Letter of the Week: The Stupid Vs. The Evil Party

Democrats, IMMIGRATION, Politics, Republicans

Letter of the Week: The Stupid Vs. The Evil Party
By Carlos

The Dems could have stopped Jorge’s Mesopotamian misadventure in its tracks if they were anything other than a party of corrupt leftist ideologues. They could have at least forced an open debate on the reasons for spending the precious lives of our soldiers there, and asked the hard questions about how such an invasion defends the United States.
Instead, they went along with the Messiah from West Texas’ crazy mission to spread the gospel of democracy in the Ummah. Of course, at the same time, Muslims continue to enter the Dar-al-Harb unimpeded.
Larry Auster gives a run-down here about our wonderful open borders with the Ummah policies. The number here is for legal immigrants only, from Muslim countries. Muslims from Europe, Canada, and elsewhere aren’t counted, nor are those walking across our unprotected borders illegally.
Paul Gottfried’s final paragraph in a recent article over at VDARE sums it up quite nicely: “As my late friend Sam Francis never tired of pointing out, the stupid party may have become an even greater obstacle to Western survival than the evil party it formally opposes.” It’s way past high time for a new party, or at least some folks who are willing to face reality.

–CARLOS

Saddam & Bin Laden Sitting in a Tree Kissing…Not

Iraq

Americans—an alarming number of whom believe the government plotted 9/11, presumably with the help of Saddam and bin Laden—were told today what the reality-based community has known since… 2002, which is when I wrote this (vis-à -vis there being no relationship between Hussein and al-Qaida):

Iraq is a secular dictatorship profoundly at odds with Islamic fundamentalism. No less an authority than the former head of the CIA’s counterterrorism office Vincent Cannistraro stated categorically that there was no evidence of Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda. Even the putative Prague meeting between Mohamed Atta, the ringleader of Sept. 11, and Iraqi intelligence, turned out to be bogus. … Lacking proof of Iraqi links to al-Qaeda, Mr. Bush fixed on accusing Iraq of reacquiring chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as long-range ballistic missiles…

However, what truly takes the cake is the response of the Party of Mules to this bit of non-news. Democrats declared ponderously that what we finally have here is information that undermines the president’s case for war. Had these jackasses not voted almost unanimously to give the president the power to take the country to war, they’d not feel the need to pretend there was justification for war with Iraq in the first place.

Or perhaps Pelosi is just retarded. Both rationales are equally plausible.

By the way, by asserting that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq indicates Hussein gave al-Qaida a nod and a wink, one is also conceding that the presence of terrorists in the US proves they are here with Bush’s tacit approval. Any rational individual, whose reasoning faculties are slightly more developed than Cindy Sheehan’s, knows this is ridiculous.

Selective history is in vogue with the fiction-based community these days—I refer to the administration’s repeated references of late to Lenin and Hitler. Pundits are also generally pig-ignorant. Or if they aren’t, they cultivate historical amnesia when it comes to events that don’t confirm their world-view. Nevertheless, and for anyone who cares for yet another bit of historical evidence of the animus between Hussein and bin Laden: When Iraq occupied Kuwait in 1990, bin Laden petitioned Saudi authorities with a plan to mount an attack on Hussein if he dared to threaten The Kingdom. Bin Laden was furious when the Saudis rebuffed him and turned to the US, instead.

Saddam & Bin Laden Sitting in a Tree Kissing…Not

Iraq

Americans—an alarming number of whom believe the government plotted 9/11, presumably with the help of Saddam and bin Laden—were told today what the reality-based community has known since… 2002, which is when I wrote this (vis-à -vis there being no relationship between Hussein and al-Qaida):

Iraq is a secular dictatorship profoundly at odds with Islamic fundamentalism. No less an authority than the former head of the CIA’s counterterrorism office Vincent Cannistraro stated categorically that there was no evidence of Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda. Even the putative Prague meeting between Mohamed Atta, the ringleader of Sept. 11, and Iraqi intelligence, turned out to be bogus. … Lacking proof of Iraqi links to al-Qaeda, Mr. Bush fixed on accusing Iraq of reacquiring chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as long-range ballistic missiles…

However, what truly takes the cake is the response of the Party of Mules to this bit of non-news. Democrats declared ponderously that what we finally have here is information that undermines the president’s case for war. Had these jackasses not voted almost unanimously to give the president the power to take the country to war, they’d not feel the need to pretend there was justification for war with Iraq in the first place.

Or perhaps Pelosi is just retarded. Both rationales are equally plausible.

By the way, by asserting that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq indicates Hussein gave al-Qaida a nod and a wink, one is also conceding that the presence of terrorists in the US proves they are here with Bush’s tacit approval. Any rational individual, whose reasoning faculties are slightly more developed than Cindy Sheehan’s, knows this is ridiculous.

Selective history is in vogue with the fiction-based community these days—I refer to the administration’s repeated references of late to Lenin and Hitler. Pundits are also generally pig-ignorant. Or if they aren’t, they cultivate historical amnesia when it comes to events that don’t confirm their world-view. Nevertheless, and for anyone who cares for yet another bit of historical evidence of the animus between Hussein and bin Laden: When Iraq occupied Kuwait in 1990, bin Laden petitioned Saudi authorities with a plan to mount an attack on Hussein if he dared to threaten The Kingdom. Bin Laden was furious when the Saudis rebuffed him and turned to the US, instead.

About those Lebanese Prisoners Languishing in Israeli Jails

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

They don’t exist. Other than hardened criminals—as opposed to terrorists, which many far-gone libertarians, Buchanantites, and leftists consider “resistance fighterâ€?—there aren’t any Arab-Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails.

If you don’t believe me, take the word of The New York Review of Books, which is most definitely on the hard-left:

Many in the Muslim and Arab worlds are under the impression that Israel holds dozens of Lebanese ‘hostages.’ It certainly used to, but nearly all were released in previous exchanges. Before the fighting, Israel held precisely two known Lebanese prisoners in Israel, along with a possible third, a fisherman who disappeared at sea and whom Hezbollah asserts is a captive. One of the prisoners, Samir Kuntar, is serving multiple life sentences for murdering a father and his daughter back in 1979, before Hezbollah’s founding, when he took part in a raid by Palestinian guerrillas. The other is an Israeli citizen of Lebanese origin, sentenced as a Hezbollah spy. In other words, these ‘hostages’ are, under international law, not prisoners of war but simple criminals.