Friday, April 17, 2009

Isn't it interesting who the current administration does and does not

consider a 'terrorist', current or potential?
A. M. Mora y Leon at The American Thinker reported that the Obama Administration has reclassified the FARC killers in Colombia as insurgents and not terrorists:

The redesignation of FARC as ‘insurgents' is especially outrageous. The only people Obama could be talking about as ‘insurgents' are FARC because there is nothing comparable anywhere else in the hemisphere. What Obama is doing is exactly the same thing the msm did for the Iraqi AQs and terrorists, called them ‘insurgents'!

This is not really so surprising considering the news last year that democrats were reportedly holding meetings with the FARC
I seem to remember hearing something about that...
After his death Colombian forces raided his FARC camp and found two computers that belonged to the terrorist mastermind. The Colombian government later released reports on the contents of these FARC computers. One file on the computer discussed Barack Obama:

The gringos will ask for an appointment with the minister to solicit him to communicate to us his interest in discussing these topics. They say that the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support "Plan Colombia" nor will he sign the TLC (Colombian Free Trade agreement).

It appears that democrats were associating with FARC terrorists even before the election.
And, now these FARC killers are no longer considered terrorists.
Funny how that works
Isn't it, though? Especially considering some of the crap that's come out about how the paper was released:
In fact, it was such a rush job that Janet Napolitano couldn’t wait to resolve the obvious civil-liberty concerns raised by her own lawyers before shoving it out the door. Napolitano would later have to backtrack on the exact same language flagged by the attorneys by claiming that she didn't specifically approve the report issued by her office and that she would have changed the language in hindsight. She had the opportunity to fix it before its release, but the completely threadbare report was deemed such a high priority that it went out anyway.
Now, what could have triggered that? Anyone know of events occurring just after April 7, 2009, that such an assessment could have painted as radical, extremist, and threats to national security? Hmmm
And now we have the President, and Napolitano and lots of other lying shitsdishonest politicians repeating the Mexican Gun Lie over and over, and the Pres. is in Mexico apologizing(he wants to take the title from Bill Clinton) and blaming us for Mexico's troubles.

Hey, they need somebody to blame, right? And who cares about facts when lies suit their agenda so well?

1 comment:

Windy Wilson said...

Their obsession with characterizing their opposition as "terrorists" is so narrow-minded that they cannot recognize the terrorist acts and inclination of such groups as ELF, earth liberation force, and PETA, both of whom have injured people in their attempts to influence the actions of other people.

At least the Anarchists in the late 19th Century had the sense to direct their anger at the people who actually held the power they resented.