Video: KP calls for violent uprising
posted at 10:02 pm on September 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Well, no, not really. That’s just her way of feebly ducking a question about Hillary’s capitulation to MoveOn yesterday. “We should be talking about the war,” she says, tearing a page from Chuck Todd while conveniently ignoring the fact that (a) we spent all of last week talking about the war, (b) we’ll be talking about the war for months and years to come, (c) the senate’s spent the past three days talking about the war with three predictably dead resolutions to show for it, and (d) no one’s going to budge from their Iraq positions for the time being so any talk about the war is momentarily useless. Hannity comes back by putting her on the spot: was it right for Hillary to basically call Petraeus a liar? KP’s assured us more than once during her long-winded Giuliani broadsides that if and when Hillary does something wrong, she’ll happily call her on it. She failed on that promise when the Glacier went and kowtowed to the filthy nutroots at Yearly Kos this summer; this was her golden opportunity to redeem herself. Result: “I think that you’re suggesting that she’s not actually allowed to question a general.” Rest, KP.
Oh, and as for her point about Admiral Fallon allegedly not agreeing with Petraeus, quote: “The most important thing is I’m very happy with what Dave has recommended.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Can Fox quit debating the stupid ad and get back to O.J. coverage…wait it was O.J. all day.
scooter on September 21, 2007 at 10:15 PM
The first segment of the show tonight was a great example of the lengths those on the left will go to apologize for those who want to destroy us.
BadgerHawk on September 21, 2007 at 10:20 PM
You know, I’m not sure that the liberals aren’t right here, but for the wrong reason. The problem with a Congressional resolution condemning moveon.org ads is that our federal government is one of enumerated powers, spelled out in the Constitution. And I just don’t see a power granted there that gives Congress power to condemn an ad by moveon.org–or, conversely, to praise it. The actions by moveon.org, outrageous as they may be, really aren’t affected by any of the Article I Section 8 military powers Congress is granted.
radjah shelduck on September 21, 2007 at 10:30 PM
calls for violent uprising
Are we not getting to that point? The more I read the more intracable people are becoming from immigration to the war to health care, to taxes. There is no “light at the end of the tunnel” that I can see to resolve these issues. The country is evenly divided. Sure its leaning left but only because left is different than what we have had for the last 8 years. 4 years of “left” will just make the nation lean right again. How do we resolve our difference short of uprising? I hope some one can come up with that answer and pretty fast too. What has happened to our great country? the fruits of absolute power maybe?
unseen on September 21, 2007 at 10:31 PM
I actually liked KP’s comment about being sick of both parties. It was actually one the more reasonable statements I’ve ever heard her say. Though it’s tough to understand why she feels such a need to defend Hillary Clinton though (cringe).
ThackerAgency on September 21, 2007 at 10:41 PM
I really don’t see anything wrong with what she’s saying. I see your point concerning Fallon, but when Hannity put the question to her, he talked over her (which is his m.o.).
Plus, she’s absolutely right: It’s a bunch of damn hemming and hawing about a newspaper ad (yes, a reprehensible one). It absolutely is a “Gotcha!” for the right, but it’s time to -ahem- move on.
SouthernDem on September 21, 2007 at 10:41 PM
one – of – the more
and only one ‘though’ in the last sentence please (start and end with the same word? I laugh at myself.)
mental editing without actually editing again – ugh.
ThackerAgency on September 21, 2007 at 10:42 PM
If Rudy Giuliani, say, accused a top general of being a liar, you wouldn’t expect me to criticize him on this site? Would you expect KP to criticize him?
I’m thisclose to reinstating the “Shillary” nickname.
Allahpundit on September 21, 2007 at 10:44 PM
You know, its depressing to see Kirsten not call it straight up. She’s better than this…
Bad Candy on September 21, 2007 at 10:53 PM
I wish MoveOn would quit distracting us from talking about the war with their ads and their defenses of them. It’s like they don’t really want to talk about it seriously.
Dusty on September 21, 2007 at 10:54 PM
It’s genuinely sad.
Allahpundit on September 21, 2007 at 10:56 PM
She should ask her doctor if Paxil is right for her.
thedecider on September 21, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Isn’t Kirsten’s original profession Democratic strategist? Could her fairly recent refusal to criticize Hillary on anything be simply that she is doing, or will be doing consulting work for Hillary soon? If that’s the case, she should be retired as an analyst. She’s becoming as selectively blind as Janet Reno was.
austinnelly on September 21, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Don’t know but I’ve been wondering that myself. It’d be a spectacularly silly decision, if so.
