January 20, 2006

"Foot-In-Mouth Disease"

Printer Friendly

By: Oliver North

WASHINGTON -- Pity the poor Democrats. Five years of George W. Bush in office have driven them to distraction. Their most audible advocates have developed "Mad Mule Malady." The symptoms are identical to "Foot-in-Mouth Disease," and those running for office under the Democrat Party banner this year are likely to find their colleagues' increasingly vicious verbal gaffes to be both memorable and damaging.

The onset of their illness could not be more instructive. As leading Democrats are attacking Republicans, al Qaeda is planning to attack America. That is what we are told by Osama bin Laden, who, in an audio tape in which contents are being confirmed, threatens new terrorist attacks against the United States and our citizens. And once again, in the most important issue of our time -- the defeat of radical Islamic jihadists -- Democrats are proving themselves irrelevant.

This week, Hizzoner Ray Nagin, the Mayor of New Orleans, used a Martin Luther King Day celebration to urge that the Big Easy be re-built as a "Chocolate City." Not to be outdone by a mere mayor's blatant racism, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., chose an MLK-Day event sponsored by the Reverend Al Sharpton to liken the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives to a "plantation." Her foray into race baiting followed the outburst of her friend and aging entertainer Harry Belafonte who, on a recent visit to Venezuela, described President Bush as "the world's greatest terrorist."

These strange statements might have topped the week were it not for former Vice President Al Gore, who used a speech in Washington to declare that President Bush has placed "our Constitution … at risk," by directing the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor communications between suspected terrorist operatives in the United States and individuals overseas.

Gore, in a lengthy speech to the "trans-partisan" Liberty Coalition on MLK Day, told the audience that President Bush was engaging in "a gross and excessive power grab" and "has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently." The former vice president, apparently forgetting the record of his own running-mate, added that, "A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government." And just to make sure that everyone got the point, he claimed that, "The disrespect embodied in these apparent mass violations of the law is part of a larger pattern of seeming indifference to the Constitution."

Forget for a moment that the person making these charges once claimed to have invented the Internet. Disregard his 1997 assertion that he and his wife, Tipper, were models for the main characters in Erich Segal's 1970 romance novel "Love Story" -- a claim Segal later discounted. Set aside that Gore told a Teamster's conference in Sept. 2000 that among "the lullabies I heard as child," was one with the words, "Look for the union label" -- even though the lyrics weren't written until 1975, for an International Ladies Garment Workers Union ad campaign -- when Gore was 27. Ignore Gore's March 3, 1997 artful denial that calls to contributors from his government office violated federal campaign rules when he declared that, "There is no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law."

Gore's vainglorious fabrications only emphasize his hypocrisy. He is, after all, the person who said of the scandal-tainted administration in which he served: "I think the ethical standards established in this White House have been the highest in the history of the White House."

But the most recent assault on the commander in chief, like those of many other members of his party in recent months, place us at risk in the midst of a war. As such, they are far more serious than the spiteful, mean-spirited racial taunts of Clinton or Nagin. Though all three politicians' rants were undoubtedly uttered for partisan purposes -- the former vice president's accusations of criminal behavior against Bush threaten serious damage. It's a pattern of speech that is becoming increasingly prevalent in the Democrat party, potentially destructive to the morale of our Armed Forces and inherently dangerous for the American people.

Late last year, Sen. Richard, "Dick" Durbin, D-Ill., likened the actions of U.S. military personnel to those of Stalin, Hitler and Cambodia's Pol Pot. Just a few weeks ago, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a veteran of the Korean and Vietnam Wars said "no" when asked if he would serve today. He went on to discourage others from enlisting in our all-volunteer Armed Forces. Now, Al Gore has all but accused the commander in chief of violating the civil liberties of the American people he has sworn to protect and defend against a brutal, bloodthirsty enemy.

These are not mere "misstatements" in the midst of heated political debate and dissent. The "foot-in-mouth disease" -- so prevalent in Washington today -- may well prove terminal if the American people perceive that Democrats want to win the next election so badly that they are willing to lose the war we are fighting now.

Posted by redguy at January 20, 2006 07:38 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.redstatesusa.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/376

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Foot-In-Mouth Disease":

» baccarat its a boy cigar from baccarat its a boy cigar
[Read More]

Tracked on August 18, 2006 12:46 PM

» Avery from Avery
free young porn [Read More]

Tracked on September 9, 2006 10:40 AM

Comments

Why would anyone care about what Ollie North writes?

Here you have a convicted liar giving his opinion. One of the original subverters of the Constitution.

Anything he says is to be taken with a grain of salt, as he is an un-American liar who believes that what our Founding Fathers put into the Constitution is to be regarded as a mere hindrance if current political beliefs wish to violate its standards.

Democrats irrelevant? Screw you, Ollie-boy. YOU are irrelevant. You are a nationalist, anti-Constitution, anti-American traitor who should still be in jail but aren't because you sold others down the river in exchange for your own freedom.

How anyone can take you seriously as you write or speak is beyond me. You are a relic from a scumbag scandal. When you wore that Armed Forces uniform as you swore in to testify to your crimes, you disgusted me and you disgraced your great country. You do not deserve to wear a uniform of the United States Armed Forces.

You should be either in prison or living a life of ignominy in a trailer somewhere in Mississippi, with your rank busted to private and your pension reduced to subsistence pay.

Every word you wrote here is tainted and twisted and slanted. I notice you even put Richard Durbin's nickname in quotes. Excellent tilt of your hand, you "dick."

Posted by: SoxSweepAgain [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 20, 2006 09:28 AM

Sox, I'm not sure where to start to respond to your childish rant, but here goes:

First: try using facts when you make an argument - they're indispensable, except to liberals like you who can apparently only appeal to emotion

Second: I recommend you actually look at history, and not rely on the liberal media's slant on what happened with Iran/Contra. You are apparently a victim. Please try that before slandering an American hero.

Third: There must be a few people that care what Ollie thinks (I happen to be one of them). He'd take a bullet for you, doubt you would for him. But he has a National column, is a revered analyst on television. What exactly are you, other than a petulant malcontent?

Fourth: Sorry I have used the old liberal trick of namecalling to substitute for substantive debate.

Posted by: T-Time [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 20, 2006 11:09 AM

What "liberal media" and what "slant?"

The country now is dominated by the Right Wing media in the form of your O'Reillys, Hannitys and Limbaughs.

Are you denying that laws were broken by the criminal Ollie North during the Iran-Contra affair? Or are you yet another red-stater blinded by nationalism to what this country is SUPPOSED to stand for?

You and your traitorious kind are poisonous to the American Way. Your allowance for criminals such as Ollie North are bringing this great country down. Your acceptance of anti-Constitutionalist thinking and leeway for criminal acts are turning America from "the Land of the Free and The Home of the Brave" to the "Land of the Policed and the Home of the Terrorized."

And it is the Neocon way to use slander and insult to bring down their opponents; look at the shameful way Karl Rove and his machine have slandered Viet Nam veterans such as John McCain and John Kerry in order to protect and elevate the cocaine-snorting, draft-dodging, drunk-driving Georgie Bush.

Oliver North might take a bullet for you, but he would not take one for either the Constitution or for Our American Way of Life. He is a despicable, dirty traitor and is fit only for a small cell or ignominy.

As for appeals to emotion, it is the current Republican modeus operandi to appeal to fear and terror in order to subvert the Law of the Land. Without terror and fear, Bushie-boy would not have been re-elected (to the worldwide shame of our Great Land.) He would have been tossed into the one-term dumpster of history along with his feckless father... yet another man who ran up huge deficits while showing he had no idea how to run an economy or a foreign policy.

