attracted by women for one reason or another, such as being impotent or feeble minded. In this case, a woman’s physical beauty causes no temptation. . ." Men want women and can't control themselves. Therefore, women are "evil." ;-) Even though their women are covered and the men are protected from the "evil" spells that women cast. Some Muslim men simply cannot control themselves despite the hijab, the abaya, the chador or even the burqa. Indeed, a woman putting on perfume or lipstick might lead a man to rape: http://www.canada.com/news/world/story.asp?id=87693927-EE6E-4250-BA6D-E8F4699064FE But, it's no problem because if a Muslim rapes a woman, her testimony is worthless and she must have 4 men of "good character" to testify that she was raped—otherwise, it is of course her fault. In which case she will go to Hell after being stoned and the man will go to Paradise when he dies, where he will get 70 or 72 virgins. (There seems to be a dispute about the last two.) http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,631332,00.html Whew! No wonder these guys can't get anything done in this life, they are saving themselves for the next, contrary to Jewish men, who often work so hard that they are not known for their, ahem—ardor. Well, except maybe for Rabis and Cantors who are very desired for their charms and great voices to boot. So, again one wonders, why anti-Semitism? Jews live at the office and at home and everywhere, while Muslims wait until they get to Paradise to live. Of course, there is some concern that the word is really "raisins" instead of "virgins." According to C.Luxenberg in "Die Syro-Aramaische Lesart des Koran" http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/luxreview1.html the most important book on Islam to come out in decades—this is indeed so. In which case, those jihadis have blown themselves up for dried grapes—72 of them in a chilled drink. ;-) Lili Posted by: Lilith Paloma at December 9, 2003 08:02 AMBut there is a flaw in your carefully constructed veil of information. Women really *are* evil. "Women really *are* evil." Hmmm—well, I guess that makes men the spawn of "evil" then, Mr. T. LOL! Just consider the alternatives. ;-) Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 9, 2003 07:42 PMIsn't Hillary Clinton lesbian ? IT seems to be a trait in at least one dorm at Wellesley....which house is it now ? She is actually a harridan with a deep vein of insincerity like her husband, the man who lavished his time on Enron while bin Laden built his infrastructure and was showered with Cruise MIssiles in Afghanistan to show his invulnerability to the Philanderer in The White House. The President who started a trade war with the EU over bananas....the only connection with the Us being that Carl Lindner had hired the President as his trade representative. Yes "New Paradigm" Clinton who decided human rights at Tienanmen Square should not impede trade with China; and who takes the Chinese shilling......so now China gets economic aid, free access to our markets (and Us defence secrets) and buys warships from Russia, nuclear facilities from Germany, and buys Schroeder to push for lifting of the EU Arms Embargo. Can you believe it ? German Grens want the US and NATO to stop Schroeder selling this MOX plant in Hanau to China ? Posted by: Romulus at December 10, 2003 07:41 AM"Isn't Hillary Clinton lesbian ? IT seems to be a trait in at least one dorm at Wellesley....which house is it now ?" Isn't that rather like saying, "Isn't so and so Jewish, black, Muslim, etc."? What sort of an insinuation is that, Romy? Who knows if she is or she isn't ? WHY does it matter? What the heck do you care if she is or she is not? Does that make her any less intelligent, any less able or any less of a human being? Like I said, I'll take a smart woman, who makes dumb choices in men, over our intellectually challenged "leader" any day—lesbian or straight!
Well, I really would like to remember the name of the dorm....I spent a lot of time at Wellesley...... and frankly, I consider H C to be an opportunist and careerist; and her husband to have failed in his duty to protect the United States by not taking his opportynities to eradicate bin Laden......he was Calvin Coolidge.....I think she is an awful human being married to a complete fraud Posted by: Romulus at December 11, 2003 11:27 AMAs someone living in the United States, I would just like to say that I did not vote for George Bush, and that MY womanly bush (aka, genital region for you slow-pokes out there) would make a better President. Posted by: duh at December 12, 2003 10:34 PM"Well, I really would like to remember the name of the dorm....I spent a lot of time at Wellesley......"
"and frankly, I consider H C to be an opportunist and careerist; and her husband to have failed in his duty to protect the United States by not taking his opportynities to eradicate bin Laden......he was Calvin Coolidge.....I think she is an awful human being married to a complete fraud" All politicians are opportunists. What is a careerist? How do you know what sort of "human being" Hillary is? Do you know her? I think your queen and her whole rotten family are "awful" human beings and parasites to boot. Although, the pageantry is impressive if expensive. ;-) Nice to try to blame Clinton for not taking out ObL. He got plenty of flack for bombing the pharma plant by "mistake". Hind sight is always 20/20. Why has GW not caught the man? (Probably because he is dead.) ObL is not Islamofascism. It is an entity of its own tied to the Qu'ran. GW should go after the Saudis. Those are the people responsible for this proliferation of fascist Wahhabism. Duh, I agree. Anyone's "bush" would be a better, more intelligent prez. Reports that Saddam may have been caught. Hope it's true. . . Lili |
