Alarming News

June 28, 2005

The problem with liberal anger….

…is that it’s just slightly misdirected:

I came across this post about a lefty in NYC mad as hell about Karl Rove’s comments regarding liberals. He ends with ‘I am determined to take them down. I am ready to fight the bastards like I have never fought before’, which would be great if he was talking about the terrorists and not about Pataki and Bloomberg.

Posted by Karol at 01:07 PM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

“I am determined to take them down”
With their history of executing 80,000,000 people, it is no surprise to me that the left is now turning to violence to force their political will on America.
“Who stopped him? The Republican congress who cried “wag the dog ” and refused to back him.”
That is an absolute lie. All Republicans and many Democrats urged Clinton to take action against Al Qaida. But Clinton was too much of a coward to do so. He ordered ineffective small raids against the enemy only when his penis got into trouble.
The Republican’s objected to Clinton’s “wag the penis” strategy as they want Al Qaida eliminated. Clinton’s “wag the penis” strategy resulted in 3000 deaths in NYC.

Posted by: Jake at June 28, 2005 at 1:47 pm

The sadly humorous part is that Pataki and Bloomberg would be Democrats in any other state in the Union.

Posted by: Sean at June 28, 2005 at 1:48 pm

Hey. It wasn’t me this time trashing the NY Republicans !

Posted by: Von Bek at June 28, 2005 at 2:17 pm

That is an absolute lie. All Republicans and many Democrats urged Clinton to take action against Al Qaida. But Clinton was too much of a coward to do so.
Oh, that’s nonsense. If it were true, then why didn’t Bush attack al-Qaeda the day he arrived in office?

Posted by: Steve at June 28, 2005 at 5:30 pm

Steve:
Here is the difference. Al Qaida attacked the US interests 6 times without Clinton responding once. Here is once of the reasons I call Clinton a coward:
In 1998 the CIA sent a message to Clinton that they had a 2 hour window of opportunity to kill Bin Laden. They asked for Clinton

Posted by: Jake at June 28, 2005 at 7:27 pm

That remind me of a conversation I had in late October ‘04:
Whiny Liberal: If Bush wins this election, there will be rioting. We will rise up and revolt!
Me: How exactly are you going to manage that? We’re the ones with the guns. You people have been fighting to give yours up for years.

Posted by: Aubrey at June 28, 2005 at 9:01 pm

I personally think their anger is justified. I find it moronic to state that their anger should be against the terrorists of course their anger is there. Or do you want them to actually fight? Questioning their motives is not the right course of action IMHO for America as a whole and before both sides can get that I don’t think alot is going to change.
And Jake, do you have a source? I remember reading Against all enemies and that at least stated that it happend differently.

Posted by: Vincent at June 29, 2005 at 5:33 am

Yea, that’s the first I’ve heard of the “Clinton watching football” story- what, was that in the Ed Klein book?

Posted by: Steve at June 29, 2005 at 10:40 am
Post a comment