CCTAU 3,350 Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 Here is an opinion of some of the statements made by saviour dean in his last speach. The part about "asking" the UN for anything amkes me sick. When the day comes that a US president has to ask permission from a one world government, will be long after the rapture. JUST HOW AMERICAN IS HOWARD DEANDo you think America is safer now that Saddam Hussein has been captured? yes no Yeah, I know. It's really not nice to question the Americanism of Democrats and other left-wingers. Howard Dean, though, has been making some statements that I believe make questioning his loyalty to the country of his birth a fair exercise. Dean said quite a few absurd things during his foreign policy speech earlier this week. He said, for instance, that America was no safer because of the capture of Saddam Hussein. Here we have a man who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people ... some with chemical weapons; a man who was attempting to develop nuclear weapons; a man who admitted to the possession of huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons; a man who wrote checks to the families of terrorist suicide bombers and a man who we are now discovering had ties to Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda operation ... and Dean says we are no safer because this man has been captured? There was something else buried in Dean's foreign policy speech that needs addressing. Dean was trying to show that he wasn't really weak on security, that he wouldn't really be all that much of a wimp in the Oval Office. He said that "Had the United Nations given us permission and asked us to be a part of a multilateral force I would not have hesitated to go into Iraq." Well, isn't that special. Dean would have gone into Iraq --- but only if the United Nations gave him permission. With this statement Dean has informed America that actions he would take to defend the territory and the people of the United States would be subject to the approval of the United Nations. In other words, actions taken by a President Dean to protect the people of the United States would be subject to a French veto. Sorry, folks ... but this is not part of my definition of a loyal American. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aucorner 0 Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 Dean is not unamerican[we are a melting pot ]. He is just a confused metrosexual! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,350 Posted December 18, 2003 Author Share Posted December 18, 2003 Dean is not unamerican[we are a melting pot ]. He is just a confused metrosexual! CONFUSED becoming a key word when describing him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 JUST HOW AMERICAN IS HOWARD DEANDo you think America is safer now that Saddam Hussein has been captured? yes no   Yeah, I know. It's really not nice to question the Americanism of Democrats and other left-wingers. Howard Dean, though, has been making some statements that I believe make questioning his loyalty to the country of his birth a fair exercise. Dean said quite a few absurd things during his foreign policy speech earlier this week. He said, for instance, that America was no safer because of the capture of Saddam Hussein. Here we have a man who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people ... some with chemical weapons; a man who was attempting to develop nuclear weapons; a man who admitted to the possession of huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons; a man who wrote checks to the families of terrorist suicide bombers and a man who we are now discovering had ties to Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda operation ... and Dean says we are no safer because this man has been captured? There was something else buried in Dean's foreign policy speech that needs addressing. Dean was trying to show that he wasn't really weak on security, that he wouldn't really be all that much of a wimp in the Oval Office. He said that "Had the United Nations given us permission and asked us to be a part of a multilateral force I would not have hesitated to go into Iraq." Well, isn't that special. Dean would have gone into Iraq --- but only if the United Nations gave him permission. With this statement Dean has informed America that actions he would take to defend the territory and the people of the United States would be subject to the approval of the United Nations. In other words, actions taken by a President Dean to protect the people of the United States would be subject to a French veto. Sorry, folks ... but this is not part of my definition of a loyal American. Boortz Lies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Nice try to take away from the topic tigeral. There is no proof that boortz lied about anything on this website. Many of the things he claimed about saddam are definitely true such as gassing his own people, and admitting/claiming to have large stockpiles of bio weapons. The only questionable one is the nuke thing and I find it hard to believe that at some time that insane freak didn't try to obtain nukes in some way. I assume that is what you are talking about with your extremely vague post here. Why don't we get back on the subject of your best boy dean being a blithering idiot who doesn't believe the US is safer due to saddams capture. There are too many ways to shoot that right out of the water. Oh yeah and what about dean the ultra libbie freak who says he would have been ok if the un had approved it. Geeze isn't there about 10 tons of handwriting on the wall that says the un is highly controlled by a bunch of morons. There are just too many ways to prove that also. The day we have a President who is afraid to do what he feels is best for this country without un approval is the day that the end is near. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUloggerhead 2,255 Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 From the Required Reading list on Neil Boortz site is this piece from Thomas Sowell: Quagmire I love the way this guy writes -- his common sense just jumps out & grabs you: ... With all the complaints about what has not been done yet in Iraq, we need to step back and think about the fact that less than a year has elapsed since the war began. This should be in the Guinness Book of World Records as the shortest quagmire in history. Nothing is easier than to sit on the sidelines and demand that there be a "plan" showing what will be done when and how -- as if wars can be run on a timetable, like a railroad. Even after the capture of Saddam Hussein, there is still a war going on in Iraq -- a terrorist war fought by both outsiders and members of the murderous old regime who think that they can drive us out by making the country too hot for us.Like a baseball game, wars are not over till they are over. Wars don't run on a clock like football. No previous generation was so hopelessly unrealistic that this had to be explained to them. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger12 46 Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 I would not go too far by calling him un-American. Being an American means you have the right to say stupid things and be an idiot if you choose to be. In Dean's case, he is American as apple pie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.