Allahpundit on September 21, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Seems a likely scenario anyway. Just a few months ago, she almost sounded conservative on some things…now…sheesh, what’s that new Body Snatcher movie with Nicole Kidman? Kirsten has been replaced! Nah, probably just a new job. Still sucks though. Reminds me of when my mom took me to the store when I was in 5th grade and I saw my math teacher buying a carton of cigarettes. Innocence lost…
austinnelly on September 21, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Silly for whom?
Hillary or KP ?
billy on September 21, 2007 at 11:09 PM
I didn’t know it was off?
Or did I miss the memo?
Mcguyver on September 21, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Apparently to KP, calling one a lier comes in different colour degrees.
Kini on September 21, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Still totally dateable. I’ve made relationships work with nothing but raw chemistry and basically nothing in common.
It’s fantastic, if limited in a temporal sense. But so is life.
Asher on September 21, 2007 at 11:11 PM
KP. She’s going to give up a plum gig on Fox News to go be some cog in the Clinton machine? That’d be nutty.
Allahpundit on September 21, 2007 at 11:12 PM
The powers enumerated in the Constitution are for governance, i.e. enacting laws that have the power to compel the people. These resolutions condemning or praising different groups are merely the Senate or House saying, “We agree!” They have nothing to do with enacting laws.
Troy Rasmussen on September 21, 2007 at 11:13 PM
And we must not forget that it is way more than just any general making any average day to day comment. It was THE report, THE moment, THE surge defined as failure or success by THE ONE TRUSTED GENERAL.
Everything about Iraq’s future and America’s report card on our involvement all funneled to one man, one day, one moment.
This statement is just moronic “We should be talking about the war,” she says,’…uh… it IS about the war and this ‘betray us’ ad was the dems “failure, pullout, and bailout” plan that they tried to sell to the world. They did this, it was/is the lefts attempt once again to lose the war.
shooter on September 21, 2007 at 11:13 PM
And shouldn’t Hannity hosting a Rudy fundraiser be grounds for retirement?
scooter on September 21, 2007 at 11:13 PM
I get the sense that in a weird way, her saying she is disgusted with both parties, is really, obliquely back peddling on a number of her recent “shillings”.
Mcguyver on September 21, 2007 at 11:14 PM
We should be talking about how the hell can Hildabeast stand up to anybody, let alone terrorists. She may have balls and brains, but that doesn’t give her any skills for being commander in chief.
Tennessee Dave on September 21, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Hannity hasn’t undergone a noticable change in recent months in his coverage; he’s been predictably right wing. KP was once a centrist and could find common ground on many conservative issues. She was fair minded, much more than any democrat I’ve come across. Lately, she sounds just like every other Hillary flack. Give cover to the candidate, criticize nothing. I miss the old Kirsten. I’m not saying she should lose her job; just that I wish she did it like she used to. As far as Hannity, I couldn’t care less who he shills for; unless its Romney, in which case I’d question his sanity.
austinnelly on September 21, 2007 at 11:24 PM
I’m not accusing her of supporting Hillary’s vote yesterday. KP called the MoveOn ad “despicable” last week and almost certainly disapproves of what Hillary’s done. She just doesn’t have the stones to come right out and say so, for whatever reason.
Allahpundit on September 21, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Why is it okay then for the media to go on and on
over Abramoff,Newt,Larry Graig,Kennith Star,and Karl Rove,
and the list keeps going!
Oh,thats right,I forget we can’t talk about Liberal
controversy and scandel,or Hit Pieces.
The liberals keep claiming”We(LIBERALS)SUPPORT THE TROOPS”!
And now not only the Commander in Chief has lied.Liberals
are now going after the top of the United States Military,
and calling them liars as well.
A really nice commercial should be in order,so that Liberals no matter were they are,have to explain their lack of faith for the United States Armed Forces.
canopfor on September 21, 2007 at 11:26 PM
I’ve got to believe KP would vote against the
amendment to support the General. She’s becoming an
Alan Colmes twin.