Posted by: SoxSweepAgain [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 20, 2006 12:14 PM

Col. North sure brings out the Liberal Venom, doesn't he.

heh,heh,heh

Pay 'em no nevermind...Their days are numbered.

"Like bats in a church...Enjoying the environment, while rotting it from the inside with their caustic droppings"

Frank

Posted by: Franksalterego [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 20, 2006 12:28 PM

LTC Oliver North proves himself a true patriot with exception knowledge and skills both in and out of uniform. Colonel, we need a leader like you to polarize the right and continue our desparate need for national security...which, unknown to naive socialists...takes precedent over SOME of our "liberties". Tap my phone all you want...I have nothing to hide...but then, I'm not going to be listened to anyway. I'm not doing anything to make our government suspect me of being a terrorist...or a seditionist like so many liberals these days! Colonel North...I'm asking you to run for President in 2008. You have the experience, the knowledge, and most importantly...the backbone to keep your country safe. The liberals constantly put our country at greater risk every day with their comments and rhetoric...and they KNOW it...and it emboldens the terrorists...and they KNOW it...and they want it so they can point at the current administration and scream, all the while socialist liberals like Gore and Hillary and Kennedy and all their ilk are BEGGING the terrorists to not only strike again but to harm our military. They would never have been allowed to make these seditious and traitorous comments in previous conflicts...yet they act like they are impervious because the leadership in the Right does NOTHING about it! Colonel North...you are one of the few people in our country that could bring all the true patiots...from both sides...together. I ask that you consider taking that responsibility...which is asking everything of you when you have already done that for years. SoxSweepAgain...put some Draino in your Kool-aid and do everyone a favor. It scares me that your probably breeding...

Posted by: Ziggy Spaz [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 20, 2006 01:27 PM

Ziggy Spaz can't spell; what a shock. Like so many other ignorant red-staters, he probably gets all his news from video/audio means like the Fox Enquirer Channel or Fats Limbaugh.

For all of you that would give up Liberty for Security, I quote Ben Franklin (you, know, one of our Founding Fathers, or do you need a weblink to find out who he is?)

"Those who would sacrifice a bit of liberty for a bit of security deserve neither."

As for me, give me liberty or give me death.

Imagine if you idiots allow the President to listen to your phone or watch your emails in 2005, and then, because of a change in government forty years from now, for whatever reason your Constitutional right to own guns, or be a Christian, become illegal. Do you not think that they would use the laws of 2005 to listen to you in 2045 and catch you talking about a gun trade or a secret church meeting? What if it became illegal to talk out against the President, but in 2045 a DEMOCRAT was President? Do you not think they'd use this law you allow Bush to weaken now to jail you in 2045?

Far more people die in car accidents than die at the hands of terrorists, yet I'll bet you still drive your pickup truck to the bait shop every Sunday, dontcha, Tex?

You people are all scared sheep, and can't read between the lines of why the government wants to use the false "War on Terror" to convince you to give up your civil liberties willingly, so that they can read your email and listen to your phone calls.

Why don't you stop cowering to terrorists and smell the coffee?

Almost as many soldiers have died in Iraq defending Bush's friends' access to oil than died on 9/11. Or do you poo-pooh that?

As for liberalism's days "being numbered," you are a fool. A fool! Bushie-boy's poll numbers are in the toilet because people are waking up to what you scared sheep all voted into office in 2004- a clown surrounded by criminals who had no idea what they were getting into when they planlessly attacked Iraq while ignoring the economy.

YOU ARE THE TRAITORS. You people are the ones who support the power that is trampling the Constitution and giving the finger to the Founding Fathers while subverting your Freedoms. You people are the ones who are shaming the ideals that our Men in Uniform fought and died for 230 years ago, and since. You people would have loved the Soviet Union, where the leaders watched everybody and could tap anybody's phone line if they were suspicious of them, or because their neighbor turned them in as suspected seditionists.

You should all go to Russia and try to get them to put the old guard back in power; Russians were certainly safe as hell while the government monitored all their phone calls and watched their every move. Really, really secure. You'd all love it!

Imagine if you idiots allow the President to listen to your phone or watch your emails in 2005, and then, because of a change in government forty years from now, for whatever reason your Constitutional right to own guns, or be a Christian, become illegal. Do you not think that they would use the laws of 2005 to listen to you in 2045 and catch you talking about a gun trade or a secret church meeting? What if it became illegal to talk out against the President, but in 2045 a DEMOCRAT was President? Do you not think they'd use this law you allow Bush to weaken now to jail you in 2045?

Don't be naive. Don't trade small freedoms for tiny securities.

Don't be un-American.

Don't be a Nationalist; be a Patriot. There is a difference.

Posted by: SoxSweepAgain [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 20, 2006 01:53 PM

Sox ...

Why do you continuously call everyone else traitors when your guy ALGORE, and your party, the Dems, openly called for the dismantlement of the Constitution?

One person, one vote ..... remember?

This violates the Constitional checks against tyrrany. It also prevents the urban welfare state mobs from trampling the rights of us 'Red State' hicks.

Your rhetoric is so blatantly Leftist centralist, so thoroughly shallow, and so delusionally emotional that I have to wonder what kind of psychotropic drugs are inducing this paranoia.

I can understand why anyone would be concerned about Police powers that violate our personal rights, and I oppose Bush on key issues.

That said, let me point out that your boy, Bill Clinton, used the military to spy on American citizens after he started that nasty little tiff with the militias ... remember that one? Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge? Remember McVey?

I guess its OK to trample the Constitution when the enemies of the Left are the target. I'm no fan of the militias, but I know a Constitutional crisis when I see one. And, yes, Bush is acting on the president established by the Clinton-Gore regime.

The difference, Sox, is that we actually have a foreign enemy on American soil. So your objections seem to indicate that you don't want that enemy dealt with. You seem to think we need endless 9-11's rather than do something about it. Sorry Sox, most of us Hicks actually have survival instincts ... something that seems to have gone dormant in the urban sectors. That's why we conferred the War Act powers on a sitting president.

That's why we Red State Hicks, Republican, Democrat, and Independents alike have tuned your crowd out ... we want a survivor mentality in the Oval Office.

Posted by: Athling [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 20, 2006 02:53 PM

Wrong. You obviously don't understand the Constitution.

The Constitution does not provide for "One person, one vote." It indeed provides for an electoral college, which is far from "one person, one vote." Since Gore in fact received MORE votes from individual "persons" than Bushie-boy did, apparently he should have been the President in 2000, by your logic- so i guess Bush and the Supremes dismantled the Constitution, huh?

Al Gore conceded to the Constitution when he refused to further challenge the ruling of the Supreme Court, by the way. On the other hand, Bush and his pals openly discussed subverting the law when they tried to get a prior approval to delay the presidential election "in case of a terrorist threat." Puh-leeeeze.

I'm "blatantly Leftist-centralist"? What the hell is that? Sounds good, though. Hmmm.

Um, yeah, Clinton and his folks used the FISA court and the military to respond to the threat of some of the militias, the type of which inflicted Timothy McVeigh upon us. HOWEVER, you red-state terrorized hicks always forget that the issue with Bushie-boy is that HE WAS DENIED WARRANTS by the FISA court and SPIED ANYWAY. That is why one of the FISA judges resigned in protest, silly! Look it up!

And if you're terrified of "endless 9/11's" you're just being a terrorized coward. More people die in automobile accidents in a week than die in terrorist attacks in years, but you don't see folks parking their cars and riding their bikes, do you?

And you fail to respond to the DEPTH of my points, those that speak to what it is to be an American, which you "national security" types certainly are NOT:

Imagine if you idiots allow the President to listen to your phone or watch your emails in 2005, and then, because of a change in government forty years from now, for whatever reason your Constitutional right to own guns, or be a Christian, become illegal. Do you not think that they would use the laws of 2005 to listen to you in 2045 and catch you talking about a gun trade or a secret church meeting? What if it became illegal to talk out against the President, but in 2045 a DEMOCRAT was President? Do you not think they'd use this law you allow Bush to weaken now to jail you in 2045?

ANSWER THAT. It speaks to the central violation that Bushes' people and their false war on Iraq and over-hyped "War on Terror" have committed. Read between the lines. They want more access to the private thought of Americans so that it is easier for them to weed out those that they don't like. It is Orwellian, it is Machiavellian, and it reeks of totalitarian Communism.

Remember when Republicans pushed through an Amendment to the Constitution back in 1948 that prevented Presidents from serving more than two terms? Republicans led this movement because they were angry about Democrat Franklin Roosevelt serving 4 terms. Guess what? 40 years later, it prevented Republican Ronald Reagan from being re-elected. Right now, Republicans want access to your email and phones and you say "I don't care, I'm not a terrorist." Well, this law may be in the hands of a Democratic regime some day, and it may be YOU they use it against. I'll bet you'll change your tune pretty fast.

It's un-American and an insult to our Founding Fathers and to this Great Country to think the way you do. It is an insult to what our ancestral brothers and sisters fought and died for in 1776.

Posted by: SoxSweepAgain [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 20, 2006 03:17 PM

Sox said, "Ziggy Spaz can't spell; what a shock. Like so many other ignorant red-staters, he probably gets all his news from video/audio means like the Fox Enquirer Channel or Fats Limbaugh." Didn't want to mis-quote you there, buddy.

Sox, let's see if you can step out of the liberal box and discuss/debate the issues Ollie North wrote about.

Stand back guys. This ought to look like my cat playing in a paper bag.

Posted by: Meatpies [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 21, 2006 10:50 AM

Oh see... this is all a big misunderstanding, Sox. You see, you've just not opened your scope far enough to check your facts. You seem to think that what Clinton did in 94 was under FISAs jurisdiction and condonement. Here... read this article:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
Pay particular notice to what Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick has to say about what rights Clinton had and used at the time. You'll find them to be considerably more imposing than wiretaps between the States and foreign countries. Clinton himself came out in support of the President because he knew what his administration had done.

Honestly, I'm glad you are this determined to protect our rights when you think they are being limited. That's they attitude you should have. I just think you are a little misinformed on a couple things. If you find that my information is faulty then i won't expect you to come to the same conclusions. I'm pretty sure it's not, they were well documented hearings. Try looking up more articles/records since I only gave one.

Please consider one more thing. Since you believe that Fox News and talk radio and all that is propaganda, what would you do if you found out that all the media that you grew up listening to (with no other opposing view points) just happened to have it's own media bias to left leaning ideas. This is another well documented issue. So if you grew up listening to these things and you still believe exactly what they told you, who is more like a sheep?

Posted by: Rick P [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 23, 2006 10:43 AM

Oh see... this is all a big misunderstanding, Sox. You see, you've just not opened your scope far enough to check your facts. You seem to think that what Clinton did in 94 was under FISAs jurisdiction and condonement. Here... read this article:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
Pay particular notice to what Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick has to say about what rights Clinton had and used at the time. You'll find them to be considerably more imposing than wiretaps between the States and foreign countries. Clinton himself came out in support of the President because he knew what his administration had done.


Honestly, I'm glad you are this determined to protect our rights when you think they are being limited. That's they attitude you should have. I just think you are a little misinformed on a couple things. If you find that my information is faulty then i won't expect you to come to the same conclusions. I'm pretty sure it's not, they were well documented hearings. Try looking up more articles/records since I only gave one.

Please consider one more thing. Since you believe that Fox News and talk radio and all that is propaganda, what would you do if you found out that all the media that you grew up listening to (with no other opposing view points) just happened to have it's own media bias to left leaning ideas. This is another well documented issue. So if you grew up listening to these things and you still believe exactly what they told you, who is more like a sheep?

Posted by: Rick P [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 23, 2006 10:46 AM

Oh see... this is all a big misunderstanding, Sox. You see, you've just not opened your scope far enough to check your facts. You seem to think that what Clinton did in 94 was under FISAs jurisdiction and condonement. Here... read this article:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
Pay particular notice to what Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick has to say about what rights Clinton had and used at the time. You'll find them to be considerably more imposing than wiretaps between the States and foreign countries. Clinton himself came out in support of the President because he knew what his administration had done.

Honestly, I'm glad you are this determined to protect our rights when you think they are being limited. That's they attitude you should have. I just think you are a little misinformed on a couple things. If you find that my information is faulty then i won't expect you to come to the same conclusions. I'm pretty sure it's not, they were well documented hearings. Try looking up more articles/records since I only gave one.

Please consider one more thing. Since you believe that Fox News and talk radio and all that is propaganda, what would you do if you found out that all the media that you grew up listening to (with no other opposing view points) just happened to have it's own media bias to left leaning ideas. This is another well documented issue. So if you grew up listening to these things and you still believe exactly what they told you, who is more like a sheep?

Posted by: Rick P [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 23, 2006 10:52 AM

Oh see... this is all a big misunderstanding, Sox. You see, you've just not opened your scope far enough to check your facts. You seem to think that what Clinton did in 94 was under FISAs jurisdiction and condonement. Here... read this article:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
Pay particular notice to what Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick has to say about what rights Clinton had and used at the time. You'll find them to be considerably more imposing than wiretaps between the States and foreign countries. Clinton himself came out in support of the President because he knew what his administration had done.

Honestly, I'm glad you are this determined to protect our rights when you think they are being limited. That's they attitude you should have. I just think you are a little misinformed on a couple things. If you find that my information is faulty then i won't expect you to come to the same conclusions. I'm pretty sure it's not, they were well documented hearings. Try looking up more articles/records since I only gave one.

Please consider one more thing. Since you believe that Fox News and talk radio and all that is propaganda, what would you do if you found out that all the media that you grew up listening to (with no other opposing view points) just happened to have it's own media bias to left leaning ideas. This is another well documented issue. So if you grew up listening to these things and you still believe exactly what they told you, who is more like a sheep?

Posted by: Rick P [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 23, 2006 10:56 AM

Meatpies wrote:

Sox, let's see if you can step out of the liberal box and discuss/debate the issues Ollie North wrote about.

My answer:
No.

Oliver North has no credibility and has no standing to comment on the issues of the day.

How much credibility would you give to commentary (slanted commentary at that!) from Dan Rostenkowski?

I am happy to discuss the fact that you red state folks think that an un-American pig like Ollie Boy is worth listening to, however.

Private North should go off quietly into the sunset, and stay that way.

Posted by: SoxSweepAgain [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 23, 2006 12:29 PM

Meatpies wrote:

Sox, let's see if you can step out of the liberal box and discuss/debate the issues Ollie North wrote about.

My answer:
No.

Oliver North has no credibility and has no standing to comment on the issues of the day.

How much credibility would you give to commentary (slanted commentary at that!) from Dan Rostenkowski?

I am happy to discuss the fact that you red state folks think that an un-American pig like Ollie Boy is worth listening to, however.

Private North should go off quietly into the sunset, and stay that way.

Posted by: SoxSweepAgain [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 23, 2006 12:34 PM

Hey, Sox, I think YOU misspelled a word. That surprises me due to your superior intellect and apparently perfect attendance record.

Posted by: T-Time [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 24, 2006 01:09 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?


Regular Columnists

David Limbaugh
Debbie Schlussel
Rachel Marsden
Chris Adamo

Interesting Reads