Gold9472
03-16-2007, 11:01 PM
Rosie O'Donnell Is Not A Terrorist Sympathizer
Jon Gold
3/16/2007
Well, well, well... it seems as though this Administration's attack dogs are hard at work to discredit Rosie O'Donnell.
I think what they're going for is "Terrorist Sympathizer".
John Gibson from Faux News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259244,00.html) said, "This is what happens when you hate the president and the administration so much that even the world's most evil people look to you like little angels next to George W. Bush."
USAToday (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070226/cm_usatoday/targetevangelicals) reports, "But that's exactly the way cultural elitists view conservative Christians - as barely literate crackpots who could explode at any moment. As Rosie O'Donnell explained on ABC's The View last year, "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state." The funny thing is, that story had nothing to do with KSM.
The Conservative Voice (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/23521.html) reports "how happy ABC must be that the woman they’ve decided to sit at the adult (or thinning – you decide) end of the table is the one that would be most likely to come to the defense of the mastermind of the attack that killed thousands of people just miles from the studio."
I wonder why they're going after Rosie. She's not the only one that doubts (http://www.911blogger.com/node/6920) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession.
Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/15/rosie-odonnell-911-truther/) reports "Rosie O’Donnell isn’t just a terrorist apologist, she’s also a 9/11 Truther."
Do you think that could be the reason (http://www.rosie.com/blog/2007/03/15/wtc-7/) for all of this attention?
After all, who could forget the punishment Charlie Sheen received for questioning 9/11.
There's nothing wrong with questioning a trial where the press is not allowed (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=77853&postcount=1), even though "hundreds of earlier ones were open to coverage." There's nothing wrong with questioning a trial where the "only account (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14745) of the outcome will come from the US military." There's nothing wrong with questioning Khalid's confession (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=77962&postcount=11) which if obtained through torture, "legal experts say that could taint all his statements."
Personally, I think anyone that defends this Administration, and those groups that support it are "Terrorist Sympathizers."
Rosie is speaking truth to power. Good for her.
Jon Gold
3/16/2007
Well, well, well... it seems as though this Administration's attack dogs are hard at work to discredit Rosie O'Donnell.
I think what they're going for is "Terrorist Sympathizer".
John Gibson from Faux News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259244,00.html) said, "This is what happens when you hate the president and the administration so much that even the world's most evil people look to you like little angels next to George W. Bush."
USAToday (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070226/cm_usatoday/targetevangelicals) reports, "But that's exactly the way cultural elitists view conservative Christians - as barely literate crackpots who could explode at any moment. As Rosie O'Donnell explained on ABC's The View last year, "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state." The funny thing is, that story had nothing to do with KSM.
The Conservative Voice (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/23521.html) reports "how happy ABC must be that the woman they’ve decided to sit at the adult (or thinning – you decide) end of the table is the one that would be most likely to come to the defense of the mastermind of the attack that killed thousands of people just miles from the studio."
I wonder why they're going after Rosie. She's not the only one that doubts (http://www.911blogger.com/node/6920) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession.
Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/15/rosie-odonnell-911-truther/) reports "Rosie O’Donnell isn’t just a terrorist apologist, she’s also a 9/11 Truther."
Do you think that could be the reason (http://www.rosie.com/blog/2007/03/15/wtc-7/) for all of this attention?
After all, who could forget the punishment Charlie Sheen received for questioning 9/11.
There's nothing wrong with questioning a trial where the press is not allowed (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=77853&postcount=1), even though "hundreds of earlier ones were open to coverage." There's nothing wrong with questioning a trial where the "only account (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14745) of the outcome will come from the US military." There's nothing wrong with questioning Khalid's confession (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=77962&postcount=11) which if obtained through torture, "legal experts say that could taint all his statements."
Personally, I think anyone that defends this Administration, and those groups that support it are "Terrorist Sympathizers."
Rosie is speaking truth to power. Good for her.