UBL and Saddam - Solidly Linked, Liberal Gainsaying Notwithstanding

Next time you hear a liberal like Martin Frost, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, or Hillary Clinton spout off that "Saddam had NOTHING to do with 911, it's a fact!", point them to this article. Brit Hume of Fox News has a great interview with Steven Hayes of The Weekly Standard:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162247,00.html

If a simple journalist can discover and report on the pre-9/11 links that Al Queda had with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, why can't these powerful Senators and ex-congressmen 'get' this? Possibly because they don't want it to be true? If true, and I think Saddam DID have a role in 9/11, either indirectly through funding, or directly with intelligence, equipment, or document support, then the War on Terror's foray into Iraq is not only justified, but required by our constitution. Iraq would have committed an act of war against the US, and our retaliation was justified and necessary.

Can't have that of course if you're busy undermining the US Military and the President at every turn, like most liberals. Liberal is too soft a word for these idiots, but rather than resort to profanity I'll just call them traitors and socialists, all. Those terms have the benefit of being highly accurate and still 'clean'. If Democrats (liberals by another name these days) had simply joined forces with the rest of the country Iraq would have been a much easier and less humanly expensive endeavor. I hold Democrats responsible for much of the innocent Iraqi blood spilled by Al Queda and other home grown terrorists in Iraq. Not to mention the lives of our soldiers wasted while Democrats attempt their power grab in a desparate attempt to remain relevant in modern US politics.

Democrats these days will stop at nothing, not even treason, to regain their lost power in our government. They'll let ANYONE suffer and die if it can be used to attack the Bush administration or our military's resolve. The proof is in the pudding - quod erat demonstratum - the facts speak for themselves; I'm sure that terrorists who are allowed to vote in the US (and I'm sure there are some) voted hands down for John Kerry in the last election. They want a return to the 'it's our fault' and 'what terrorism?' stance of the Clinton administration.

Fat chance. If this country has any common sense at all we'll NEVER have another liberal administration.

Democrat policy and leadership is a major reason that terrorism is so widespread and popular today. Years of weakening the CIA , FBI, and NSA, infiltrating these formerly fine institutions with liberal paper-pushers who would prefer that terrorism not be a national security issue (makes their jobs harder - gotta fix a national security threat), and decades of funding cuts have made our anti-terror efforts second-rate. What's worse is that even today after a DIRECT ASSAULT on our country by terrorists, our liberal Democrat leaders still would prefer not to protect us - additional attacks under a Republican administration (not to mention a demoralized military ala Vietnam tactics) will help them regain power.

It's probably a good idea that these ignorant liberal scumbags who somehow get elected to our country's leadership prefer to remain ensconsed in their ivory towers over off of Connecticut Avenue in DC. If I ever met Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or Harry Reid face to face, or worse that lunatic Dean, I doubt I would be able to control myself - their betrayal of the public trust is simply too heinous to contemplate for long. To them I can only say:

"It's not YOUR government, or the Republican's. It's OURS, the American People's. You WILL do what we say, you only have power because we allow it. History will, correctly, preserve your legacy of treason and betrayal forever."

And actually, if Ted and John had to run for election ANYWHERE else besides the People's Republic of Massachusetts, their socialist, treasonous butts would be laughed off the podium. Or worse - most areas of the country does not tolerate cowards and traitors, not sure why Mass. does.

Adios MF,

Doug