Texyank on September 21, 2007 at 11:28 PM
No wonder she dumped you…/s
shooter on September 21, 2007 at 11:33 PM
No, she wouldn’t. Let’s be fair.
Allahpundit on September 21, 2007 at 11:33 PM
They have done that – called General Betray Us.
Who in this discussion (if any) is struggling with the fact that the libs have completely gone over the cliff?!
Mcguyver on September 21, 2007 at 11:33 PM
We do have to make a distinction between the liberal pale faces and the elected Dems who pander to them for votes/brochure headlines/money.
Mcguyver on September 21, 2007 at 11:36 PM
The answer is get into action NOW! as only the “Great Communicator” could enunciate at: 8:00 minutes.
Mcguyver on September 21, 2007 at 11:44 PM
Not if she’s spent some time calculating the odds of possibly going from a cog in the machine to…hmmm…White House Policy Analyst?…White House Press Office?…
She may think she’s been dealt a pretty decent hand after the Flop – and might wonder whether to bet strong on what just. might. happen. on the Turn and the River.
eeyore on September 21, 2007 at 11:50 PM
It seems we need a third party guy. But we tried that in ‘92, remember Pear-rot? The person has to be kind of anti-Democrat anti-Republican savior of the country. Is that possible? What, if anything, can bring us back to our countrys’ former greatness?
countywolf on September 21, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Forgetting my own rules of giving the …ummm, devil it’s due – I had hopes for KP. Perhaps the lone, sane, voice of Fox liberal thought. Over the past few weeks, the ol’ carpal tunnel syndrome is in fine form using the ‘mote to change channels. Should have married a physical therapist or doctor. Kp adds nothing worthwhile as far as discussion, nor seems to have any spark of conviction. Party line rhetoric and even that is boring.
24K lady on September 21, 2007 at 11:54 PM
This has been the line from liberals debating this issue since the ad came out. As you correctly point out AP, we constantly talk about the war… but the issue at hand is an honorable general not only being called a liar by Hillary, but the fact that NONE of the Dem Prez candidates will condemn the ad. For any liberal who claims to dislike the ad, they should be demanding condemnation from their candidates. The reason they aren’t demanding this, is because they themselves don’t really have an issue with the ad… they just have to say they do in these debates, because they’ll reveal how anti-American they truly are. At least Marc Lamont Hill admitted that he believes Petraeus is “Betrayus” and completely supports the ad… The rest just don’t have the balls to say it.
I think that it’s just as bad. If they can’t demand that their candidate condemn the ad, they might as well endorse it themselves. I’m not going to go as far as to say KP is anti-American like the folks I just spoke of, because sometimes she comes off like she has more common sense, but her colleagues certainly are.
RightWinged on September 21, 2007 at 11:56 PM
It really is interesting how Kirsten can present such a solid argument, yet still embrace the wrong conclusion. But she sure looks good while she’s doing it.
Lawrence on September 21, 2007 at 11:59 PM
So that she can sit in an office and churn out press releases instead of going on the most widely watched cable news channel in America four or five times a week and talking about whatever she wants to talk about? Like I say, nutty.
Come on, that’s not true. She’s easily their best left-wing contributor. She just has an awful blind spot when it comes to Hillary.
Allahpundit on September 22, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Didn’t we spend an entire election cycle discussing whether or not it was okay to call into question the honor and integrity of a man who wore the uniform? I know they like to forget what they said back then, but I find the irony humorous. Don’t question Kerry about his senate votes, he was in Vietnam. Don’t ask Murtha to explain his Okinawa comment, he wore the uniform. Patraeus? I will invoke my willing suspension of belief that had Patraeus’s report been negative they would be reminding us to listen to the generals. The ones they choose for us to listen to.
Sue on September 22, 2007 at 12:01 AM
haha dang AP you really do have it bad for KP. I understand because I get that way for a chick sometimes too for no good reason. I agree she would have voted for the resolution.
Listen people, Hillary Clinton is not going to win. She’s got too much baggage.
If she got introduced to left wing shows as ‘the doormat of a lady who was embarrassed by her husband’s infidelity nationally over and over again’ in a similar fashion that they introduced Newt on Rush’s radio show earlier, people would begin to understand why she won’t win.
