MaestroMatt Must Be Doing Something Right...
Matt's Chat
My Halliburton minions have informed me that some liberal hamster schmuck thinks he's being cute.Let me clear a few things up just so the hamster can maybe get it right.
It's not Georgie, it's President Bush. I have as much loathing for the absurd candidates that the Democrats are putting up that he has for our President. I treat them with more respect than they deserve. The office of the President deserves some respect and it is about time the liberals understand that belittling a great man is not going to save them from their doom.
Am I cocky? Yep. I am. It's in my personality. But you know what? This hamster is the most arrogant guy I have ever met. And I've been around some really cocky people in my life, but none compare to the pompous windbag who has nothing better to do with his life than take cheap shots at me. The world does not revolve around you...the sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll be happier with yourself, your life, and your place in it.
You are correct in saying that Saddam has not cooperated. I never said that he did. I said that because of Saddam's capture we have been able to get others in the insurgency. That's not spin, I was right. And I believe we'll get even more out of him but we'll get to that in a moment.
Let's dig in to the issue of why we invaded Iraq in the first place. My liberal nemesis will give you the Democratic presidential nominee talking point that it was all about an imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. And I will retort with the stating of the liberal doctine: "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good smear." The facts are this: The President never said that the threat from Iraq was imminent. He said that we were going before the threat BECAME imminent. Big difference there. But don't take my word for it, read the President's 2003 State of the Union speech that this comment was taken from and smeared.
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)"
The president was quite clear on what Saddam needed to do to avoid war. I don't think the President was asking for anything out of the ordinary. The President merely wanted Iraq to fulfill its word to the world community. But don't take my word for it, read the President's speech to the Unimportant Nobodies General Assembly from September 2002.
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people."
My liberal nemesis points to a posting of mine about Howard Dean next in which he points out my "hatred just spewing from this (me) righteous conservative." Here's the quote he pulled.
"Mr. Dean...if you were president, and thank God you aren't, a brutal tyrant known as Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would still be gathering weapons of mass destruction. He would still be training and paying off terrorists."
What is so hateful about this? It is a statement of fact. Mr. Dean would not have taken the action that our President did to remove saddam Hussein from power. Saddam would have still been persuing weapons of mass destruction and he would still be supporting terrorism. Is it hateful that I thank God that Mr. Dean isn't president? How petty. I think my liberal nemesis could do better at finding hateful posts from me than this. Let me recommend to my liberal nemesis that he take a look at what I've had to say about congressional Republicans in the last month. How about the postings about the misguided Catholic Church? Jeez man, if you're going to waste rhetoric like that, the least you could do is get it right.
If you should visit this site, you will find that my liberal nemesis calls me spineless and lacking "balls." He says I ran from a fight, and that I have stuck my head up now that I have good news to share. I've posted here most every day. I run from no one. Especially the likes of him. I find it curious that this fellow would take this view of me since he considers me Mark's "master" which should really endear him to any African Americans who might find his site. A liberal white guy thinks he has a clue what slavery was all about.
My liberal nemesis points out that no weapons of mass destruction have been found or that no "solid" evidence linking Saddam and al Queda have been found. I would add one word to both of those statements..."yet." And I've read some things from non-American media sources that I would gladly put up as evidence that are more solid than his Big Oil/Halliburton conspiracy theories.
Next, my liberal nemesis decides to whine about the 2000 election again. Why do liberals do this? George Bush WON that election. No amount of recounting changed that. Al Gore failed. It doesn't matter how "smart" you think he is, he lost that election. The real issue in this bit is national security. Gore would have done what his leash handler, the Clintons, did...nothing. Clinton and Gore deteriorated our national security to the breaking point. They destroyed our nation's intelligence capability and stripped our military down to the bone. Gore wouldn't have bothered with Clinton's recommendations about bin Laden because Clinton didn't warn anybody about al Queda. (All I remember hearing about this is Clinton saying after 9/11 that he warned the President, but it sounded to me like Clinton was feeling guilty for having let bin Laden slip through his fingers a few times. Maybe I'm wrong on that point, readers, please send me the evidence if you have it that President Bush acknowledged having received any warning from Clinton.)
The hamster then takes a dig at the unity of our nation. And how had Gore actually been a decent enough candidate to win the election (he didn't say it that way, but that's the way I see it), our nation would be united. Wrong again. If the liberals want to think that "unity" is what we had during the Clinton/Gore administration, he is sadly mistaken (This coming from a guy who actually voted for Clinton the first time - I know, I was duped.).
Lastly, my liberal nemesis talks about fear being the "conservative trump card." I find this particular charge to be quite humorous, especially when considering that the Democrats routinely use fear as a tactic in securing their base. Look at the way they treat minority voters. They place the fear of withdrawn handouts (which only keep the poor and minorities under their boot) as their primary weapon. No conservative ever said that America must live in fear of terrorists. The conservative line is that America should fight back against the terrorists. And fight back HARD. Lieberman and Zell Miller are the few Democrats I hear echoing that sentiment and they get ostracized by their liberal friends for wanting to protect America. "Without fear, conservatives have nothing." he says. I guess Medicare, education, Clean Air, Homeland Security, the economy, strengthening the military, and expanding the reach of freedom mean nothing to my liberal nemesis.
For the record, the President did not say "to hell with the UN." The UN said to hell wth the UN. They failed to make good on their resolutions. They are a spineless organization. The President led our nation to war with a coalition of willing nations because the United Nations, France, Germany, and Russia decided that UN resolutions weren't worth the paper they were written on.
Is this crap all you got?
