Michael Scheuer is WRONG
February 22nd 2008 03:00
A man named Michael Scheuer has written a book called "Marching Towards Hell." He was a guest tonight on Hannity and Colmes. He doesn't have a clue. He seems to hold the pretty little notion that the Islamic terrorists don't hate us because we're free and they hate freedom. His fantasy is that they are after us because of our "failed policies" in the Middle East. I wonder where he's been all these years?
What policies, exactly, do the terrorists resent so badly they think they have to kill us? Did we do something to tick them off before 9/11? Did we do things that filled them with justified outrage and anger? Let's see...
Before 9/11 what was our foreign policy concerning the Middle East? Oh, I remember now, those were the "glorious Clinton years" where terrorism was met with strict pacifism (the Cole, the embassies, the barracks, the World Trade Center first bombing, etc.) So the Muslim terrorists don't like pacifism and feel the need to murder thousands to "get even" for such an abuse on our part? They were outraged that their attacks went unheralded (except for the aspirin factory night crew who died to distract attention from the testimony of Monica Lewinsky)? We offended them deeply by allowing them to attack us and kill our people for several years, right?
If Michael Scheuer believes a word of his own drek, he needs to be in a padded cell, writing letters in crayon.
The Muslim terrorists hate us because we are free and have rights. Their sick "religion" doesn't permit freedom or rights for anyone. Ever. The weakness of Bill (the Zipper) Clinton emboldened them to think they could get away with a bigger strike so they hit us on Sept. 11, 2001 and killed 3,000 innocent people. Until we started fighting back after 9/11 (thanks to President Bush) the terrorists thought they had it made. They expected Pres. Bush to be a whining, simpering, lily-livered coward like the Zipper. They thought we'd tuck our tail between our legs and cry. They never expected us to fight back. If we had complied with their expectations (and done what the Zipper would have done) they would have kept coming and struck again and again until we surrendered. As the Zipper (or Obama or Hillary) would do. Scheuer doesn't have a clue about reality. Hopefully, the American voters will get a clue before it's too late and not elect another "pantywaist" who will finish selling us out.
What policies, exactly, do the terrorists resent so badly they think they have to kill us? Did we do something to tick them off before 9/11? Did we do things that filled them with justified outrage and anger? Let's see...
Before 9/11 what was our foreign policy concerning the Middle East? Oh, I remember now, those were the "glorious Clinton years" where terrorism was met with strict pacifism (the Cole, the embassies, the barracks, the World Trade Center first bombing, etc.) So the Muslim terrorists don't like pacifism and feel the need to murder thousands to "get even" for such an abuse on our part? They were outraged that their attacks went unheralded (except for the aspirin factory night crew who died to distract attention from the testimony of Monica Lewinsky)? We offended them deeply by allowing them to attack us and kill our people for several years, right?
If Michael Scheuer believes a word of his own drek, he needs to be in a padded cell, writing letters in crayon.
The Muslim terrorists hate us because we are free and have rights. Their sick "religion" doesn't permit freedom or rights for anyone. Ever. The weakness of Bill (the Zipper) Clinton emboldened them to think they could get away with a bigger strike so they hit us on Sept. 11, 2001 and killed 3,000 innocent people. Until we started fighting back after 9/11 (thanks to President Bush) the terrorists thought they had it made. They expected Pres. Bush to be a whining, simpering, lily-livered coward like the Zipper. They thought we'd tuck our tail between our legs and cry. They never expected us to fight back. If we had complied with their expectations (and done what the Zipper would have done) they would have kept coming and struck again and again until we surrendered. As the Zipper (or Obama or Hillary) would do. Scheuer doesn't have a clue about reality. Hopefully, the American voters will get a clue before it's too late and not elect another "pantywaist" who will finish selling us out.
| 46 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
You would think Scheuer would have some insights, but I've heard mostly negative reviews of his work. He does the whole "yes sir" and "no sir" thing as if he is ex-military, but I read that he never served in the military at all.
I don't think it matters so much why they hate us. We could do things to try to please them all day long and I suspect they'll always find a reason to hate us. So I don't obsess too much over WHY they hate us, but only THAT they hate us -- and that the only language they understand is one that is firm and backed by force.
Comment by anonymous
signed
John Doe
Comment by Anonymous
On the list of people who hated Saddam bin laden was one, bin laden also hates the saudi monarchy. Both for the same reason, they were/are both controlled by the US government, no more than stooges.
They by and large hate you because you manipulate their political system, and ultimately their lives, to further your own ends.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
As for John Doe, Winston Churchill recognized the dangers of radical Islam and commented on it more than once. Others, even further back saw them for what they were (and still are) and warned that they were driven by an insane hatred. "Daddy Bush" had nothing to do with it.
Anonymous, you obviously know nothing of history or you would be aware that enemies and alliances change all the time. Supporting another country as it develops its own form of democracy is not ownership. Being on good terms with another country doesn't me we manipulate them.
Comment by Anonymous
And possibly Bill Clinton was too preoccupied with being impeached and constantly attacked by the Republicans...
Comment by S.L. Bradish
As for Bill Clinton, he was too busy with Monica (among others) to accept custody of bin Laden. He could have pretended to care about the repeated attacks by terrorists and maybe he wouldn't have been "attacked" so often by Republicans. His negligence and disinterest in national security paved the way for 9/11.