KP is cute, but she seems to love Hillary more than AP loves KP (a feat in and of itself). If Hillary loved anything other than herself, I might be interested in what she had to say. But every time you hear Hillary Clinton talk you just know she’s thinking . . . ‘how does this help me?’ instead of ‘I need to make my convictions clear.’
ThackerAgency on September 22, 2007 at 12:15 AM
And the funny thing about this whole story is that anytime you attack a liberal for their ‘antiwar’ stance, they get so defensive saying dissent doesn’t make me a traitor.
But here they have the least traitorous American on the planet and they have the gall to label him a ‘traitor’. They can call him a traitor for saying America is the solution and that’s OK, but they can’t imagine or tolerate anyone calling them a traitor for saying America is the problem.
Ah logic, who needs it?
ThackerAgency on September 22, 2007 at 12:17 AM
I wonder if Moveon.org will be using their same discount in the NYT to buy another full page ad, this time welcoming the slimebag murdering Islamomaniac Dictator of Iran to New York?
pilamaye on September 22, 2007 at 12:19 AM
I’ve said before that I though she was already on the dole.
Hate to say it, but Tony Snow’s was ummm plummer.
- The Cat
MirCat on September 22, 2007 at 12:23 AM
I’ve got to believe KP would vote against the amendment to support the General.
Your right. I just watched the rerun on H&C
My mouth got ahead of me. Again . . .
Texyank on September 22, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Mark Steyn was on and you cut a clip of KP?
Weak man. Weak.
VolMagic on September 22, 2007 at 12:34 AM
What are you holding back from us, AP?
Mcguyver on September 22, 2007 at 1:31 AM
Allah, when KP can look at a camera with conviction and present her case without looking confused, I’ll change my mind. In the meantime, I refuse to waste time watching KP thrust her head forward and set her jaw….Fox News needs to do a complete evaluation of their presentations. Cute and flip doesn’t work with the majority of viewers. Fair and Balanced may have meant something in the past, but they’ve veered off course and losing my attention. I want news, not opinions. Should it be a debate, don’t throw in amateurs.
24K lady on September 22, 2007 at 1:31 AM
Nothing. He was on and did fine, but frankly the third panelist, Kate Obenshain, was the best of the three. I’d like to see her do more segments, although she may have bigger plans in mind.
Allahpundit on September 22, 2007 at 1:39 AM
Hillary or KP ?
KP. She’s going to give up a plum gig on Fox News to go be some cog in the Clinton machine? That’d be nutty.
Allahpundit on September 21, 2007 at 11:12 PM
soundingboard on September 22, 2007 at 2:31 AM
I’m sorry to say that even though KP is a liberal, I’d be perfectly content if she just sat there for the entire segment looking hot.
stacman on September 22, 2007 at 3:17 AM
Screw that, the real red meat was the anti-war loons hatin’ on Griff Jenkins.
BTW, we haven’t seen “POWERS!” (hand press) lately.
RightWinged on September 22, 2007 at 3:23 AM
Time to hang it up, Kirstin. You’ve been outed as a Clinton sycophant..
Oh, you might get your violent uprising, KP. We’re a lot closer than you might think. But it will be the nutjob nutroots that will start it when the Democrats fail to end the war OR impeach Bush.
And that’ll be the end of moveon, dkos, du, and the rest. And the Democratic Party as well.
georgej on September 22, 2007 at 3:24 AM
I’d rather see Chris Crocker and the blonde from Fox and Friends mud wrestle their way into the hearts of America…
AprilOrit on September 22, 2007 at 4:17 AM
Wishful thinking but I don’t think so. I’m more worried about the GOP, check back with me in 2 years. I think you might be whistling a different tune. The Republicans need to keep the focus on their own party. Who really gives a bleep about what the Dems do, the GOP is headed for the slow burn of extinction at the hands of Faux Conservatives and special interest, jeez, when will you guys get it?
Good ahead, laugh, ridicule me, whatever, you’ll see….
AprilOrit on September 22, 2007 at 4:24 AM
I agree with KP, there should be an uprising.
Viper1 on September 22, 2007 at 7:08 AM
The only river KP will be going down on the Clinton campaign is $^&*s creek.
BKennedy on September 22, 2007 at 7:23 AM
Although still foxxxy 24/7, and much much easier to look at than 4-eyes.
Legions on September 22, 2007 at 9:12 AM
I don’t see how you got that out of my comment. No, I don’t see “willing suspension of disbelief” to be equatable as “he’s a liar”, which is what I believe KP was saying.
I’m not coming out on the Dems side on this one as much as Kirsten’s.
SouthernDem on September 22, 2007 at 9:25 AM
‘disbelief’ means you don’t believe something. . . meaning it is a lie. Suspension of disbelief means you believe something even though it is a lie because you want to believe in fairy tales. WILLING means you KNOW it is a fairy tale yet you choose to believe that which should not be believed because it is false.
Hillary is a politician. She said, ‘you are lying to us’ and in order for us to agree with you, we would have to know you are lying and agree to believe you anyway. She won’t say ‘you are a liar.’ But that’s what she said. She said it in a way that people can say ’she didn’t say he is a liar’.
Let me put it in a more circular way that you might be able to understand. To believe that Hillary did not call Patraeus a liar WOULD REQUIRE THE WILLING SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF.
ThackerAgency on September 22, 2007 at 9:46 AM
We need to remember that Fox hired KP to be the liberal commentator. She’s wandered to the middle several times and even hinted at some right-leanings. However, it would not be a good career move to present herself as a liberal but have all conservative opinions. That would make her a conservative. They’d then have to find someone else to counter Michelle.
So let her do her job, and that way, we can all continue to receive pleasure from viewing her and listening to her well-thought-out commentary. I don’t agree with her conclusions, but I very much appreciate hearing what the other side is thinking.
Tennman on September 22, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Their intense fear makes it impossible to force these liberals and leftists to take a stand against KOS and MoveOn.Org. The Party of the Democrats is a neutered entity that now responds solely to the major left wing political organizations. Attempting to present “both sides” is a fruitless endeavor because we know precisely what the left’s position will be regardless of who you ask or how frequently you ask. The battle lines have been drawn and this endless “debate” serves no useful purpose.
rplat on September 22, 2007 at 10:58 AM
I took it to mean that you would have to overlook the plot holes to take the report at face value i.e. an omission of some negative facts to highlight the positive. I agree with Gen. Petraeus and his report, and cannot emphasize enough how much I disagree with the moveon crowd, I’m just saying I can see where Powers is coming from here.
SouthernDem on September 22, 2007 at 10:59 AM
You can always tell when the action of a Democrat is indefensible. Their defenders always pull out the line, “I’m sick of both parties.” That way in the future they try to make the claim criticizing their party, without actually during so.
Zaire67 on September 22, 2007 at 11:39 AM
The left doesn’t recognize personal responsibility comes with freedom and the right has become afraid to let people be free.
Both think the governement can solve all problems and ills with another law on the books, and the citizens of this country are more than willing to let them proceed.
AZ_Redneck on September 22, 2007 at 11:49 AM
I want to hear less about KP and more about Rosie.
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on September 22, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Not that it matters, since in most cases their points/ideas are irrelevant anyway – but I get your point – we can watch them go over the cliff, which does have entertainment value – which is probably why AP likes her, which of course, is another source of constant entertainment.
So everybody wins.. :)
Good morning everybody!
Mcguyver on September 22, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Wait a minute here. I write one little statement about why KP looked puffy last night and it gets censored off. Having to work for 3 different women and to hear them talking,well I thought my comment wasn’t that bad.
Legions on September 22, 2007 at 2:31 PM
It was that bad. Don’t repeat it.
Allahpundit on September 22, 2007 at 2:47 PM
KP wants to not only legalize the 20+million illegals(and we should all know this by now), but also restore all the illegals back Social Security that she feels they have earned, all while doing it, and being here illegally..So when her friend Hillary makes that happen, and she gloats about it, then we will see pass the skirt..for now we are winning and KP is still a fox..but when all the tax breaks of GWB are long long gone and the monies are all going to pay for all of KP’s social programs, then I want to see what all are saying about her and all on the Left..
Legions on September 22, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Got it and your right..I’m not sitting in a bar discussing this stuff. Won’t happen again.
Legions on September 22, 2007 at 3:09 PM
KP is in full defend and deflect mode here, trying to cut off both Hannity and Colmes and projecting on Republicans when except for a few it’s the moveon bots that are in serious trouble.
She sees the awful light Democrats have cast on themselves by disparaging the integrity of Petraus and Hillary is not the least of which.
Speakup on September 22, 2007 at 3:18 PM
AprilOrit: “Good ahead, laugh, ridicule me, whatever, you’ll see….”
Well, I hope it doesn’t happen. Truly, I don’t.
But the unrestrained anger felt by your side about Bush and the war, and the inability of the Democrats to do your bidding and end the war/impeach Bush as your side demands can have only one outcome.
“REV-OH-LOO-SHEE-ON.”
If there is going to be a putsch (and I hope there isn’t), I have zero doubt that YOUR side will start it. Why? YOUR side desecrated the Wall, not mine, after all. YOUR side vandalized the capitol steps, not mine. MM and Bryan have videos of YOUR side acting like foul-mouthed goons on the 15th.
If you read DU (before the moderators ratholes the entries), the threats of violence, including assassinating Bush/Cheney are there. If you read DKOS, well, let me say, the “edge” isn’t there to sit down and sing kumbaya with Republicans. And at Huffie, they couldn’t delete the comments fast enough for the wish that Cheney got blown up when he went to Afghanistan.
And remember, it is YOUR side that shouts down conservative speakers at colleges and universities, and in once case, charging the stage to physically shut them up. And that doesn’t include the “pie assaults” on conservative speakers that never seem to happen to leftist speakers.
And it is YOUR side that shoots up the local offices of the opposition party, invades them, assaults their workers, and vandalized their vehicles. The Republicans did none of that in 2004.
I have yet to see any of our conservative premier website/blogsites call for the murder of Hillary, Edwards, Obama, or anybody else. I cannot say the same for those on your side, though your moderators try very hard to cover them up. I have yet to read about REPUBLICANS invading Democratic Party offices and either trashing them, stealing their computers, or hurting campaign workers.
While my side does despise most of you on your side, I sense a “civility line” still binding us, that does not bind you. Jane Hamsher at firedoglake is just ONE example.
My side still wants to discuss ideas in the marketplace of ideas. YOUR side want to march, protest, demonstrate, and speak “truth to power” in the streets in order to get your way. Other than to counter your side’s demonstrations, like last weekend, I can’t see to recall very many demonstrations that my side calls on it’s own. And, unlike Chicago last spring, or SF or LA, any demonstrations my side calls don’t shut down major cities.
Rather than DISCUSS in civil discourse, when you “take to the streets” you evoke memories of mob violence, because that is connotation of what the term “take to the streets” means.
I hope that “frank exchanges of views” here in the blogosphere (a marketplace of ideas) is the worst of it, but I wonder if (or when) the open and obvious growing level of frustration on your side will cross that line.
Was the attack on Petreaus the signal that it is now okay to call the troops babykillers and to spit on them? That IS what YOUR side did 35 years ago. And yes, this is WELL documented that the troops were spit on and called nasty names.
If your moveon types do lose control, and open violence breaks out, your side not only won’t win, but I am saying that the political backlash alone will take down the Democratic Party because of the investment, monetary and emotional, that the nutjobs have with the Party, even if EVERYBODY at the DNC is opposed to violence.
Ask yourself two questions:
1. What happens if the Republicans win back Congress and keep the Presidency? Don’t scoff, because every time the nutjobs at moveon do stupid things like that “Betrayus” ad, the chances of the Republicans winning get better. And if the Republicans do win in 2008, WHAT WILL THE NUTJOBS AT MOVEON DO? We know they refused to accept the *2* victories of George W. Bush. Will they riot like they threatened to do in 2000 and 2004?
2. What happens after January 20, 2009, when Bush leaves office (and he will *not* leave office earlier unless assassinated or because of illness). Who are you people going to hate then?
Hate is a powerful emotion and your side is using it to concentrate and focus on Bush and the war in Iraq. With Bush gone, DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THE NUTJOBS IN CHARGE AT MOVEON ARE GOING TO STAND DOWN? Do you really think that things are going to return to normal?
Hatred is POWER. YOUR side has it and uses it and we all know instinctively that power is a narcotic. So, whom are the nutjobs going to hate next?
Over to you….
georgej on September 22, 2007 at 4:36 PM
The good news?
They don’t have the stones to back up their words.
TBinSTL on September 22, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Over to you….
Georgej on September 22,2007 at 4:36PM
Georgej,Shining the light of truth on the othersde,Amen.
canopfor on September 22, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Comment pages: