The future Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mahmoud Ahmandinejad, is coming to America and he wants to visit Ground Zero to lay a wreath. I may be wrong in thinking that he would actually be commemorating the bravery of the hijackers who destroyed the towers. But it seems that even Hillary Clinton is opposed to such a visit, for the moment. I wonder if a future President Clinton would feel the same way. Liberals of her ilk use the most vitriolic references to Americans, including President Bush. Yet, most of the time, they embrace and only speak in the most glowing terms of people such as Ahmandinejad, Assad, and others who are bent upon the destruction of Western Civilization. She and other liberals have said that they do not support his visit to Ground Zero. However, they do not assign any labels to him other than "President". A term that they rarely even use to describe George Bush. In President Bush's case, it is more often used in disgust with a certain distaste. They show more respect for Mahmoud than George. Nice.
No one seems to remember that Ahmandinejad was involved in the taking of hostages during the Carter administration. That fact alone should bar him from entering the United States. His presence only underscores the moral bankruptcy and general hatred of the United States that permeates the United Nations. Granted, he is really only a figurehead, a puppet that dances at the whim of the Supreme Leader of Iran who happens to be a radical Islamic cleric. Liberals who decry anything that even smells like a religious conviction of anyone in the United States, seem to have no difficulty at all accepting a nuclear armed theocracy whose answer to religious dissent is death. This is the same mindset that inspired those noble martyrs to strike the heart of capitalism and western decadence on September 11, 2001. If a martyred hijacker gets greeted by 70 virgins, how many would Mahmoud get if he launched a nuke into Tel-Aviv or gave one to a martyr to hand deliver somewhere in the heart of the Great Satan?
Welcome to New York Mahmoud! I am sure you will feel a sense of pride when you step onto the streets of New York.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Mahmoud Ahmanutjob.
What else can one say about this fine world leader? He's an anti-Semitic, 12th-imam-out-of-the-well-waiting, stupid-preppy-jacket-wearing, holocaust-denying, America-and-the-West hating NUT JOB that thinks the end of the world is coming and its his job to help make that happen. And in an unrelated story he's working on getting nuclear capabilities…..for energy purposes. Because, hey, would you want to build refineries for all that oil you're sitting on when you can have a nuclear program. For peaceful purposes obviously. Trust us. No really, we're nice guys. Would a bad guy wear a jacket like this?
Obligatory PC(USA) critique: They have officially come out saying the West should negotiate with Iran under the premise that they are allowed to have nuclear capabilities for "peaceful" purposes, as outlined in some UN Treaty. Yeah, one of those treaties that's only real worth would be realized if you could get Cheryl Crow to actually use to augment her 1 square ration.
My question for liberals like Hillary Clinton is this: Why do you, exactly, object to Mahmoud showing up at ground zero? Mmmmm? You rail against "Mr." Bush ("Mr." because he stole the election twice) for going to war against Iraq and removing Saddam. You say Saddam didn't attack us on 9/11/01 and the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the Global War on Terror. (Wait, never mind, we don't call it that anymore.) Anyway, Iran and Mahmoud didn't attack us either. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Why shouldn't Mahmoud and his wind breaker go to ground zero to pay homage as other world leaders have done? Mmmmm? Could it be that you in fact really do realize that these Middle East dictators are financing, supplying and otherwise generally supporting terrorists? And as such, invading Afghanistan AND Iraq are indeed very legitimate and necessary parts of defeating radical islamic terrorists that threaten to kill us any way they can. But if the preceding isn't true in your mind, why pray tell, do you object to him going?
RE: "Why Can't We Be Friends?" . . .
First we need to kick the U.N. out of New York, out of the U.S. and preferably out of the western hemisphere. Perhaps there is a barren atoll somewhere in the South Pacific that would make an excellent home for the United Nations. THEN we really could keep scum like Ahmanutjob to hell out of the country.
Post a Comment