Keep America Safe; Liz Cheney, Debra Burlingame, Bill Kristol launch effort to strengthen national security (Updated with another video added)

Update, 6:18 PM EDT: Keep America Safe Board Member Debra Burlingame On “Your Word w/Neil Cavuto”

Original post:

Keep America Safe will make the case for an unapologetic approach to fighting terrorism around the world, for victory in the wars this country fights, for democracy and human rights, and for a strong American military that is needed in the dangerous world in which we live.”

  15 comments for “Keep America Safe; Liz Cheney, Debra Burlingame, Bill Kristol launch effort to strengthen national security (Updated with another video added)

  1. October 17, 2009 at 1:17 pm

    Thank you.

    By the way GR, Tattoo is spelled with 2 ‘O’s at the end.

    Did Conservatives attack Obama before he got into office? No more than liberals did before Bush, or Reagan were elected. No more than the liberals did to Palin and yes even McCain.

    Were ALL the attacks on Obama based on truth? No more than all the attacks on the Republicans. By the way, no, I do not consider all Republicans as Conservatives. Although to be honest, it does seem more Democrats are liberal than not. The only real difference I see in the Democrat party is either being ‘moderate liberal’ or very far left liberal.

    But yeah, I also see a lot of liberal aspects in the Republicans as well. So ‘most’ Republicans do not seem to be that far behind.

    But back to Obama. Remember, Obama tried to present himself as a ‘moderate liberal’ when running for president. Since he has been in office he has reigned as anything but ‘moderate’. And yeah, I use the term reigned deliberately. Because that seems to be the way he acts.

    Many of us actually took Obama literally with his own words when he was campaigning. Not to mention, many of us decided not to simply ‘excuse’ his obvious radical ties with some of his extreme radical friends and associates before he ever got into office.

    An old adage that I heard from my Parents and even my Grandparents, about ‘show me your friends and I’ll show you your future’ is still applicable today.

    There is way too much evidence of Obama’s radical past to bother rehashing it here. His choices of radical ‘Czars’ and ‘Advisors’ within the White House, with very questionable beliefs and views, is not much different than his past ‘friends and associates’.

    Is there a reason WHY those radical ties to Obama should not have been attacked? Is there a reason why his own statements, both on the campaign trail, as well as well before, should not be scrutinized and even attacked.

    Seems those very same ‘ideals’ for attacking people were used to severely attack people like Sarah Palin. Similar attacks were even used against innocent people like Joe the Plumber.

    It does seem that liberals want a ‘level playing field’ when it comes to redistribution of wealth, healthcare, payroll salary caps, cap and tax, stealing from those who have to give to those too lazy to work for it themselves; but when it comes to let’s say, free speech, the liberals do not want a ‘level playing field’ at all.

    Liberals, it appears, want the ability to speak out for Obama’s agenda, and to destroy anyone who does not believe in Obama’s radical agendas. And yet those same liberals do not want Conservatives to be free to speak their own mind or voice their objections to the direction of this Country or Obama’s liberal agenda.

    If as a liberal you or whoever, want the right and ability to attack people for their Conservative views and agenda, like what was done to Palin, then you have to accept that the Conservatives have the same right to attack Obama and his liberal agenda. Which evidence shows is far worse than he showed during the actual campaigning for President.

    Tattoo Gypsy

  2. G.R. Greene
    October 15, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    Tatto Gypsy,First, Thanks for your service to this great country, Although I’m proud to be a Democrat I didn’t vote for Obama nor McCain but I remember the Conservatives attacking Obama before he even got in office, probably because they don’t know the facts right?

  3. October 15, 2009 at 10:46 am

    I hear about your website on FOX NEWS the ONLY NEWS worth watching & I am afraid that the obama administration & the democratic congress WOULD DAMAGE THE GREAT UNITED STATE OF AMERICA

  4. October 13, 2009 at 11:34 pm

    One thing I have noticed about most liberals, is that when they cannot discuss or even argue a point of fact, they start in with the personal attacks.

    Wonder when they are gonna grow up?

    (Probably about the same time they actually grow a pair I guess. BTW, that is not a ‘personal attack’ but simply an observation)

    Tattoo Gypsy
    Multi Television Emmy Winner
    For News Commentary and
    Proud US Marine ‘Nam Vet

  5. heath
    October 13, 2009 at 8:29 pm

    Tom: “…go back to doing whatever you were doing before and instead of finding fault in a President, pitch in to help him clean up their (your dad and Mr. Bush) mess. It a big one.”

    If only you had the same urgency when President Bush was villified during every day of his Presidency. With Bush, it was – TEAR HIM DOWN; DESTROY HIM. It was perfectly fine and patriotic to do that. With Obama, well, don’t even think of disagreeing with his Marxist Agenda. If you do, you are – RACIST. Or as Tom suggests – “pitch in” to help him turn America into the Socialist Utopia.

    If President Bush created a big mess, Obama has surpassed Bush – created an even bigger mess! CONGRATULATIONS to Obama – his DEFICIT “outshines” Bush’s deficit! Remember the lambasting Bush received for the deficit, from the Democrats? Yet the Democrats have piled on the deficit.

    As for the rest of the Liberal bloggers here, I agree with Ed – state your facts, and argue on substantive points – be it economic policies, or foreign policy. List your substantive arguments. NAME CALLING is a clear indication of being bereft of any logical reasoning – well enough to write out fully in blog. Does calling another blogger, like LOSER, as GR Greene did, somehow validate what he said – and what substantive point did Greene make? NONE.

  6. J.P. Greene
    October 13, 2009 at 7:55 pm

    Oh well Ed, all talk ,you must have been one of those stupid republicians that was stupid enough to have voted for Bush & Cheney twice ??? ddddaaaaaaaaaaa, no wonder this country is in such a mess with all the rightwing fruitcakes out there, give us a break, we had 8 years of torture in this country with those two clowns. Thank God they’re gone !

    Ed. — Gee, J.P., I thought even libs were smart enough to figure out ‘Ed.’ is an abbreviation for ‘Editor.’

  7. G. R. Greene
    October 13, 2009 at 7:13 pm

    Shame on You Liz Cheney

    You need to keep your mouth shut, don’t be a loser like Dad. They are out and it was the longest 8 years of hell that this county is still suffering from.
    The Cheney’s shouldn’t say a word, after all it was on those idiots watch that 911 happened on, so how safe did they keep all those Americans on 9/11/2001? Butt out Liz you can’t change the fact that your worthless father was a complete war profiterrist and a war mongral piece of S***
    And second of all (w) does stand for Worthless, What Bush and Cheney did to this country they should hang their heads in shame, glad their out of there.
    P.S. WMD?????????????????????????????????????????

    Ed. — As a recent Politico article points out, lib bloggers use foul language more often on the Internet than conservative bloggers by a margin of 18 to 1.

    Obviously, they cannot argue on point, so they prove their blind faith to leftist ideology by attacking the messengers.

    So, where is their leadership to provide the example? Answer: In the same potty with them.

  8. Bob
    October 13, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    The Cheneys only know fear and hate. Try doing something positive.

    Ed. — Such a compelling argument — not. Do you have something that disputes the facts presented in the video?

  9. October 13, 2009 at 5:45 pm

    President Obama should be ashamed of himself.

    For the better part of 2 years when campaigned on the issue that the ‘real war’ was in Afghanistan. And now that his own hand-picked General is stating he needs MORE troops or we may very well end up losing that war, NOW he wants to take his own sweet-azz time.

    For the past 10 months I have listened to Obama claim this, that and the other had to be done in a hurry. Gotta be done right this minute or everything will fail. Healthcare, the stimulus, ad nausem.

    Now that it comes to something that really NEEDS to be done and done now, NOW Obama wants to sit on his hands and let our Military get killed while he tries to make a decision.

    Mr. Obama, with all due respect for the office you hold, get off your lame azz and do something.

    Either support our troops, give your General the troops he needs to win this war, or bring our boys home.

    This has already become about a spit away from turning into another Vietnam. And if it does Sir, it will be on YOUR watch, not President Bush’s.

  10. Tom
    October 13, 2009 at 5:20 pm

    Liz Cheney,

    Your father and his counter part the former President Bush have done just about enough for this country, a war in Irag that turned out to be useless and not needed. Trillions of dollars to wage that war and the lose of life that was sacrificed. They bailed out on Afganistan and now the Taliban is back in action. Civil liberties had been abused in the name of security. On the home front, their failure to regulate banking, the markets and insurance companies helped to create one of the worst economic enviroments this country has seen in a long time. And all in the name of GREED for the choosen few. From my perspective, go back to doing whatever you were doing before and instead of finding fault in a President, pitch in to help him clean up their (your dad and Mr. Bush) mess. It a big one.

  11. Peggy Evans
    October 13, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    If we’d gone to Afghanistan instead of Iraq, where the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were, we’d have them by now. The only thing going to Iraq did was letting Bush have revenge for his daddy, while US soldiers died. Why is the Republicans first instinct to go to war? If we have to, which should be a last resort, why not go to where the enemy is? Why can’t peace be a consideration?

