Fort Bragg Aftermath (Why can't the press figure it out?)
Can you believe that the extremist left is upset with the number of times the President mentioned September 11, 2001 in his most recent speach? I can.
Okay, . . . Here’s what's at work here. The extremists know that the American people still harbor harsh feelings toward the Islamic terrorists who killed 3000 of their countrymen on 9/11. The left also knows that the American people will not have any kind feelings toward anyone with any connection, no matter how tenuous, with the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.
Since the left is placing its hopes on any possible electoral gains in 2006 to discrediting Bush's actions in Iraq, they know that they must stand steadfast in their battle to use whatever means necessary, even lies, to make sure that nobody -- and certainly not the president -- is allowed to connect Iraq and Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda.
The truth is that there is no shortage of evidence that there were contacts between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Contracts?? No! Contacts?? Certainly! And, many of Saddam's papers, recovered by the USMC, go to prove that connections DID exist. I'll go through a few sources for this stuff, right here on VRWC, but in the mean time, here's one source you might want to take a look at , . . . It's an excellent article appearing on the online edition of National Review. Andrew McCarthy makes the case that "It's All About 9/11" Yes, there's a link there, . . . as detailed on the NR website, . . . . But I would not recommend this article to any of you leftists out there who can't handle the truth about this matter. There's also an excellent editorial on the National Review website, (check the archives, if you cannot find it), "The Day that binds" which puts forth the premise that you simply cannot make the case for the removal of Saddam without reference to 9/11. Of course, . . . . the extreme left grabs that goal post, and moves it, while it tries to make the case that the National Review is some kind of right wing voice. Okay, . . . we'll give you that, . . . but let's get back to the evidence, . . . and, then, . . . what about Newsweek?
The troubling question here is that in light of all of the documented evidence that there were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, . . . and the evidence that some of Saddam's henchmen might have participated in the early planning of the 9/11 attacks, why do so-called "journalists" actually write or state things like "everybody knows that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda" or "It's been proven that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11?"
These people have access to the same information that I do or that you do . . . Information that shows those connections existed. They can't plead stupidity. The information is out there. It's in the report from David Kay. It's in the 9/11 Commission report . . . it's there, yet its existence is continuously denied by so many in the mainstream media. Why?? Where do they THINK that Serin Gas came from, when it was found in those artillary shells??
Well . . . let's try to answer the big "why??"
As I said, it can't be ignorance. So what's at work here?? How about bias?? Could it be that these "journalists" are consciously practicing the "big lie" technique?? Even though they know better, do they constantly make absolute statements such as "Everybody knows that there's no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda" in an attempt to convince the American people of something that they know full well isn't true?? And why would they do that?? To carry forth an anti-Bush-Administration agenda??
I can’t figure it out, but it’s really silly to expect intellectually-honest, thinking Americans to buy in.
God Bless,
Dan'L
Can you believe that the extremist left is upset with the number of times the President mentioned September 11, 2001 in his most recent speach? I can.
Okay, . . . Here’s what's at work here. The extremists know that the American people still harbor harsh feelings toward the Islamic terrorists who killed 3000 of their countrymen on 9/11. The left also knows that the American people will not have any kind feelings toward anyone with any connection, no matter how tenuous, with the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.
Since the left is placing its hopes on any possible electoral gains in 2006 to discrediting Bush's actions in Iraq, they know that they must stand steadfast in their battle to use whatever means necessary, even lies, to make sure that nobody -- and certainly not the president -- is allowed to connect Iraq and Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda.
The truth is that there is no shortage of evidence that there were contacts between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Contracts?? No! Contacts?? Certainly! And, many of Saddam's papers, recovered by the USMC, go to prove that connections DID exist. I'll go through a few sources for this stuff, right here on VRWC, but in the mean time, here's one source you might want to take a look at , . . . It's an excellent article appearing on the online edition of National Review. Andrew McCarthy makes the case that "It's All About 9/11" Yes, there's a link there, . . . as detailed on the NR website, . . . . But I would not recommend this article to any of you leftists out there who can't handle the truth about this matter. There's also an excellent editorial on the National Review website, (check the archives, if you cannot find it), "The Day that binds" which puts forth the premise that you simply cannot make the case for the removal of Saddam without reference to 9/11. Of course, . . . . the extreme left grabs that goal post, and moves it, while it tries to make the case that the National Review is some kind of right wing voice. Okay, . . . we'll give you that, . . . but let's get back to the evidence, . . . and, then, . . . what about Newsweek?
The troubling question here is that in light of all of the documented evidence that there were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, . . . and the evidence that some of Saddam's henchmen might have participated in the early planning of the 9/11 attacks, why do so-called "journalists" actually write or state things like "everybody knows that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda" or "It's been proven that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11?"
These people have access to the same information that I do or that you do . . . Information that shows those connections existed. They can't plead stupidity. The information is out there. It's in the report from David Kay. It's in the 9/11 Commission report . . . it's there, yet its existence is continuously denied by so many in the mainstream media. Why?? Where do they THINK that Serin Gas came from, when it was found in those artillary shells??
Well . . . let's try to answer the big "why??"
As I said, it can't be ignorance. So what's at work here?? How about bias?? Could it be that these "journalists" are consciously practicing the "big lie" technique?? Even though they know better, do they constantly make absolute statements such as "Everybody knows that there's no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda" in an attempt to convince the American people of something that they know full well isn't true?? And why would they do that?? To carry forth an anti-Bush-Administration agenda??
I can’t figure it out, but it’s really silly to expect intellectually-honest, thinking Americans to buy in.
God Bless,
Dan'L
posted by Charter Membership VRWC at 1:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home