Obama’s Arrogance, Bill’s Stupidity

By Anthony Leone

It hasn’t been a good week for either of the two Democratic presidential juggernauts.

Just Friday it was reported that Sen. Barack Obama basically called small-town Pennsylvanians uneducated rednecks because they don’t know how to express their frustrations with the government, so they hold religion and guns close while shunning away immigrants.

And later this week, former President Bill Clinton decided to “help” his wife by reopening the old Bosnia wound. If that wasn’t enough, he even got the facts wrong and he admitted to the public that Hillary told him to shut up about it. Talk about a henpecked husband, which only further portrays the female presidential candidate as an ice queen.

But getting back to the more important issue, what is really interesting is that earlier this month Obama was trying to woo over gun owners by waving the constitutional rights flag, but not telling them his misfiring voting record. But then he tells some rich donors in San Francisco that small-town Pennsylvanians are backwoods people and how they feel that the government has failed them.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Obama said, as reported by The Huffington Post.

Now, this is wrong on many levels. One, it’s hypocritical of him to even mention how people seek religion for guidance, considering the controversy between himself and his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And Obama is still dusting himself off from that political debacle.

But two, Obama is stereotyping these Pennsylvanians, which is supposed to be a huge no-no for liberals and Democrats, unless that’s stereotyping too.

In addition, he’s basically describing these Pennsylvanians as single-minded people who don’t understand the issues that this country is facing.

The Illinois senator has not only made a hole for himself with Pennsylvania voters that he is trying to win over, but has opened himself up for attacks by Hillary and the likely Republican presidential nominee, John McCain.

Courting the gun vote should be one of the huge priorities for any Democratic presidential candidate if he or she hopes to win any political race. After all, in recent years Democrats are viewed as being against the Second Amendment.

And respecting how one embraces religion should be a cake walk for even a first year politician. But insulting one’s way of life will reasonably make that voter get down on his knees and take aim at Obama.

Who Says There’s No Smoking Gun Between Saddam, al-Qaeda?

By Anthony Leone

Many Democrats and liberals have been hell bent to say that President Bush lied about his alleged claims that former Iraqi President and dictator Saddam Hussein had connections with terrorist group al-Qaeda may want to take a peek at a recently released report.

“The Iraqi Perspectives Project Primary Source Materials for Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents,” was recently released and while it stated that there were no direct links (or smoking gun) between Saddam and the terror group, which claims responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, there sure does seem to be enough dots to show that the bloody dictator had Sunday Tea with a few members of al-Qaeda.

For example, it has been known for a long time, and this report mentions it, that Saddam had a long relationship with terrorist organizations and supplied them with training grounds, funds and equipment. What many Bush critics don’t want to acknowledge is that al-Qaeda and Iraq’s former dictator had common objectives and a limited working relationship.

“At times, these organizations (Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network) would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust,” stated on page 559 of the report.

And then there is the liaison with Ayman al-Zawahiri, prominent leader of al-Qaeda and leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

“Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al-Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives,” stated on page 62 of the report.

So, just using those two passages alone, the report does state that there was a strong link to Saddam and al-Qaeda. Granted, no one is saying that Saddam had bin Laden over for poker night but there was a type of link there. And that is just al-Qaeda.

At the moment, there is no proof that both parties worked on the 9/11 attacks and President Bush never stated such a thing. But the fact that Saddam Hussein was a loose cannon who already had an established history of lying to the U.N. and breaking resolutions, among other things, America could not stand quietly by, waiting to be attacked again.

Going into Iraq to determine if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was the right course of action. Taking military action so soon after U.N. weapons inspectors went in there is up for debate.

But the job of any American president is to protect the people and to ensure their safety. And that is what the president was doing. We may not agree with how President Bush went about it but it was something that had to be done to finally determine how much of a threat Saddam actually posed to America.

To read the complete report, please click here.