    Ed. — When did you start following Afghanistan? From what you wrote, I’d say it was during the 2008 campaign right after you jumped on Obama’s bandwagon. Are you reciting the leftist talking points (“The only thing going to Iraq did was letting Bush have revenge for his daddy, while US soldiers died.”) from memory or do you have them tattooed on your forearm for ready reading? Was al Qaeda giving peace a chance?:

    In 1993 … According to Jamal al-Fadl, an al-Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, bin Laden meets a leading Iranian sheikh in Sudan. The purpose of the meeting is to put aside any differences between their competing brands of Islam in order to come together against their common enemy: the West. The meeting is just the first of several between bin Laden and Iran’s spiritual leaders.

    and

    In 1993 … Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps train al-Qaeda’s terrorists in camps in Sudan, Lebanon and Iran. Among the terrorists trained are some of bin Laden’s most trusted lieutenants and al-Qaeda’s future leaders.

    and

    On November 19, 1995 … An al-Qaeda suicide bomber destroys the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan. The CIA’s Bob Baer later learns that Mugniyah’s [Arafat’s former bodyguard who became Iran’s chief of intelligence] deputy assisted al-Qaeda in the attack and that one of bin Laden’s top terrorists remained in contact with Mugniyah’s office months afterwards.

    and

    On June 21 – 23, 1996 … Tehran hosts a summit for the leading Sunni and Shiite terrorist groups. It is announced that the terrorists will continue to focus on U.S. interests thoughout the region. Mugniyah, bin Laden, and a leading member of the EIJ reportedly forge the “Committee of Three,” under the leadership of Iran’s intelligence chief, to focus their joint efforts against American targets.

    and

    On August 7, 1998 … Al-Qaeda’s suicide bombers simultaneously destroy the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. It is al-Qaeda’s most spectacular attack prior to 9/11. The attack is clearly modeled on Hezbollah’s attacks in the early 1980s. Indeed, the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible were trained by Hezbollah in the early 1990s. There is evidence that Iran also provided explosives used in the attack.

    and

    October – November 2000 … Imad Mugniyah and his lieutenants personally escort several of the 9/11 muscle hijackers out of Saudi Arabia on flights to Beirut and Iran. In all, eight to ten of the hijackers travel through Iran on the way to 9/11.

    and

    December 2000 … Ramzi Binalshibh, al-Qaeda’s key point man for the 9/11 plot, applies for visa at the Iranian Embassy in Berlin. His visa application is approved.

    and

    January 31, 2001 … Ramzi Binalshibh arrives at Tehran International airport. He does not return to Germany until February 28, 2001. The purpose of his trip to Iran remains a mystery. The 9/11 Commission does not mention Binalshibh’s trip to Iran.

    and

    9/11

    Source:Analysis: Al Qaeda is the tip of the jihadist spear‘ By Thomas Joscelyn & Bill Roggio October 8, 2009 2:12 PM (follow the embedded links).

    That was a question.

  12. October 13, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    The video is a good example of how not to lead a nation. Obama needs to understand the word integrity, when you give your word to someone you keep it. Tossing over Eastern Europe in hopes of getting Russian help with Iran is really just a hope. The change is that its now harder to be Americas friend than it is her enemy. All the Noble Prizes in the world won’t restore faith in Americas word. Watching people get shot in the street and remaining silent is no way to win friends. Not supporting our troops in the field should be a criminal offense. You can debate about sending them, but once there they deserve our support, if we don’t have a plan, bring them home, loosing people while Obama panders for health care and a Nobel Prize is pathetic.

  13. mike bohle
    October 13, 2009 at 4:57 pm

    With you all the way. Our nephew was killed in Afghanistan; he was buried, in Arlington, last week.

    Obama should be concerned first and foremost with the safety of our troops. Iying their hands is creating another Vietnam and is destined to kill more of these brave young Americans. Our troops are trained to kill and destroy. Providing mosque sanctuaries endangers our kids. The Taliban and al Quaida hide among the populace. patrolling with afghan police and so called security forces has gotten our kids killed. Turn our troops lose to do their job of protecting us by killing them or let the word “impeach” be uttered by every freedom loving and seeking American. Obama’s taken an oath to preserve and protect, seems to me he’s violating that oath.

    Ed. — See this.

  14. Anthony
    October 13, 2009 at 4:37 pm

    Water Boarding 3 terrorists…. After being assured that it wouldn’t kill them. (something that many in our Military go through as part of their training). And putting a caterpillar in 1 terrorists cell….. Hmmmmm. Yeah, that’s not exactly torture dude… Especially when numerous of American lives were saved by doing so! Get over it!

    Ed. — They leftists will never get over a caterpillar scaring their buddies.

  15. Russell
    October 13, 2009 at 5:40 am

    How can Cheney, an author of America’s once and let’s hope only descent to torture, speak to human rights? Indeed, the US as a nation is handicapped in addressing human rights abroad until it effectively investigates what was done under Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Where we have always led, for a period of time we failed.

    Editor — 1) Enhanced interrogation techniques are not torture, 2) wrong Cheney, 3) the threat to investigate the foreign policy of a previous administration and implication that the current administration will prosecute the “offenders” is endangering our national security by further creating risk aversion within the intelligence community, and 4) they kept us safe from further attacks and for that you should be grateful but are so enamored by hope and change are too blind to admit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *