ad banner for Right Wing News Ad Banner
Advertising Email FAQ Home RSS Search Speaking Townhall YouTube
Kneecapping Barack Obama at every opportunity.
« Week-End Bloggers | Main | Radical Islam: the real front is domestic »
February 23, 2008
John Hawkins Barack Obama's Terrorist Pals

When Barack Obama said publicly that he'd meet with leaders of rogue nations with terrorists, it wasn't wise, but you figured he was just really naive. However, after reading this story, you have to wonder if perhaps Obama thought it would just be fun to hang out with people like that,

In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district's influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

..."I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers' house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress," said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. "[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor."

Obama and Palmer "were both there," he said.

Obama's connections to Ayers and Dorhn have been noted in some fleeting news coverage in the past. But the visit by Obama to their home -- part of a campaign courtship -- reflects more extensive interaction than has been previously reported.

Neither Ayers nor the Obama campaign would describe the relationship between the two men. Dr. Young described Obama and Ayers as "friends," but there's no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation.

...Like many of the most extreme figures from the 1960s Ayers and Dohrn are ambiguous figures in American life.

They disappeared in 1970, after a bomb -- designed to kill army officers in New Jersey -- accidentally destroyed a Greenwich Village townhouse, and turned themselves into authorities in 1980. They were never prosecuted for their involvement with the 25 bombings the Weather Underground claimed; charges were dropped because of improper FBI surveillance.

Both have written and spoken at length about their pasts, and today he is an advocate for progressive education and a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago; she's an associate professor of law at Northwestern University.

But -- unlike some other fringe figures of the era -- they're also flatly unrepentant about the bombings they committed in the name of ending the war, defending them on the grounds that they killed no one, except, accidentally, their own members.

Dohrn, however, was jailed for less than a year for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating other Weather Underground members' robbery of a Brinks truck, in which a guard and two New York State Troopers were killed.

"I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough," Ayers told the New York Times in 2001.

...Obama's campaign dismisses the notion that his relationship with Ayers should be seen through the lens of the latter's violent past, or his present lack of regret for the bombings.

"Sen. Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence," said Obama's press secretary, Bill Burton. "But he was an 8-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost 40 years ago is ridiculous."

He described Ayers as "a professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago and a former aide to Mayor Richard J. Daley," referring to printed reports that he had "advised" Daley on school reform.

As Bloomberg News reported recently, Obama and Ayers have crossed paths repeatedly in the last decade. In 1997, Obama cited Ayers' critique of the juvenile justice system in a Chicago Tribune article on what prominent Chicagoans were reading. He and Ayers served together on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago for three years starting in 1999. In 2001, Ayers also gave $200 to Obama's state Senate reelection campaign.

...Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly: as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left.

"When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn," Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. "They were launching him -- introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread."

So, Obama's campaign condemns the actions of the Weathermen -- but he's actually friends with two of them and they helped launch his political career. What a country we have, huh? Even a coke-snorting phony who's tied to terrorists has an opportunity to be President. Who says this isn't a land of opportunity?

That being said, when you're actually hanging out with terrorists, it gives new meaning to the phrase "soft on terror," doesn't it? But, maybe there is a positive spin the Obama campaign can put on this. You know, "Barack is the right guy to lead the fight in the war on terrorism because he's friends with terrorists and knows all their tricks."

That's the last straw with Obama. I am now ready, on behalf of conservatives everywhere, to officially declare him to be -- drum roll, please -- WORSE than Hillary Clinton.

Facebook MySpace Twitter del.icio.us Digg Newsvine Propeller Reddit Stumbleupon Technorati
    Share this article!
I like! I don't like. Score: John Hawkins | 12:01 AM | Permalink   Trackbacks (0)

Note: Comments and Trackbacks for this entry closed on February 28, 2008 12:01 AM
Comments (80)
My daughter was telling me about the Weathermen yesterday, actually. I had never heard of them Her Poli Sci teacher was talking about them and she was asking me how and why people were so crazy in the 60's. Like I would know but I told her it was probably drugs.
Now, it seems that I need to do a little more research. These nuts that she was telling me about are obviously not something dead and buried.
Obama is significantly worse than Hillary.
I'd been suspicious that he may be worse than Hitlery. It's most likely true - from crap like this all the way up to supporting openly racist individuals and groups, we really have no choice this time around.

It's a joke.

www.writeinfred.com

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Well, it's getting bad, it is bad, when I'm reading this stuff (the coke and homo BJ yesterday and this today) and I don't even care. It just fits with being the most liberal senator. This stuff could be plastered all over and his starry eyed followers would just say "so what?"
Watch, Toddl or fiza will be happy to support him and call us racist for bringing it up.
Nothing new here. Was anybody surprised that Obama would have connections to folks like this? Once scum, always scum. Its just that day and age that people like him are considered "cool." This guy is the opposite of everything American...and he could be president. I am worried about people like him b/c i fear the permanent changes they might make.
Was anybody surprised that Obama would have connections to folks like this?


I might've been, before I saw the Che flag in his campaign office.
You know what's really weird? I'm looking at John's phrase - "coke-snorting phony who's tied to terrorists" - and thinking that it sounds phony, it sounds like something that people say but means nothing...and then I realize that B Hussein has admitted to this. In a book. That he wrote.

WTF???
I am reading your articles from Belgium.
Good job John!

These elections are very critical. I hope the vast majority of Americans will realize what this Ultra-Liberal truely is and not send him to White house!

Sure he's worse than Billary. But will he be easier to defeat than her?
Of course Obama is worse than Hillary, anyone who didn't realize that before is blinded by their dislike of Hillary.

Hillary, like her husband, doesn't believe what she says. She is in it for the power and will shift to any position on the planet that will help her do it. As such you will not most likely see her do a lot of things she is currently promising. Not that I think she will make a good president, just that I think she would end up like Bill and be mostly a do nothing president.

Obama, on the other hand, is a Believer (and notice the capitol letter). What he is saying is what he intends to do. He has been fairly consistent with it from his career and his friends are also Believers. Even look at his rallies - his supporters have the same looks on their faces you see at televangelists. Anyone who has payed much attention attention to him as a person (and not simply as a foil against Hillary) would have seen this. Obama fits right in with commentor's on The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and the Democratic Underground. In fact, Obama is even on the left side of most of their ramblings.

If McCain has any sense at all (and I'm not sure on that account that *any* of the leaders with an "R" after their name do, and the rino's even worse) he will make Obama tell what he believes. Obama is a blank slate that people are writing their wishes upon and he is doing everything to milk it (who *isn't* for a better life for everyone and peace around the world?).

When we start seeing the VERY far leftists in almost all ways come out I highly suspect that even a lot of the people refusing to vote for McCain will do so (and if they do not, then they are no better than the people allowing Iraq to fail because it would look bad for the Republicans - in fact I find that more patriotic than allowing the US to go to shit for the same reason).

Hillary Vs McCain and, policy wise, I can't say I find McCain much better (he is some). McCain vs Obama and there is no way I would be willing to allow Obama to be president if I can help it, as others find out more about him then I think that attitude will grow.
Hm. Shocking. Now that Obama's the presumptive nominee Hawkins goes after him. I guess it's open season on logic.

I remember a few weeks ago Hawkins constantly gave Obama good marks and compliments on his debate performances, calling him "charming" and saying that he's a candidate he could see himself having a beer with.

Funny how things change.
Posted by bobma12
February 22, 2008 11:07 PM |

Was anything in the post by Hawkins incorrect? Hey, we're sorry Obama likes coke, being blown by another guy, and is tight with domestic terrorists. Otherwise, I'm sure he is an ok guy.
Um....There has been a "coke-snorting phony who's tied to terrorists" in the White House for the past 7 years....
Um....There has been a "coke-snorting phony who's tied to terrorists" in the White House for the past 7 years....
You guys are over the top. But I'm not surprised. It's not too far of a stretch to go from electing a pot-smo ... I mean pot-non-inhaling, draft-dogdger who gets BJs in the Oval Office to a coke-snorting, domestic terrorist befriending wacko lib who might get BJs from other men. The slippery slope doesn't exist at all, or maybe we should call this whole thing "Left and Lefter".
If you believe Larry Sinclair's story you're a jackass, straight up. The guy was in a mental institution, for chirst sakes.

It's interesting, though... I wonder if you morons ever wake up and look at yourself in the mirror with regret, realizing that you've been preaching to false prophets. The electorate has decided, and we've decided to nominate the most liberal candidate from both parties.

Ding dong, the right wing is dead.
Ding dong, the right wing is dead.
Didn't Mike Dukakis and Fritz Mondale sing that tune back a few years ago? Whatever happened to those guys?
Ding dong, the right wing is dead.

Posted by bobma12
February 23, 2008 1:32 AM |

Your proof of that is what, your own hopes, dreams, and need for a change(of diaper)? Nope, we're still here, and will be for a long time.
If you believe Larry Sinclair's story you're a jackass, straight up.


Um, hello? This doesn't have anything to do with Sinclair. Obama admitted in his own biography that he did cocaine.

It's interesting, though... I wonder if you morons ever wake up and look at yourself in the mirror with regret, realizing that you've been preaching to false prophets.


You could not be any more pretentious if you tried.
Posted by bobma12
February 23, 2008 1:32 AM

Thanks for proving my point.
I have a question for the far left on here, bobma, little wing and whoever else cares to answer. Is there anything that could cause you not to support Obama?
I mean we covered allegations of drug use, gay sex, admitted drug use and obvious ties to radical left wingers. He doesn't show patriotism and belongs to an exclusionary black church. I realize most of these are badges of honor to you but is there anything that would be too far left?
Um....There has been a "coke-snorting phony who's tied to terrorists" in the White House for the past 7 years....

Posted by littlewing
February 23, 2008 12:23 AM


And the proof of that would be??? Y'see B Hussein admitted it, can't have better proof than a confession.

So, you're turn - proof that the president is a user of cocaine. Proof that he is friends with terrorists.

You'll forgive if I don't wait for an answer, I doubt you'll be able to come up with anything.
Ed over at Captian's Quarters has blogged about this as well. Apparently Hillary's camp is pushing this story. Ed also points out that Bill pardoned some of the same people that were involved with Weather Underground.

Interesting...
Posted by mipt
February 23, 2008 7:59 AM


Geez, what could be more left wing? Maybe drive his girlfriend/boyfriend into a river and letting them drown...oh, never mind. That wouldn't do it.

I know, how about running a prostitution ring...what, oh, sorry.

Hmm, I'm stuck.
Me too.
I think the answer is no, there is nothing Obama could have done or supported that would knock him off the pedestal.
I'm starting to think though that despite their hero worship the group that will never vote for
Obama is about to expand.
Posted by mipt
February 23, 2008 8:40 AM


I think you're right, but only because the left is so racist. I know, I know, they talk like they aren't but then they slip up; it's the same for homosexuality - they say we are the homophobes, but then have sites outing Republicans, and go off on Matt Sanchez and Larry Craig.

So, yeah, any party that can claim a Grand Kleagle in its ranks will never pull the lever for a black man as president. In the primaries, sure, but when push comes to shove...
It's especially telling that rather than try to defend the guy and say "he never did that" ... well they did, but it was quickly blown out of the water by Obama's own words ... they fall back to "but your side did it too" as though that makes it OK.
Yeah, for some reason, I can see a certain demographic idolizing and propelling a far left guy to the WH.
But when push come to shove there are some life long Democrats that are either a. not going to vote for the black guy or b. realize that this far left shit is so far ouutside of their values that McCain looks much more like them. I think in order to win the WH Obama needs both a and b. He will have to do more than hypnosis to win either group.
Is George Bush a Coke Snorter Too? Hmmm... I guess Barack is qualified to be president.
Posted by The___American
February 23, 2008 10:00 AM


Obviously the President isn't, as I've asked for proof and received none...
Another reason we want Obama instead of Hillary. Republicans will be fighting a scorched earth, filibuster war for the next four years regardless of who wins.

It will be easiest to subvert Obama. He will make Jimmy Carter look like a genius. He will be the easiest to filibuster.

Remember, its not the terrorists who are the greatest threat to our national security and economy. Its the American left that must be defeated. McCain will hop in bed with them and be the most dificult to defeat.
It will be easiest to subvert Obama. He will make Jimmy Carter look like a genius. He will be the easiest to filibuster.


I think you are misunderestimating the power of bullshit and the bully pulpit.

Posted by RAA
February 23, 2008 10:26 AM |

I hope you are correct in this assumption about being able to control Obama through Congressional means.

Frankley Obama scares the hell out of me. His associations with Pastor Jeramiah Wright, Weather Underground and his support for the Palisteaniens (SP), wanting to have tea & crumpets with Iran doesn't boad well for the US if he is elected to the White House.
And the proof of that would be??? Y'see B Hussein admitted it, can't have better proof than a confession.

And this makes him a better man than the current "occupant" of the White House.

(And it takes all my will power to refrain from calling him President Pubic Hair or President Vegetation)
Um....There has been a "coke-snorting phony who's tied to terrorists" in the White House for the past 7 years....


Really? And who would that be? Before you answer, make sure you have evidence to support your accusation.
I remember a few weeks ago Hawkins constantly gave Obama good marks and compliments on his debate performances, calling him "charming" and saying that he's a candidate he could see himself having a beer with.


But that's all true. I know you Liberals can't separate your personal reactions to people from your ideological differences -- witness the extremes of Bush-hate we've been subjected to -- but just because you're driven by pure emotion doesn't mean we are. I'm sure Obama would be a great guy to have over for dinner or to hang out with at a ball game. He's done extremely well in all the debates. Why do we have to snarl and foam at the mouth at the mere mention of his name just because we disagree with him on pretty much every political position? We're not Liberals.
Posted by toddl
February 23, 2008 11:02 AM |

Must not have much will power do you.

You are very uncouth. Why do you bother to post at this sight, since you seem to despise conservatives?
And this makes him a better man than the current "occupant" of the White House.

Posted by toddl
February 23, 2008 11:02 AM


So, again, toddler, where's the proof? You have nothing...
Even a coke-snorting phony who's tied to terrorists has an opportunity to be President.

I'll see your foaming at the mouth and raise you a giant leap of logic.
(And it takes all my will power to refrain from calling him President Pubic Hair or President Vegetation)


Don't pull a muscle reaching around to pat youself on the back just yet, sparky. By telling us that you won't call him certain stupid, childish names, you have in fact called him those names. Kind of like ol' Huckabee making a vile attack ad, then calling a press conference to announce that he was too nice to run the ad... and then showed it. It's a common Liberal trick, and a dull one at that.
So, again, toddler, where's the proof? You have nothing...

I figure if you can say Obama is "tied" to terrorists, I can say Mr. Bush used cocaine.
I figure if you can say Obama is "tied" to terrorists, I can say Mr. Bush used cocaine.


When you have evidence to support your claim, then you can say it. Until then, you're just an idiot spouting BDS-fueled bullshit, making criminal accusations without any proof.
"an idiot spouting BDS-fueled bullshit, making criminal accusations without any proof."

Actually, now that I think about it... you ought to send a resume to the NY Times.
Posted by toddl
February 23, 2008 11:27 AM


Well, except for the fact that the proof is in the article. Do you have that, an article? Do you have ANYTHING?

Nope. Just your obsession...
By telling us that you won't call him certain stupid

True. It's just kinda funny- I've even come to enjoy everyones us of Hussein when talking about our next president. It's funny too.

I retract that. I don't believe in name calling.
True. It's just kinda funny- I've even come to enjoy everyones us of Hussein when talking about our next president. It's funny too.

I retract that. I don't believe in name calling.

Posted by toddl
February 23, 2008 11:39 AM


So it's name calling to call someone by their own name. You are such a Todd.
Well, except for the fact that the proof is in the article.

There is no proof that he is "tied" to terrorists.

“Sen. Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence,”

Posted by toddl
February 23, 2008 11:43 AM


Obviously, you believe in words and not action. He can say that but "the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation" says more.

Oddly, none of my friends are terrorists. If I found out that one was, I would stop being friends with them. See how that works?

No, you don't. Because you think that people who blow up Americans aren't terrorists, they're just misunderstood. That we should just sit down and figure out why they feel like that, and it would be all better.
Because you think that people who blow up Americans aren't terrorists, they're just misunderstood.

You are going to have to come up with *proof* that this is how I feel.

See how it works?

Oddly, none of my friends are terrorists.

Oddly you don't know this for sure, now do you?
Oddly you don't know this for sure, now do you?

Posted by toddl
February 23, 2008 12:01 PM |

Oddly your still no smarter than last time you came this too site, toddler.
Yes, I do know for sure, none of my friends or even acquaintences have ever blown up a building. Certainly no one i've taken money from.

Oddly you don't know this for sure, now do you?

Posted by toddl
February 23, 2008 12:01 PM


Yeah, actually, I do. My military security clearance was such that they did a 10 year background check on my family, my neighbors (which was funny because I lived on base at the time and they all worked in the same area I did) in every location I lived, my coworkers (again funny, since they had the same clearance as me), my wife, HER family, HER friends, and HER neighbors. I found out which ones were under police observation for possible cocaine use, I knew the criminal background of each one of them. So, yeah, I do know.
OMG, see what i mean? there is nothing these starry eyed fools won't overlook for their messiah.
Posted by toddl
February 23, 2008 11:59 AM


You're right, I'm sorry, you're not the appeaser, you're the leech. Got my lefties mixed up.
who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation"

Oh, and that foundation they served on together? The Woods Fund of Chicago.

The stated purpose of the foundation:

"to make contributions to organizations "…organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational purposes, including the encouragement of art...".

You're going to have to find something more nefarious than this to condemn him on.

Posted by mipt
February 23, 2008 12:08 PM |

Yup, right down to associating with known domestic terrorists, communists, and racists.
You're right, I'm sorry, you're not the appeaser, you're the leech.

Again you have no proof of this.

I knew the criminal background of each one of them.

Mr. Ayers has no criminal background.

Posted by mipt
February 23, 2008 12:08 PM


I'm telling ya! Terrorists, Rezko, Trinity United Church, cocaine use...

I have to hand to him, to be able to have all that and slickly slide past it, get people to ignore it, he makes Slick Willy look like Tar Baby.
Posted by toddl
February 23, 2008 12:15 PM

Re-read the entire article b4 you post anything else. Do yourself that favor.
Again you have no proof of this.


Just your own words, best proof of all.

Mr. Ayers has no criminal background.

Posted by toddl
February 23, 2008 12:15 PM


Except that he confessed to the bombings, again the best proof of all.

“I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough,” Ayers told the New York Times in 2001.
Outta here, promised to take the wife to lunch, now that she's up and around again. Be back later to see if the lefties are able to defend B Hussein Osama even further.
Mr. Ayers has no criminal background.

Posted by toddl
February 23, 2008 12:15 PM


“I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough,” Ayers told the New York Times in 2001.

They disappeared in 1970, after a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally destroyed a Greenwich Village townhouse, and turned themselves into authorities in 1980.


Nope, no "background" in criminal activities there. Except home grown terror bombings against the military. Sure, democrats support the troops....but they do have a record of trying to kill them for fighting when the USA calls them to.
You guys are really desparately grasping at straws now aren't you?

If Ayers is a threat to this country, I'd suggest you go after him. Not swiftboat© our next President.
"I," democrat, do support the troops....but I reserve the right murder them if I dont agree to the war they are being sent to....or at least support those who do that.

-Obama
If Ayers is a threat to this country, I'd suggest you go after him. Not swiftboat© our next President.

Posted by toddl
February 23, 2008 12:30 PM |

We're not swiftboating John McCain, we're digging up the not so pretty past of B Hussein Osama.


And as far as it goes, no one has yet proven that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth were anything but honest about Jean Francois Kerry.
Just your own words, best proof of all.

That means you have no proof.

Except that he confessed to the bombings, again the best proof of all.

But he has nothing that would show up in a criminal check. So you may have friends that are terrorists but have never been charged. As far as those doing background checks for your clearance.......well they sure messed up before 9-11 didn't they?
Grasping at straws?
Are you for real?
We can't swift boat Obama. There's nothing, abolutely nothing that can sway you mind numb robots...............yes, Todd, that's you.
You guys are really desparately grasping at straws now aren't you?


Posted by toddl
February 23, 2008 12:30 PM


Haha.....nope, we dont need to. Your "people" seem to provide an endless amt of scum on themselves. Your just upset b/c you bet the farm on them and you now realize you dont know what you are getting into.


"Not swiftboat© our next President."

You mean call them out on their past? As long as you provide such great material, we'll keep it up. Obama....good pick!

Re-read the entire article b4 you post anything else. Do yourself that favor.
Posted by tblrk2006


Oh I read it tblrk. The difference between us is that I understood it.

you mind numb robots

If you are implying I support Obama, I do not. I am a Hillary supporter. But would vote for Obama if he wins the Democratic nomination. (Which appears imminent)

I'm against Hundred Year Wars McCain.

P.S My wife is screaming that I'm not helping clean the basement. Better go before there is real terrorist activity here in my house. Will be back later.
But he has nothing that would show up in a criminal check. So you may have friends that are terrorists but have never been charged. As far as those doing background checks for your clearance.......well they sure messed up before 9-11 didn't they?

Posted by toddl
February 23, 2008 12:34 PM


I asked you to read the article and you didnt, so ill give you another free lesson.

"charges were dropped because of improper FBI surveillance."

Sure, but nothing like a confession. You lose todd.

9-11? Um, the muslims werent going into the military. And you can thank clinton for lax immigration of all types.
Oh I read it tblrk. The difference between us is that I understood it.


Posted by toddl
February 23, 2008 12:41 PM


No, you clearly didnt. In fact, there isnt much brain power required considering they turned themselves into the authorities and confessed to bombing and attempted bombing. These are their quotes. But I guess you could fill us in on what, exactly, you "understood" from it. 100yrs war? The same one the clinton whitehouse made official policy and voted for? Right, you are a hillary supporter.....very ignorant. Your past couple days of posting prove that. Haha
P.S My wife is screaming that I'm not helping clean the basement. Better go before there is real terrorist activity here in my house. Will be back later.

Posted by toddl
February 23, 2008 12:41 PM


What you meant to say was: my mom is screaming at me to clean the basement. We know thats your favorite spot and you dont come out much.
My wife


Drawing a face on an old gym sock doesn't make it your "wife".
A reminder to our leftist posters on this site: The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth have never been proven to have lied about any of their statements. Ya'll are just upset that Obama got a free blow job and cocaine, and you got neither.
Ronald Reagan and Saddam were best buddies in the 80's. What's even more ironic, is the fact that Rumsfeld went to Iraq and shook his hand. You have no substance.
Ronald Reagan and Saddam were best buddies in the 80's.


FDR and Stalin were "best buddies" back in the 40s.

What's your point?
Hawkins is a partisan hack, probably the biggest one out there. Hell, GW could blow a line of coke, screw a 12 year old pygmy, and he'd still defend this son of a bitch.

Let's consider the "if you had your way, Saddam would still be in power!" card and you're "FDR and Stalin were 'best buddies' back in the 40s counter arguement. I'm guessing we can both agree that both Saddam and Stalin were assholes. However, our winning the war was largely thanks in part to Stalin. Saddam was secular, he hated al Qaeda and extremists. Only is America stupid enough to dispose of what was probably the most secular outside the UAE government in the middle east. So just as we needed Stalin, in a way, we needed Saddam. We may not have liked either, but they were both necessary evils, but we did away with Saddam and we're fucked with what McCain is saying could be a "100 years war."

I guess we'll just have to draft the college Republicans, give them a taste of their pro-war medicine.
Posted by schmuck
February 24, 2008 7:57 PM


Wow. So many cliches and liberal idiocies in one post. You're new here, so you won't want to use them all up at once, you'll just burn yourself out.
The truth hurts doesn't it? Republicans just can't take the facts for a higher grain than their flawed opinions...a shame, that kind of thinking has screwed this country for generations to come. Ol' bad boy Bill had us in a surplus and on the way of paying off the national debt. Then came along 'conservative' W who has us plunged into debt and stuck in a quaqmire of a war.
Republicans just can't take the facts for a higher grain than their flawed opinions


Translator! We need a translator in here! I'm pretty sure this clown said Republicans ignore facts that conflict with their opinions, but that's just the standard Liberal projection.

Ol' bad boy Bill had us in a surplus


Man, am I ever tired of that lie. There was no surplus except in Billy boy's manipulated and inflated projections. There never would have been a surplus unless the normal rules of the universe ceased to operate.

plunged into debt


By allowing Congress to overspend, child, for which we daily excoriate him and them. Why do you mad Libs (heh!) keep pretending we don't slam Bush for overspending every time the subject comes up? Oh, right; it would ruin the narrative.

stuck in a quaqmire of a war


Your words are meaningless. You could be referring to Kosovo, for all anyone can tell.
However, our winning the war was largely thanks in part to Stalin.


In Soviet schools, they taught kids that the USSR won the war with some slight assistance from the US. Commies here usually tone that down to "we would not have won without Soviet help." At least you've told us where you're coming from.

Saddam was secular


Which, in the Middle East, means he wanted to control the country himself, not let imams or mullahs take over. That's all "secular" means, child.

he hated al Qaeda and extremists


http://www.husseinandterror.com">Please stop lying.

So just as we needed Stalin, in a way, we needed Saddam.


You Liberals sure love your brutal totalitarian dictators, don't you? Bet you have a poster of Saddam on the ceiling over your bed.

I guess we'll just have to draft the college Republicans


Another thing Stalinists like you are prone to: voicing your desire to conscript those who disagree with you into military service, where they can be brainwashed, silenced or "killed in battle" if they keep thinking for themselves too much. It's always the same crap. It's as though you hard Leftists are stamped out with a cookie cutter on an assembly line or something.
You must register, be approved and log in to post comments.

ad banner for Bottom Ad
© Copyright 2001-2010 John Hawkins
eXTReMe Tracker