:clap: :clap: You gotta love it when the democrats are so negative all the time. They never have any plans or agenda or ideas. They only know how to complain and whine and critisize our country and it's leaders.
NO WONDER THEY CANNOT WIN ELECTIONS!!! :mj07:
1. Liberals claimed the Iraq elections would not take place at all.
WRONG
Iraqis stood in line all day to vote and tearfully danced in the streets to celebrate the beginning of new freedom and democracy. A day that will go down in history thanks to George W. Bush.
2. Liberals claimed even if the elections did take place, the people wouldn't participate.
WRONG
The Iraqis were in fact threatened with grave death if they voted, threatened shot and murdered by Al Zarqawi's terror cell.....the result.......Iraq had a higher voter turnout percentage than the United States did.
3. Liberals claimed that if the Iraqis voted, they would elect extremist Islamic anti-American mullahs.
WRONG
Iraq's first democratically elected government in half a century has a Shiite prime minister, a Kurdish president, and several Sunni cabinet ministers.
4. Liberals claimed that the minority Sunnis should expect major payback from the Shiites under a democracy.
WRONG
The majority Shiites chose Sunnis for four cabinet positions ? including the vital position of defense minister.
5. Liberals claimed that after elections, under a new Iraqi government, women would not be represented fairly.
WRONG
Just this week, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said he would like women as his fourth and fifth deputy prime ministers.
6. Liberals (The New York Times) claimed that "democracy in the Middle East might empower the very forces that the United States opposes, like Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and Egypt."
WRONG
Democracy in the U.S. might have put John Kerry in the White House, too, but you'll notice we didn't abandon that idea.
The difference is that the Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and Egypt were not democratically elected. Still, the New York Times said that "something similar" happened in Iran when "domestic pressures" put the evil Ayatollah in power. By "domestic pressures" in Iran, I gather the New York Times was referring to "the Carter presidency."
7. Liberal Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin talked about "grim Iraq realities," saying if elections were held, the new Iraqi government "will likely be dominated by radical religious parties."
WRONG
Didn't happen but even if it did I guess leaving tyrannical rape-room dweller Saddam Hussein in place was preferable to that. The dude filled 400,000 mass graves. Go figure.
8. Liberal columnist Joe Conason of the New York Observer predicted.....
- a series of horrifically violent confrontations in Iraq's cities
- a postponement of the January elections
- a wider call-up of National Guard and Reserve units
- a renewed military draft
- " And if Bush won a second term", Conason said: "Beware the 'November surprise' that will begin to bring home the true costs of his feckless adventure."
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and ummm WRONG!No increase in "horrific" violence, no postponement of elections, no increased National Guard callup, no draft, no "November surprise." (OK, there was one "November surprise" ? but only for the Democrats. It happened on Nov. 2.)
And winning the special category of Most Wrong Media Predictions.......
9...(This is her "Lifetime Achievement Award)
- Liberal columnist Katrina Vanden Heuvel of "The Nation" said invading Iraq would lead to "more terrorist retaliation, undermine the fight against al-Qaida and make America less secure and probably unleash those very weapons of mass destruction into the hands of rogue terrorists in Iraq."
WRONG
What weapons, Katrina? I guess that would make you a liar too right??
A liberal lied, people died...........isn't that how it goes?
NO WONDER THEY CANNOT WIN ELECTIONS!!! :mj07:
1. Liberals claimed the Iraq elections would not take place at all.
WRONG
Iraqis stood in line all day to vote and tearfully danced in the streets to celebrate the beginning of new freedom and democracy. A day that will go down in history thanks to George W. Bush.
2. Liberals claimed even if the elections did take place, the people wouldn't participate.
WRONG
The Iraqis were in fact threatened with grave death if they voted, threatened shot and murdered by Al Zarqawi's terror cell.....the result.......Iraq had a higher voter turnout percentage than the United States did.
3. Liberals claimed that if the Iraqis voted, they would elect extremist Islamic anti-American mullahs.
WRONG
Iraq's first democratically elected government in half a century has a Shiite prime minister, a Kurdish president, and several Sunni cabinet ministers.
4. Liberals claimed that the minority Sunnis should expect major payback from the Shiites under a democracy.
WRONG
The majority Shiites chose Sunnis for four cabinet positions ? including the vital position of defense minister.
5. Liberals claimed that after elections, under a new Iraqi government, women would not be represented fairly.
WRONG
Just this week, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said he would like women as his fourth and fifth deputy prime ministers.
6. Liberals (The New York Times) claimed that "democracy in the Middle East might empower the very forces that the United States opposes, like Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and Egypt."
WRONG
Democracy in the U.S. might have put John Kerry in the White House, too, but you'll notice we didn't abandon that idea.
The difference is that the Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and Egypt were not democratically elected. Still, the New York Times said that "something similar" happened in Iran when "domestic pressures" put the evil Ayatollah in power. By "domestic pressures" in Iran, I gather the New York Times was referring to "the Carter presidency."
7. Liberal Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin talked about "grim Iraq realities," saying if elections were held, the new Iraqi government "will likely be dominated by radical religious parties."
WRONG
Didn't happen but even if it did I guess leaving tyrannical rape-room dweller Saddam Hussein in place was preferable to that. The dude filled 400,000 mass graves. Go figure.
8. Liberal columnist Joe Conason of the New York Observer predicted.....
- a series of horrifically violent confrontations in Iraq's cities
- a postponement of the January elections
- a wider call-up of National Guard and Reserve units
- a renewed military draft
- " And if Bush won a second term", Conason said: "Beware the 'November surprise' that will begin to bring home the true costs of his feckless adventure."
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and ummm WRONG!No increase in "horrific" violence, no postponement of elections, no increased National Guard callup, no draft, no "November surprise." (OK, there was one "November surprise" ? but only for the Democrats. It happened on Nov. 2.)
And winning the special category of Most Wrong Media Predictions.......
9...(This is her "Lifetime Achievement Award)
- Liberal columnist Katrina Vanden Heuvel of "The Nation" said invading Iraq would lead to "more terrorist retaliation, undermine the fight against al-Qaida and make America less secure and probably unleash those very weapons of mass destruction into the hands of rogue terrorists in Iraq."
WRONG
What weapons, Katrina? I guess that would make you a liar too right??
A liberal lied, people died...........isn't that how it goes?
