I've never cared for it much when newspapers offer political endorsements. Political decisions are essentially idealogical, and I always liked to think of newspapers of factual, not idealogical, vessels. Plus, in a sort of postmodern, reverse political correctness, they always seem to try to bolster their credibility by making one or two token non-liberal, against the grain picks.

So, I don't intend to make formal endorsements of any candidates. I am, however, going to pass along the following endorsements I found in World Net Daily.

Jihad Jaara, "a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity," states:

Of course Americans should vote Democrat...This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages
those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud.
Jihad Jaara goes on to say that "an American withdrawal would 'mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)...Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam.'"

Or, there's Muhammad Saadi, "a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin," who says that the Democrats' withdrawal plans make him "proud." He goes on:
As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk. Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal.
"Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is 'emboldened' by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam:"
[The mujahedeen fighters] brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should
fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq.
Vote Democrat. Emboldening terrorists near you.


free thought said...

So what, you couldn't find any pro-Republican terrorists to quote? Hardly a veiled endorsement. But of course, the Republican platform is fear. You are doing your part.

GeeGuy said...

You lost me: "veiled?"

Just because you say "the Republican platform is fear" doesn't mean that we face no threat.

Anonymous said...

"Are you insane? George Bush has been a terrorist's wet dream, and nonpartisan commissions have confirmed that he's a recruiter's dream: theirs, not ours.

And, he has exhausted our military without coming away with a win,the worst of both worlds. Bush inflames radical hatred against America and then runs on offering to protect us from it. It's like a guy throwing shit on you and then selling you relief from the flies."

I only wish I had thought to write the above. The credit goes to Bill Maher.

For your kids geeguy, and my kids and their kids too, it is time to make King George a lame duck. He is, without doubt, the worst President in our lifetimes, and likely longer.

I don't have the grasp of history that free thought does (few do) but I am certain in my own mind that history will be very unkind to Bush/Cheney/Rummy and company.

free thought said...

Thank you for the complement, Anon.

& Geeguy, I said "hardly veiled" meaning not veiled, i.e., transparent. Just me using lots of words when a few or none would do.

I did not try to say we did not face a threat. We do. Even so, fanning the flames of fear does not create a better response. In fact, it can force the wrong response.

Anonymous said...


If we are the one's fanning the flames-then how do you explian the radicals attacks/attmepts on others---from Spain to Indonesia to Canada. Last time I looked-Canada wasn't a big threat to them???