Monday, February 12, 2007

John Howard stands firm on Hussein comments

Terrorists support Democrats. Why would Howard apologize for saying it aloud? Howard was grilled, but wouldn't apologize. From ABC News Australia:

    Prime Minister John Howard has spent Question Time defending his statement that Al Qaeda would be praying for US Democratic Party hopeful Barack Obama to win the presidential election.

    Mr Howard has criticised Senator Obama, who is seeking the Democratic nomination, for calling for US troops to be out of Iraq by next March.

    Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has accused Mr Howard of acting against Australia's interest.

Howard's statement: "I don't apologise for criticising Senator Obama's observation because I thought what he said was wrong."

For those with selective memories, here is the head of Al Qaeda's Iraq operations on Friday, Nov. 10, 2006 -- just days after Democrats won their victory in the U.S. elections; from Channel News Asia:

"The American people have taken the first step on the right path in order to get out of their impasse and have started to realize the treachery of their president and his subordination to Israel, voting for a measure of reason in the latest elections."

Also, the Supreme Loon of Iran, Khamenei, declared the elections a victory for Iran. Stop the ACLU has more reactions from terrorists (and supporters).

Obama fired back on Howard's earlier statements, suggesting that if Australia was so committed to success in Iraq, why are there only 1400 Aussie soldiers involved? Obama challenged him to send 20,000 more. This one goes to Obama. If our coalition partners are really interested in a successful resolution to the Iraq problem, why are we the only ones making a big sacrifice? Why does Britain have only a token presence, as well? Japan? Poland?

Bottom line: If Democrats, including Senator Barack Hussein Obama, don't like being supported by terrorists, perhaps they should reconsider their appeasement strategies or even consider fighting the terrorists, instead of bristling when somebody simply speaks the truth. That would be better for the U.S. than running away from a fight, and much better than sitting back and calling the war on terror "Bush's war on terror".

Did all liberals forget this stuff, just like they forgot that nearly all Democratic leaders have been saying that Saddam Hussein was a "grave threat" to the United States from the middle 1990s onward? That's many years before Bush allegedly fudged the pretext for the Iraq War. Democrats can't actually pretend not to know these things.

I like to show my liberal friends two things when they try to blame Muslim terror on Bush. First is the picture below. The other is this list of Muslim terror attacks against the U.S. See where George Bush fits in chronologically.

Image Hosted by

No comments: