Another right wing disgrace

[RunInRed 16,489]

Shame on you Rep. King. As an American I am insulted by your comments. This is nothing more than the politics of fear. Ignorance from some one who is supposed to be a leader. Very sad and truly pathetic for an elected official to spew this nonsense. This kind of crap is going to get the Repubs beat by 10 points in November. Same old fear mongering from the Repubs...don't know why I'm suprised any more.

GOP congressman says terrorists would celebrate Obama win

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — An Iowa Republican congressman said Friday that terrorists would be "dancing in the streets" if Democratic candidate Barack Obama were to win the presidency.

Rep. Steve King based his prediction on Obama's pledge to pull troops out of Iraq, his Kenyan heritage and his middle name, Hussein.

"The radical Islamists, the al-Qaida … would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they would declare victory in this war on terror," King said in an interview with the Daily Reporter in Spencer.

King said his comments were not meant to demean Obama but to warn how an Obama presidency would look to the world.

"His middle name does matter," King said. "It matters because they read a meaning into that."

The Illinois senator, born in Hawaii to a white Kansas woman and a Kenyan man, is a Christian and has said he has little connection to the Islamic religion, though he acknowledges he spent part of his childhood in largely Muslim Indonesia.

In criticizing King, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said, "These comments have no place in our politics." He called on John McCain, the apparent Republican nominee, to "repudiate them like he has previous offensive comments from his supporters."

Last month, McCain denounced an introduction from Cincinnati talk-show host Bill Cunningham, who referred to Obama three times as "Barack Hussein Obama."

UPDATE: CNN's Deirde Walsh reports that Brandon Lerch, a spokesman for Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), says the congressman stands by the comments.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[jw 4 au 526]

OK, I'll take the bait tonight. I don't now who Rep. King is, but how can you discredit what he says as fear mongering? You have as little clue as to what the terrorist are thinking as he does. But to break it down for you, I think it is obvious that they would prefer anyone other than McCain, especially Obama.

Obama = Rapid withdrawel from Iraq (as it is finally being settled down a bit)

Obama = ZERO foreign affairs experience

Obama = opening dialogue with terrorist and terrorist nations

Obama = man with Islamic bloodlines, not that there is anything wrong with that (as tough as it is to admit, they know what his middle name is too)

And there are probably a few others comparisons that I left out. Why wouldn't they be dancing in the streets? I think you probably could insert any democratic nominees name in there (except Bidens) and come up with a similar scenario.

The truth of the matter is, if Obama becomes the leader of the free world, they will soon start to hate him just as much as the previous guy, no matter what! That is simply they way they (Islamist militants) think.

[Tigermike 3,054]

So did your handlers tell you to float this in order to keep people minds off the Obama, Rezko & Nadhmi Auchi oil for food $$$$, connections?

[bigsixfive 328]

They're already dancing.

Libyan strongman Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi weighed in on America's presidential campaign, specifically commenting on both Democratic rivals' repeated calls for "change."

"I've seen that in America, a candidate who wants people to vote for him keeps talking about change," Qaddafi said earlier this week in a televised address on Libyan TV, an obvious reference to Barack Obama.

"They all keep saying 'change, change,' " he continued, adding Hillary Clinton to his reference. "They want to change America and its current political system. They want to make a change in their lives. They say their system is a failure, that their government is a failure, and that their elections are a failure."

Qaddafi offered up Libya as a model for "change," predicting that "the whole world will return to the model of the republic of the masses, to communes, to popular security, to popular defense, to popular capitalism, and to popular socialism.

"The whole world will return to the Libyan model," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335993,00.html

[arnaldoabru 11]

OK, I'll take the bait tonight. I don't now who Rep. King is, but how can you discredit what he says as fear mongering? You have as little clue as to what the terrorist are thinking as he does. But to break it down for you, I think it is obvious that they would prefer anyone other than McCain, especially Obama.

Obama = Rapid withdrawel from Iraq (as it is finally being settled down a bit)

Obama = ZERO foreign affairs experience

Obama = opening dialogue with terrorist and terrorist nations

Obama = man with Islamic bloodlines, not that there is anything wrong with that (as tough as it is to admit, they know what his middle name is too)

And there are probably a few others comparisons that I left out. Why wouldn't they be dancing in the streets? I think you probably could insert any democratic nominees name in there (except Bidens) and come up with a similar scenario.

The truth of the matter is, if Obama becomes the leader of the free world, they will soon start to hate him just as much as the previous guy, no matter what! That is simply they way they (Islamist militants) think.

"Obama=man with Islamic bloodlines"

O.K. ...is that like having a coon dog with good bloodlines.

Or having a bloodline with Man O War

I didn't know Religions have bloodlines...Wait a minute maybe this is like the DaVinci Code

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Obama = man with Islamic bloodlines, not that there is anything wrong with that (as tough as it is to admit, they know what his middle name is too)

Boy, this one of your more stupid offerings.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Nothing disgraceful about those comments in the least. Truth hurts some folks.

And I'm glad the guy stands by his comments, and isn't backing down or offering some sort of phoney CYA apolgoy. Good for him!

[RunInRed 16,489]

Nothing disgracefl about those comments.

[jw 4 au 526]

Obama = man with Islamic bloodlines, not that there is anything wrong with that (as tough as it is to admit, they know what his middle name is too)

Boy, this one of your more stupid offerings.

Look, I stated my personal opinion there (and I wan't even referencing Jerry Seinfeld). I was simply pointing out what people in the middle east may be thinking. I in no way think that because his middle name is Hussein and his father was muslim that if he becomes our next President, he will intentially hand the keys over to the terrorist. I just simply think he is the least qualified off ALL the candidates. Woo is me is all I hear from these type of posts lately. You can't have thin skin in any level of politics these days.

Not to mention you completely ignored the other reasons why the terrorist MAY be dancing in the streets if Obama is elected.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Obama = man with Islamic bloodlines, not that there is anything wrong with that (as tough as it is to admit, they know what his middle name is too)

Boy, this one of your more stupid offerings.

Look, I stated my personal opinion there (and I wan't even referencing Jerry Seinfeld). I was simply pointing out what people in the middle east may be thinking. I in no way think that because his middle name is Hussein and his father was muslim that if he becomes our next President, he will intentially hand the keys over to the terrorist. I just simply think he is the least qualified off ALL the candidates. Woo is me is all I hear from these type of posts lately. You can't have thin skin in any level of politics these days.

Not to mention you completely ignored the other reasons why the terrorist MAY be dancing in the streets if Obama is elected.

You didn't give "reasons". You gave moronic musings. Moronic musings aren't worth taking much time for.

[jw 4 au 526]

Obama = man with Islamic bloodlines, not that there is anything wrong with that (as tough as it is to admit, they know what his middle name is too)

Boy, this one of your more stupid offerings.

Look, I stated my personal opinion there (and I wan't even referencing Jerry Seinfeld). I was simply pointing out what people in the middle east may be thinking. I in no way think that because his middle name is Hussein and his father was muslim that if he becomes our next President, he will intentially hand the keys over to the terrorist. I just simply think he is the least qualified off ALL the candidates. Woo is me is all I hear from these type of posts lately. You can't have thin skin in any level of politics these days.

Not to mention you completely ignored the other reasons why the terrorist MAY be dancing in the streets if Obama is elected.

You didn't give "reasons". You gave moronic musings. Moronic musings aren't worth taking much time for.

Again, deflection is what you are a master of. Oh, and insults. So much more intellegent than the rest of us. We burden you with moronic musings? Ha ha, you have really fallen off the charts to the left and can't even see the forest for the trees. Try for once to step outside of your little box and see an alternative opinion. Maybe not on this issue, but on ANY issue. I have said it before, but you sound like the Rush Limbaugh of the left.

That said, what is untrue about the first statement?

Obama = Rapid withdrawel from Iraq (as it is finally being settled down a bit)

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Obama = man with Islamic bloodlines, not that there is anything wrong with that (as tough as it is to admit, they know what his middle name is too)

Boy, this one of your more stupid offerings.

Look, I stated my personal opinion there (and I wan't even referencing Jerry Seinfeld). I was simply pointing out what people in the middle east may be thinking. I in no way think that because his middle name is Hussein and his father was muslim that if he becomes our next President, he will intentially hand the keys over to the terrorist. I just simply think he is the least qualified off ALL the candidates. Woo is me is all I hear from these type of posts lately. You can't have thin skin in any level of politics these days.

Not to mention you completely ignored the other reasons why the terrorist MAY be dancing in the streets if Obama is elected.

You didn't give "reasons". You gave moronic musings. Moronic musings aren't worth taking much time for.

Again, deflection is what you are a master of. Oh, and insults. So much more intellegent than the rest of us. We burden you with moronic musings? Ha ha, you have really fallen off the charts to the left and can't even see the forest for the trees. Try for once to step outside of your little box and see an alternative opinion. Maybe not on this issue, but on ANY issue. I have said it before, but you sound like the Rush Limbaugh of the left.

That said, what is untrue about the first statement?

Obama = Rapid withdrawel from Iraq (as it is finally being settled down a bit)

Quit trying to lump in others with the person I was talking to-- you. You asked me to respond to your "reasons" "terrorists MAY be dancing in the streets if Obama is elected." And then get upset because I don't legitimize such idiocy with polite conversation? You have rarely demonstrated any real interest in engaging in rational discourse. Talk about thin skin-- don't get upset when someone responds in a manner in keeping with what you serve up.

[jw 4 au 526]

Quit trying to lump in others with the person I was talking to-- you. You asked me to respond to your "reasons" "terrorists MAY be dancing in the streets if Obama is elected." And then get upset because I don't legitimize such idiocy with polite conversation? You have rarely demonstrated any real interest in engaging in rational discourse. Talk about thin skin-- don't get upset when someone responds in a manner in keeping with what you serve up.

I think you misunderstand me. I personally could care less what you think about me personally and it doesn't bother me in the least. Now I am not on here 100 percent of the time, but you have had very little substance to add to this forum for the past year or so. I used to enjoy reading your posts, even though I was not alway in agreement with them. You used to be less...frustrated I guess, with other peoples opinions and didn't speak down to everyone as much. Now that is just my opinion. You can deny that as well if you want. I already know you don't care so I will quit tryig to engage you in conversation.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Quit trying to lump in others with the person I was talking to-- you. You asked me to respond to your "reasons" "terrorists MAY be dancing in the streets if Obama is elected." And then get upset because I don't legitimize such idiocy with polite conversation? You have rarely demonstrated any real interest in engaging in rational discourse. Talk about thin skin-- don't get upset when someone responds in a manner in keeping with what you serve up.

I think you misunderstand me. I personally could care less what you think about me personally and it doesn't bother me in the least. Now I am not on here 100 percent of the time, but you have had very little substance to add to this forum for the past year or so. I used to enjoy reading your posts, even though I was not alway in agreement with them. You used to be less...frustrated I guess, with other peoples opinions and didn't speak down to everyone as much. Now that is just my opinion. You can deny that as well if you want. I already know you don't care so I will quit tryig to engage you in conversation.

It is certainly true that I'm less likely to waste my time crafting strong arguments for folks who are not at all likely to change their minds.

Back to this topic-- this kind of fearmongering from a congressman is reprehensible. And you defend it. In fact, you say it isn't even fearmongering. This guy is whacky. Defend it if you want. I'll call it what I want.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Nothing disgracefl about those comments.

Just so we're clear, I didn't happen to see ANY Democrats utter a single word about how disgraceful were the words of Jack Murtha or DICK Durbin, when they vilified our troops. But here, you're not seeing the Congressman bad mouth Barack, but he's simply describing what the Islamic nut cases will do if Obama wins. There's a world of difference here, and your misplaced 'disgust' is a tad laughable.

[RunInRed 16,489]

Nothing disgracefl about those comments.

Just so we're clear, I didn't happen to see ANY Democrats utter a single word about how disgraceful were the words of Jack Murtha or DICK Durbin, when they vilified our troops. But here, you're not seeing the Congressman bad mouth Barack, but he's simply describing what the Islamic nut cases will do if Obama wins. There's a world of difference here, and your misplaced 'disgust' is a tad laughable.

How does he know what the "Islamic nut cases" will do today, tomorrow, if McCain is elected, if Clinton is elected or if Obama is elected? It's fear mongering at the very least.

Provide some quotes from Murtha or Durbin and I'll react. I don't remember condoning any of their actions. Please reference a thread when throwing out baseless accusations about people who don't happen to share your point of view.

Finally, I find it pretty ironic that the same people who were so wrong about Iraq 6 years ago, are the same ones who now "know" what's going to happen if we withdraw our troops from Iraq, if so and so is elected, etc. Then again, maybe you guys have worked the kinks out of your crystal ball and we should all give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Nothing disgracefl about those comments.

Just so we're clear, I didn't happen to see ANY Democrats utter a single word about how disgraceful were the words of Jack Murtha or DICK Durbin, when they vilified our troops. But here, you're not seeing the Congressman bad mouth Barack, but he's simply describing what the Islamic nut cases will do if Obama wins. There's a world of difference here, and your misplaced 'disgust' is a tad laughable.

Raptor for the win!

I recall here about 2 weeks ago, one of them going off on another member concerning the Guard. I don't remember the particulars about the exchange other than TigerAl feigning outrage at some comment by CCTAU that somehow involved the Guard. I asked then where was this passion when the democrat leadership were saying things 100 times worse.

Nothing but crickets.

Friggin' hypocrites.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Nothing disgracefl about those comments.

Just so we're clear, I didn't happen to see ANY Democrats utter a single word about how disgraceful were the words of Jack Murtha or DICK Durbin, when they vilified our troops. But here, you're not seeing the Congressman bad mouth Barack, but he's simply describing what the Islamic nut cases will do if Obama wins. There's a world of difference here, and your misplaced 'disgust' is a tad laughable.

Raptor for the win!

I recall here about 2 weeks ago, one of them going off on another member concerning the Guard. I don't remember the particulars about the exchange other than TigerAl feigning outrage at some comment by CCTAU that somehow involved the Guard. I asked then where was this passion when the democrat leadership were saying things 100 times worse.

Nothing but crickets.

Friggin' hypocrites.

"Oh, yeah? Well two years ago a Dem said..."

I hope you people aren't raising children. If you are, I pity their teachers.

[jw 4 au 526]

Back to this topic-- this kind of fearmongering from a congressman is reprehensible. And you defend it. In fact, you say it isn't even fearmongering. This guy is whacky. Defend it if you want. I'll call it what I want.

Now we are back on target. All I was saying is that I am tired of the "Woe is me" excuse by Obama supporters everyday. You can't say anything negative about the guy without someone trying to spin it, even if the negative is from his own party. It started with Biden and continues with Clinton and any Republican today. Simply offer a retort to what was said. In this case, there is none. Take it for what you will, but Obama has ZERO foreign policy experience. Of course the Islamic extremist will be pleased with his election over McCain's, it's cmmon sense. And suggesting that all will be solved by "opening dialogue" with the likes of Ahmadinejad and Chavez is utterly rediculous. The "politics of fear" excuse is very old and played out, that was for the Bush loses when he (Bush) exhibited that we wasn't even the strongest Republican candidate. And all the Democrats could offer was John Kerry? Come on, that guy couldn't even be considered an option for over half of normal American citizens. With a less liberal candidate on he Democratic ticket, the office is for the taking. Quit blindly defending the extreme left, it's not working.

[Tigermike 3,054]

Nothing disgracefl about those comments.

Just so we're clear, I didn't happen to see ANY Democrats utter a single word about how disgraceful were the words of Jack Murtha or DICK Durbin, when they vilified our troops. But here, you're not seeing the Congressman bad mouth Barack, but he's simply describing what the Islamic nut cases will do if Obama wins. There's a world of difference here, and your misplaced 'disgust' is a tad laughable.

Raptor for the win!

I recall here about 2 weeks ago, one of them going off on another member concerning the Guard. I don't remember the particulars about the exchange other than TigerAl feigning outrage at some comment by CCTAU that somehow involved the Guard. I asked then where was this passion when the democrat leadership were saying things 100 times worse.

Nothing but crickets.

Friggin' hypocrites.

"Oh, yeah? Well two years ago a Dem said..."

I hope you people aren't raising children. If you are, I pity their teachers.

While you are on quotes form democrats,,,,,,,,,,,

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." John F. Kennedy

"I would meet without preconditions our enemies." Barack Obama

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

President Kennedy cut capital gains taxes, saying, "A rising tide lifts all boats."

Obama has stuck with the class envy of current dimocrats.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack..._Tax_Reform.htm

Barack Obama

Refuses to vote for any bill that could be seen as authorizing the President to use or threaten to use force against Iran. Teddy Roosevelt said that in matters of foreign policy, we should walk softly and carry a big stick. Obama would have us on our knees with only a toothpick wrapped in celophane kept in a zippered pocket. That hasn't been mainstream since Jimmy Carter tried that technique while our embassy personnel were being held hostage for 444 days - by Iran.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iraq

On Cuba.

"I support the eventual normalization, and it's absolutely true that I think our policy has been a failure."

Obama said he would meet with the leaders of North Korea, Iran and Cuba "without preconditions."

Kennedy never availed himself of the opportunity of negotiating with Fidel Castro, with or without preconditions.

JFK came up with this policy isolating Cuba. In fact he embargoed - he called it "quarantined" - Cuba, which was an act of war.

It forced the Soviet Union to remove its nuclear missiles from Cuba.

Some things are non-negotiable. The safety of Miami is one of those things.

In Ohio, Obama said: "We should take that $12 billion we're spending every month in Iraq right now and spend it in places like Ohio, putting people back to work, making the economy more competitive."

Contrast that to JFK's inauguration speech, in which he said, "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

If $12 billion a month out of an economy with a gross domestic product of $15 trillion a year is too big a price or too heavy burden for Obama, maybe he should just stay in the Senate and finish his rookie term.

JFK's senior thesis at Harvard, "Why England Slept," blasted the policies of appeasement that were pursued by the Brits.

Neville Chamberlain indeed negotiated with Adolf Hitler - without preconditions. Obama must have studied Chamberlain and decided he could make it work this time around.

From the isolationist policies that Obama proposes, to his redistributionist economic policies, Obama is a lot like a Kennedy.

Unfortunately it's apparent, that Kennedy is Ted, not John.

[CCTAU 3,346]

Doesn't matter who the dim candi8date is, the terrorists will rejoice over any dim win. Dims = appeasement. This is the same argument used when sKerry was running. It was true then and it's true now.

Mr. achmed Obama has already stated that he would completely capitulate to the terrorists by pulling troops. This wold be good for the terrorists. Therefore to assume they would dance in the street in the same manner that they did on 9/12/2001 would not be a stretch at all. In the end, the perfectly placed fear of terrorist attacking our country again, will place a republican ahead of a weak-spined librul. Enjoy your moment with achmed. The tide will continue to shift to security from terrorism...and the dim record is clear on this point.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Just as they rejoiced over Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

"Oh, yeah? Well two years ago a Dem said..."

I hope you people aren't raising children. If you are, I pity their teachers.

Well, yeah, a dem did say those things "2 years ago." Where was the outrage then? I seem to recall the response from the dems here being muffled due to the Murtha fellatio that was going on at the time. I called it hypocricy then, and I stand by what I said. You guys can be on the wrong side (IMO) as much as you want. It's your right. All I ask is that you be consistent. That hasn't happened, thus the hypocrite label. It's more than deserved in this instance.

[AURaptor 1,126]

How does he know what the "Islamic nut cases" will do today, tomorrow, if McCain is elected, if Clinton is elected or if Obama is elected? It's fear mongering at the very least.

Provide some quotes from Murtha or Durbin and I'll react. I don't remember condoning any of their actions. Please reference a thread when throwing out baseless accusations about people who don't happen to share your point of view.

Finally, I find it pretty ironic that the same people who were so wrong about Iraq 6 years ago, are the same ones who now "know" what's going to happen if we withdraw our troops from Iraq, if so and so is elected, etc. Then again, maybe you guys have worked the kinks out of your crystal ball and we should all give you the benefit of the doubt.

It's understood that any immediate withdrawl of troops, as Obama has cliamed, would result in chaos, and everyone knows this, from the Left and the Right. Clinton and McCain both have stated they'll keep troops in Iraq. The terrorist are losing this battle, and have our foot on their throats. Us handing over Iraq to them now, after we've overcome so much, would be perhaps the biggest military folly of all humanity.

It's common knowledge what Durbin and Murtha said, maybe you should Google them up if you can't recall ( or find out for the first time what most already knew ).

Why do you say we were " so wrong" 6 yrs ago ? What's that suppose to be in reference toward ? By your lack of knowledge about what members of your own party have said, it's understandable you'd not have much of a clue about what's going on in the 1st place.

"Oh, yeah? Well two years ago a Dem said..."

I hope you people aren't raising children. If you are, I pity their teachers.

You proudly comment about what allegedly went wrong 6 yrs ago, and then you chide others for bringing up what was said 2 yrs ago. Inconsistant much ? And what's this have to do w/ kids ? Getting a bit personal , aren't ya? I don't have kids, but that sure as hell wouldn't change my views on this one bit. Hows about you stick to the facts of the issue, assuming you know them, and leave the family members of others out of the discussion, ok ?