New Democrat Plan
Democrats New Strategy "Today" is to try to fight back on thier failed security policy of "Cut and Run"
WASHINGTON After being outmaneuvered in the politics of national security in the last two elections, Democrats say they are determined not to have thier asses handed to them on the issue this year and are working aggressively to cast President George W. Bush as having diminished the nation's safety which Dems admit is "Going to be quite a task but we have the will to try anything at this point."
"They are not Swift boating us on security hell no not this time," said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic minority leader in the House, referring to the truthful attacks on the military record of the Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate, John Kerry, a navy Swift boat commander who shot himself in the foot during the Vietnam War.
Seeking to turn the reported terrorist plot in Britain to Democrat advantage, Democrats are using the arrests of the suspects to try to show Americans how weak they are on national security and the war in Iraq. And proving the point that the Republican Congress has been shoring up homeland security. While completely ignoring the fact that that Osama Bin Laden issued a "Jihad" against America in 1998.
They say they intend to drive that message right up America's ass as Americans observe the coming anniversaries of Hurricane Katrina and the Sept. 11 attacks in the weeks before the November elections. But they are not waiting. A video Monday on the Web site of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee showed footage of Osama bin Laden with his arm around Howard Dean, referred to an increase in terror attacks that will occur under Democrat control, even though Osama has been reduced to a cave and a donkey, highlighted illegal immigration which most democrats voted against shoring up our borders, and pointed out the nuclear aspirations of Iran and North Korea will be beafed up if the Democrats gain control again.
"Feel safer?" it concludes. "Vote for the party with no plan yet but coming soon."
"The president told us that the British attacks are a stark reminder that the nation is at war with 'Islamic fascists' who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, noting the Presidents administration has dismantled the very infrastructure that was keeping the Bin Laden network going. Harold Ford Jr. a Democrat running for Senate in Tennessee said"
Those statements and others are giving Republicans a boost when it comes to National Security and the Democrats are more interested in pro-terror initiatives that are generaly about the same as the efforts of Democrats in the two previous elections, when they stumbled badly in the face of Republican efforts to paint Democrats as weak.
Democrats say they are now able to separate the war from efforts to protect against terror attacks, which makes no sense but they are sticking with this plan.
Republicans say they believe the Democratic efforts will fizzle, asserting that voters will ultimately choose to trust Republicans with the life-and-death issue of security because the clear thinking public knows with Democrats, the Country doesnt stand a chance.
"Some say that America caused the current instability in the Middle East by pursuing a forward strategy of freedom, yet history shows otherwise," said Bush, ticking off terror attacks that occurred in the United States, Africa and elsewhere long before he took office.
Democrats say such comments may have had power in the past, but they are going to try to persuede the American people that even though they have no idea what to do yet, rest assured we are going to come up with something.
"If you live in Iowa you know the Iraq policy has failed." Iraq has had a major impact on our corn crops here Said a Democratic strategest. Offering no explanation as to what he was talking about.
As a result, Democrats say they are advising candidates to respond quickly and with force to Republican attacks. All we can say is, we have a plan, but we dont know what it is yet.
"From a political standpoint, there is much more heightened awareness this year about the need to respond in kind and immediately," it's going to be a big task, but we have blundered it before we can do it again, said Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
While a Newsweek poll showed an uptick in Bush's public approval on security issues after the arrests in Britain, the latest nationwide CBS News Poll, conducted Aug. 11-13, found that the recent terrorism threat has had little effect on the public's view of the Democratic party which is still pretty dismal. Terrorism has re-emerged as a major issue for many Americans, cited by 17 percent, up from 7 percent last month.
Republicans are still seen as doing a better job handling terrorism than Democrats, the difference in the new CBS Poll is about 8 points, about the same as in July.
The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Read Full Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You sure this is the road you Liberals want to go down this year? This isnt your strong suit, but oh well it's your ass!
WASHINGTON After being outmaneuvered in the politics of national security in the last two elections, Democrats say they are determined not to have thier asses handed to them on the issue this year and are working aggressively to cast President George W. Bush as having diminished the nation's safety which Dems admit is "Going to be quite a task but we have the will to try anything at this point."
"They are not Swift boating us on security hell no not this time," said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic minority leader in the House, referring to the truthful attacks on the military record of the Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate, John Kerry, a navy Swift boat commander who shot himself in the foot during the Vietnam War.
Seeking to turn the reported terrorist plot in Britain to Democrat advantage, Democrats are using the arrests of the suspects to try to show Americans how weak they are on national security and the war in Iraq. And proving the point that the Republican Congress has been shoring up homeland security. While completely ignoring the fact that that Osama Bin Laden issued a "Jihad" against America in 1998.
They say they intend to drive that message right up America's ass as Americans observe the coming anniversaries of Hurricane Katrina and the Sept. 11 attacks in the weeks before the November elections. But they are not waiting. A video Monday on the Web site of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee showed footage of Osama bin Laden with his arm around Howard Dean, referred to an increase in terror attacks that will occur under Democrat control, even though Osama has been reduced to a cave and a donkey, highlighted illegal immigration which most democrats voted against shoring up our borders, and pointed out the nuclear aspirations of Iran and North Korea will be beafed up if the Democrats gain control again.
"Feel safer?" it concludes. "Vote for the party with no plan yet but coming soon."
"The president told us that the British attacks are a stark reminder that the nation is at war with 'Islamic fascists' who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, noting the Presidents administration has dismantled the very infrastructure that was keeping the Bin Laden network going. Harold Ford Jr. a Democrat running for Senate in Tennessee said"
Those statements and others are giving Republicans a boost when it comes to National Security and the Democrats are more interested in pro-terror initiatives that are generaly about the same as the efforts of Democrats in the two previous elections, when they stumbled badly in the face of Republican efforts to paint Democrats as weak.
Democrats say they are now able to separate the war from efforts to protect against terror attacks, which makes no sense but they are sticking with this plan.
Republicans say they believe the Democratic efforts will fizzle, asserting that voters will ultimately choose to trust Republicans with the life-and-death issue of security because the clear thinking public knows with Democrats, the Country doesnt stand a chance.
"Some say that America caused the current instability in the Middle East by pursuing a forward strategy of freedom, yet history shows otherwise," said Bush, ticking off terror attacks that occurred in the United States, Africa and elsewhere long before he took office.
Democrats say such comments may have had power in the past, but they are going to try to persuede the American people that even though they have no idea what to do yet, rest assured we are going to come up with something.
"If you live in Iowa you know the Iraq policy has failed." Iraq has had a major impact on our corn crops here Said a Democratic strategest. Offering no explanation as to what he was talking about.
As a result, Democrats say they are advising candidates to respond quickly and with force to Republican attacks. All we can say is, we have a plan, but we dont know what it is yet.
"From a political standpoint, there is much more heightened awareness this year about the need to respond in kind and immediately," it's going to be a big task, but we have blundered it before we can do it again, said Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
While a Newsweek poll showed an uptick in Bush's public approval on security issues after the arrests in Britain, the latest nationwide CBS News Poll, conducted Aug. 11-13, found that the recent terrorism threat has had little effect on the public's view of the Democratic party which is still pretty dismal. Terrorism has re-emerged as a major issue for many Americans, cited by 17 percent, up from 7 percent last month.
Republicans are still seen as doing a better job handling terrorism than Democrats, the difference in the new CBS Poll is about 8 points, about the same as in July.
The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Read Full Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You sure this is the road you Liberals want to go down this year? This isnt your strong suit, but oh well it's your ass!
posted by Marie's Two Cents | 11:04 AM
27 Comments:
Good one Marie. you know you ask for understanding and then you turn around and talk shit. What are you bi-polar or something? I have one question for you (for now). Because you think it was right to occupy (liberate) Iraq, you still probably think they have WMDs somewhere, and were somehow a threat to the US. How is it there has not been a single Iraqi terrorist? I'm really curious about this. Also considering this latest UK 'threat' points to Pakistan (supposedly an ally) wouldn't this suggest that Pakistan is aiding and providing cover for terrorists? You can't have it both ways, Like Bush now claiming victory and safety and then in the same instance admitting we are not safe and there is still a grave threat. Which is it?
Also the GOP claim that they are better at 'protecting' us than democrats is null and void since Republicans control both houses and have really not done anything that has so far made us any safer. Killing people in Iraq is not preventing terrorist attacks. You are basing your argument on polls which you obviously ignore when they are not in your favor. say like 60% do not favor the war in Iraq and only 33% approve of GWB... But of course you know better than anybody else........
A majority of Americans do not like Bush.
His war on terror has been a failure.
Iraq is a failure.
We are not safer. If we were, why do we hear of more and more threats?
Last 5 polls I'm aware of:
George Bush's favorability poll:
Gallup: 37 down from 40.
CBS: Unchanged at 36.
Newsweek: 38 up from 35.
Fox: Unchanged at 36.
Harris: Unchanged at 34.
Sorry, Marie, but a lk is correct.
A majority of Americans don't like Bush. That means they don't like what he's doing.
Make fun of the Dems if it makes you feel good, but Bush's going to take his party down with him and allow the Dems to win big.
That's politics, Marie.
Republicans have had a long run, now the country will return to the Democratic Party to straighten out the mess the Bushies have made of this country.
hi marie long time no type, like the story hehe you still gettin some realy freaky people i see, let me tell ya the more people i talk to are switchin parties and the dems aint gonna know what hit em come november
Purple,
Good one Marie. you know you ask for understanding and then you turn around and talk shit. What are you bi-polar or something?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah that's it I'm bi-polar. In reality every other day Liberals make me sick and I am going to respond.
I have one question for you (for now). Because you think it was right to occupy (liberate) Iraq, you still probably think they have WMDs somewhere, and were somehow a threat to the US. How is it there has not been a single Iraqi terrorist?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is an article that got alot of attention when it first came out, but the Liberal Anti-Bush Media took this story off as quick as they could, and you never hear about it anymore, but I saved a copy just for an instance like this. This whole thing is to long to paste, but I am pasting a bit of it and I'm providing a link at the bottom so you can read the whole thing:
(Iraqi Terrorists Detail Ties To Bin Laden
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax
Monday, March 18, 2002
A terrorist group operating in northern Iraq told the New Yorker magazine's Jeffrey Goldberg that their organization "has received funds directly from al-Qaeda."
In interviews conducted in a prison in Kurdish-controlled territory, captured members of Ansar al-Islam also alleged:
The intelligence service of Saddam Hussein has joint control, with al-Qaeda operatives, over Ansar al-Islam.
Saddam Hussein hosted a senior leader of al-Qaeda in Baghdad in 1992.
A number of al-Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan have been secretly brought into territory controlled by Ansar al-Islam.
Iraqi intelligence agents smuggled conventional weapons, and possibly even chemical and biological weapons, into Afghanistan.
If these charges are true," Goldberg writes in the current issue, "it would mean that the relationship between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda is far closer than previously thought."
The prisoners Goldberg spoke to last month are kept in a jail that is run by the intelligence service of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, whose director told Goldberg that American intelligence officials had not visited the site. "The FBI and the CIA haven't come out yet," the director said.
According to Kurdish officials, Goldberg reported, "Ansar al-Islam grew out of an idea spread by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the former chief of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and now Osama bin Laden's deputy in al-Qaeda."
One official explained, "Zawahiri's philosophy is that you should fight the infidel even in the smallest village, that you should try to form Islamic armies everywhere. The Kurdish fundamentalists were influenced by Zawahiri."
The group has between five hundred and six hundred members, according to Kurdish officials, including Arab Afghans and at least thirty Iraqi Kurds who were trained in Afghanistan.
Last September, the officials said, representatives of Osama bin Laden gave Ansar al-Islam $300,000. These officials added that the real leader of Ansar al-Islam is an Iraqi known as Abu Wa'el, who has spent a great deal of time in bin Laden's training camps but is also, they said, an officer of the Mukhabarat, Saddam's principal intelligence service.
"A man named Abu Agab is in charge of the northern bureau of the Mukhabarat," one official told Goldberg. "And he is Abu Wa'el's control officer."
Smuggling Al-Qaeda Members
Kurdish intelligence officials said that there is no proof that Ansar al-Islam has ever been involved in international terrorism or that Saddam Hussein's agents were involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. But they claimed that several men associated with al-Qaeda have been smuggled over the Iranian border into an Ansar al-Islam stronghold near the city of Halabja.
Two of these men, who go by the names Abu Yasir and Abu Muzaham, are high-ranking al-Qaeda members, they say. An Iraqi intelligence officer, Qassem Hussein Muhammad, one of the prisoners with whom Goldberg spoke, said that his own involvement in Islamic radicalism began in 1992 in Baghdad, when he met Ayman al-Zawahiri after being assigned to help guard him.
After reports surfaced that Abu Wa'el had been captured by American agents, Qassem says, he was sent by the Mukhabarat to Kurdistan to find out what was going on. "That's when I was captured," he said. Asked if he was sure that Abu Wa'el was on Saddam's side, Qassem said, "He's an employee of the Mukhabarat. He's the actual decision-maker in the group -- Ansar al-Islam -- but he's an employee of the Mukhabarat."
In the prison, Goldberg also spoke to a young Iraqi Arab named Haqi Ismail, whom Kurdish officials described as a middle-to high-ranking member of al-Qaeda, who was captured as he tried to get into Kurdistan three weeks after the start of the American attack on Afghanistan.
Jawad, a twenty-nine-year-old Iranian Arab who is a smuggler and bandit from the city of Ahvaz, and whom Kurdish intelligence officials said was most recently employed by bin Laden, told Goldberg that he began to smuggle for bin Laden in the late 1990s.)
Link Here
If you are crazy enough to believe Iraq under Saddam not only had terrorist ties, and last I checked Al-Quaida was a direct threat to THIS Country, then I dont know what else to tell you. You arent going to pull your head out of the sand no matter what I tell you or show you anyway, but I'll give it a shot.
Also considering this latest UK 'threat' points to Pakistan (supposedly an ally) wouldn't this suggest that Pakistan is aiding and providing cover for terrorists? You can't have it both ways, Like Bush now claiming victory and safety and then in the same instance admitting we are not safe and there is still a grave threat. Which is it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Evidently we are going to have to have it both ways for now. Pakistan on one hand is helping in the war on terror, the Pakistani's had a mole infiltrated in this cell in the latest plot with the airliners. And he made a phone call that started the whole ball rolling with Bush, Blair, and Mushariff which enabled "The Big Bust" And on the other hand Mushariff wont go up in the caves and get Bin Laden, and he sure wont let us, probably because at this point if they mess around to much with Bin Hidin his followers will try to have Mushariff assasinated (Since they have tried this before) and Pakistan has a Nuclear weapon! I can see the Nukes falling into the hands of the Taliban and the remnants of Al-Quaida cant you? And Bin Hidin is contained to a cave and a donkey. Hell just let his kidneys give out he will be dead soon enough, notice he hasnt sent any VIDEO tapes, and only Audio tapes about any event that has occured like a month later? That ought to tell you how much of a threat he is anymore.
Like President Bush said: "We are safer but we arent yet safe"
We are getting better at our intelligence, and better at protecting our Country, but we have to be correct 100% of the time the enemy only has to be right once!
Purple,
Also the GOP claim that they are better at 'protecting' us than democrats is null and void since Republicans control both houses and have really not done anything that has so far made us any safer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really? THEY ARE! The Patriot Act comes to mind which Harry Reid was so Proud to say "We killed the Patriot Act" before it was revised, giving us the most important tools we HAVE to work with to catch the terrorist's, not to mention the "Terrorist Surveillance Program", and SWIFT, which has been following the money trail of terrorist activities. All of which you on the left want to do away with or put limitations on.
Saying "It infriges on our civil rights", well sorry pal but we are going to have to give up a few civil rights in defense of this Country. Besides, have you been affected by ANY of these programs? I havent, but then again I'M NOT A TERRORIST!
Killing people in Iraq is not preventing terrorist attacks. You are basing your argument on polls which you obviously ignore when they are not in your favor. say like 60% do not favor the war in Iraq and only 33% approve of GWB... But of course you know better than anybody else........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We arent killing Iraqi's the terrorist's are.
And I dont give a rats ass about polls, it just came along with the story!
And yes there are a few things that I know that you dont know that I know!
Lee Keanis,
A majority of Americans do not like Bush.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Funny Lee, I never get asked or polled and most everybody I talk to never get asked or polled either so I'm not real sure any of these polls are accurate or correct. That's why I dont care about polls.
His war on terror has been a failure.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not being attacked in 5 years proves you wrong about his war on terror being a failure.
Iraq is a failure
Iraq a failure? 14 out of 18 provinces are secure in Iraq, the big problem is Baghdad and the other 3 provinces which are being given back to the Iraqi army every time they are trained and ready to go. Pretty soon the Iraqi's will have to deal with the terrorist's, and our boys and girls will come home.
We are not safer. If we were, why do we hear of more and more threats?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What you are hearing is less and less terror alerts, because we are getting better at intelligence, and terror alert levels only go up if you would ever pay any attention in specific areas like the latest thwarted attack against our airlines. You didnt see the entire alert system go up, only pertaining to airlines!
That's because our intelligence has gotten better.
It takes a long time to restructure our intelligence and our Military to deal with the "New" threat terrorism, when they before 9-11 were set to a cold war mentality.
You better get used to hearing threats because those that want ALL OF US DEAD are still out there ploting and planning to KILL us!
Sorry Lee, your Bush Bashing isnt going to win you any elections, if that's all you have, and NO PLAN, you cant expect the people to take you seriously.
Mrs. Green,
Last 5 polls I'm aware of:
George Bush's favorability poll:
Gallup: 37 down from 40.
CBS: Unchanged at 36.
Newsweek: 38 up from 35.
Fox: Unchanged at 36.
Harris: Unchanged at 34.
Sorry, Marie, but a lk is correct.
A majority of Americans don't like Bush. That means they don't like what he's doing.
Make fun of the Dems if it makes you feel good, but Bush's going to take his party down with him and allow the Dems to win big.
That's politics, Marie.
Republicans have had a long run, now the country will return to the Democratic Party to straighten out the mess the Bushies have made of this country.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs Green as I told Purple I dont give a rats ass about polls, it just came with the story.
Sorry Mrs. Green But LK is WRONG and MISGUIDED.
If you think this plan is going to do ANYTHING for the Liberals, get ready for a fight, and when the Republicans win again , I better not hear a word like "It was Diebold" "We got robbed" or "The Election was rigged" because if you have no plan for our National Security it will be your oun fault you lost.
There is no mess to fix Mrs. Green, have you ever heard the expression "If it aint broke why fix it"? It isnt broke there have been no terrorist attacks since 9-11 which pretty much puts your assumption that the Country is a mess because of Bush to bed also.
No one in thier right mind would hand back Liberals control of anything, because they know with Liberals in office our Country doesnt stand a chance.
We just cant trust liberals with out National Security plain and simple, you guys still have no plan, and cut and run isnt a plan!
Sick,
hi marie long time no type, like the story hehe you still gettin some realy freaky people i see, let me tell ya the more people i talk to are switchin parties and the dems aint gonna know what hit em come november
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello Sick, yeah I get the fruits, nuts and alot of flakes!
I have been hearing the same thing Sick.
I am not voting for any incumbent politician whether they are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, and/or any other/no party afflitiation. As Glenn Beck said on his show on CNN a few weeks back, the current politicians we have elected only care about their party and not the people they represent. They (the politicians) have sold out their voters and people the represent for their political parties I don't always agree with Glenn Beck (or any other radio personality wherether it would be conservative radio shows or Air America)but he actually said the honest truth.
I am not voting for any incumbent politician whether they are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, and/or any other/no party afflitiation. As Glenn Beck said on his show on CNN a few weeks back, the current politicians we have elected only care about their party and not the people they represent. They (the politicians) have sold out their voters and people the represent for their political parties I don't always agree with Glenn Beck (or any other radio personality wherether it would be conservative radio shows or Air America)but he actually said the honest truth.
With Ned Lamont selected as Conneticut's Democratic nominee for the Senate race over the former VP nominee, Joe Lieberman. This is a significant and sad step in the Democrats' transformation from serious political party to mouthpiece for the anti-war, anti-capitalist, "Blame America First" crowd. --skye
Sorry. You're wrong. The people who voted for Ned Lamont were Democrats, Independents and Republicans. Lieberman was defeated by a coalition of voters. Not just the left.
And as for your "anti-war" rhetoric on the Democrats. You apparently are uninformed.
61% of the American people ARE AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR.
You, Marie, and others here, conveniently gloss over that fact, because you can't deal with reality.
61% of Americans are against the war. That is no fringe.
Ignore the polls all you wish, but you can bet the administration is paying attention to them. Watch how it finds a way to change its policies before the upcoming elections.
As to your foolish remark about the Democrats being anti-capitalist, please educate yourself on who Ned Lamont is and where his family money came from.
You demean Soros and others for contributing money to the Democrats?
You are laughable. The Republicans outspend the Democrats in every election. Do you think they get that money off of trees?
Bush's Blunder will go down in history as one of the worst follies ever perpetrated by an American president.
3,400 Iraqis were killed last month. The highest since the war began. Things are not getting better in Iraq--they are getting worse. Now American soldiers are the targets of Iraqi insurgents.
It's difficult to admit you backed a terrible mistake, but that is reality.
We are not the "fringe." We are a majority who see this war as a huge mistake in fighting terrorism.
Keep telling yourselves polls don't matter. Ignore what a majority of Americans are thinking and continue to live in your fantasy world.
Sad. So sad.
skye,
That's nice dear.
A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS THINK BUSH SUCKS AND THEY DO NOT SUPPORT HIS POLICIES IN IRAQ.
those are the facts. No matter what you post, it doesn't change the fact that Bush and his Iraq war are failures. You are delusional in thinking you are in the real world. Bush's numbers have been stuck in the 30's since last November. THAT MEANS THAT ALMOST 70% OF AMERICANS ARE NOT WITH HIM ON HIS WAR IN IRAQ. AND CHENEY'S POLLING 20%!!!
Ignore it all you like and spin until you land in China. Those are the facts.
And Marie, here's more on your hysterical post below on those Texas guys with the cell phones.
BY JOE SWICKARD, NIRAJ WARIKOO and CHRIS CHRISTOFF
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS
August 15, 2006
Terror charges against two groups of Arab Americans arrested with hundreds of prepaid cell phones teetered in Michigan and collapsed in Ohio on Monday as authorities said they lacked evidence that the men intended to use the phones for evil.
Ohio authorities dropped charges against two Dearborn men arrested last week with hundreds of the disposable phones.
Meanwhile, officials in Tuscola County, in Michigan's Thumb, kept three Texans locked up Monday evening even after Michigan State Police and FBI officials said they were apparently wide-eyed tourists rather than would-be terrorists when they photographed the Mackinac Bridge.
The FBI -- which questioned the Texans, who are of Palestinian heritage, for several hours over the weekend after their arrest -- said Monday that "there is no imminent threat" to the iconic bridge linking Michigan's Upper and Lower peninsulas.
While local authorities in Michigan and Ohio feared the cell phones could be used in terrorism attacks -- they've been used to detonate bombs in Europe, the Middle East and Asia -- the men's relatives and friends said the men are innocent entrepreneurs buying cheap phones for marked-up resales. They were targeted, supporters said, because of their Arab heritage.
"I applaud the FBI and state in standing up for justice and goodwill," said Nabih Ayad, a Dearborn attorney who represents the three men.
But he expressed concern that the men were targeted because of their ethnicity.
purple jesus:
How is it there has not been a single Iraqi terrorist?
So...the insurgents who purposely target Iraqi civilians and work to sabotage a democratic Iraq are "freedom fighters"?
Also considering this latest UK 'threat' points to Pakistan (supposedly an ally) wouldn't this suggest that Pakistan is aiding and providing cover for terrorists?
The Pakistan government has done things that are frustrating; but they have also been extremely helpful in the capture and kill of terrorists and al Qaeda operatives. Your line of reasoning might as well question the UK's alliance with us, considering the "homegrown" terrorists that seem to be cropping up there.
Killing people in Iraq is not preventing terrorist attacks.
How about helping Iraqis rebuild and reconstruct their country, at our expense, and through the blood and sacrifice of our own soldiers?
Mrs. Green:
Make fun of the Dems if it makes you feel good, but Bush's going to take his party down with him and allow the Dems to win big.
Kinda like in 2004? I like your optimism. I'm still laughing hard everytime I see a Kerry/Edwards bumpersticker drive by.
Geez...I've been going down the list, but now I see skye has been skewering Marie's moonbat brigade.
No matter what you post, it doesn't change the fact that Bush and his Iraq war are failures.
It ain't over till the fat lady sings, darlin'. But you can cut-and-run like the defeatist and quagmirist that you are. In fact, I bet- although you will deny it to us and possibly even to your own self- you secretly want Iraq to fail. You would just pull your hair out of your head if Iraq became stabilized and a success, because others, unlike you, had the fortitude and resolve to stick it out, even when things got tough. If you're representative of the Democratic strategy, why on earth would I trust you with national defense?
Do you not realize, whether we should have gone into Iraq or not, that we are there now, and that the only option is to root for victory in Iraq? Packing our bags and leaving before the job is over is not an acceptable strategy.
t.w.f.Nantucket said:
"It ain't over till the fat lady sings, darlin'. But you can cut-and-run like the defeatist and quagmirist that you are."
Really? You mean like Nixon did in Vietnam? And tell me about Vietnam today. Tell me about the seething mass of commies that we handed the country to. Okay. Americans happily visit Vietnam and we happily do business with it. Remember Vietnam? It didn't collapse when Nixon cut and ran.
"In fact, I bet- although you will deny it to us and possibly even to your own self- you secretly want Iraq to fail."
Niced try. That's called projection. That attitude is probably one you carry with you--you'd love to see anything a Democrat did fail. So now, with that idea in your head, you project it on to me with ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE that I have a desire for failure in Iraq. I don't argue or defend people's fantasies--and that is what you've stated, since it is nothing but conjecture--and one that makes you feel smug.
"You would just pull your hair out of your head if Iraq became stabilized and a success, because others, unlike you, had the fortitude and resolve to stick it out, even when things got tough. If you're representative of the Democratic strategy, why on earth would I trust you with national defense?"
The above is nothing but a strawman argument. Make something up about me then knock it down. Feeble. But you've got nothing else.
"Do you not realize, whether we should have gone into Iraq or not, that we are there now, and that the only option is to root for victory in Iraq?"
Define victory in Iraq. Do we kill all the insurgents? What do we do about the deep hatreds between the Sunnis and Shiites? What about the independent Kurds? What form of democracy will we accept? How do you feel about the democratically elected parliament whose leader sided with Hezbollah in the current Lebanese/Israeli war?
We failed in the beginning by not going into Iraq with a large force to contain the country after liberating it. We failed by following the Rumsfeld doctrine, and not the Powell Doctrine.
If this war on terror is so vital to our security, why didn't we use the largest force to go into Iraq and plan for the insurgency? We didn't. Your leader thought we'd be greeted with flowers and candy.
They were wrong and continue to be wrong.
I'm angry because we're killing innocent Iraqis and our soldiers are in constant danger because of Rumsfeld failed, inadequate policies in carrying out the invasion and liberation of Iraq.
More people have died in the last two months in Iraq than in TWO world trade center tragedies.
How is that improving? How?
Skye,
Yet, it was THE MAJORITY of Americans who voted to re-elect President Bush in 2004.
If we were to hold that same poll on this thread, would the MAJORITY answer the same?
I have faith the majority of Americans are not as stupidly led as this poll seems to indicate...
You can quote polls out your ass..the ONLY poll that matters is on Nov 2nd. On that day, I'll remind you about your polls :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I dont know about holding that poll on this thread I am riddled with Liberal Morons.
They would probably vote a thousand times just to make it look like the Country hates Our President, and want's to vote with them which is an absolut falsehood. That's why I dont trust any of these polls.
You are correct the only poll that matters is the one that will be held in November :-)
Mrs. Green,
A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS THINK BUSH SUCKS AND THEY DO NOT SUPPORT HIS POLICIES IN IRAQ.
What majority? You, Purple Jesus, and a few stray Liberals that appear on my blog?
I hardly consider you guys the Majority!
Mrs. Green,
And Marie, here's more on your hysterical post below on those Texas guys with the cell phones.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hysterical? We HAVE to start racial profiling, Grandma in a wheelchair going through the airport IS NOT THE PROBLEM.
You guys on the left are just itching for us to get attacked again and I have no clue why!
You Liberals dont give a rats ass about America, you want to cut and run and take away tools we need so badly to combat these terrorist freaks.
It's sad, you on the left are sad, and I have all but given up hope that you will EVER wake up to the reality we face today!
Mrs Green Said... Remember Vietnam? It didn't collapse when Nixon cut and ran.
My, my, my, what historians we have here!
After we bailed on Vietnam some of the most horrendous atrocities that have ever beset mankind happened. It gave birth to the killings of hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese and a brutal communist regime in Cambodia sponsored by the North Vietnamese called the Kymer Rouge, you remember them eh, Mrs Green? The only reason that we are able to go to Vietnam now is that all the people that were old enough to fight were murdered and their children are now running the country. The average age of a Vietnamese today is in their twenties.
How many was it? Five, six, eight million people murdered by brutal communists bent on revenge. Who knows the number, go count them for yourself, the skulls and bones are on display for people like you to see Mrs. Green. It was democrats and peacenik war protestors that got all those people killed and the top Vietnamses General attributes it to that. Say "Thank You" to people like Mrs Green you millions of dead south east asians.
LBJ (a democrat) started that war and ran it on day to day basis with McNamarra and tried to do it on a limited basis and then when he figured out that he had botched everything handed it to Nixon to clean up. Did you read your history from a public school history book or if you are old enough to remember where you so stoned at the war protest you forgot to ask what is really going on.
Now with the same stupidity you want us to be killed by jihadists bent on murdering every single man woman and child that isn't a muslim.
I think we've heard enough of your claptrap and it's time to pitch in instead of carping because you hate George Bush. What is it going to take to wake you people like you up?
jg,
spare us your fake concern about dead Asians.
spare us.
if not, then tell us how you and your ilk are urging the Bush administration to save the millions and millions who are dying in Darfur.
Really? You mean like Nixon did in Vietnam?
I believe it was Westmoreland, the supreme commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, who wrote a book, wherein he levelled much of the blame squarely at the feet of Lyndon B. Johnson escalated the war too slowly; for prosecuting the war, not to win, but to achieve a stalemate.
I'd say Nixon pretty much did the same.
And tell me about Vietnam today. Tell me about the seething mass of commies that we handed the country to. Okay. Americans happily visit Vietnam and we happily do business with it. Remember Vietnam? It didn't collapse when Nixon cut and ran.
Yeah...the 60's peace movement really did a good job, carrying the day for the North Vietnamese, didn't they? Them and Walter Cronkite. Another example of how the media can influence popular opinion.
But the anti-war movement give themselves far too much credit. I also question their motives in protesting the war. Note that by the end of 1971, under Nixon, the draft ended. Major peace protests throughout 1968 through 71. The largest, most intense bombing of the war occurred in Christmas of '72. Any protests? Any peace movement marches?
Not a peep.
Nantucket WS said...The largest, most intense bombing of the war occurred in Christmas of '72. Any protests? Any peace movement marches?
It was called operation Linebacker II, it forced the North Vietnamese back to the negotiation table in Paris because the operation had destroyed every single one of their air defenses.The North Vietnamese were rendered completely helpless to attack from the air. Most of the infrastructure they used for moving their military was destroyed also and it became hard for US pilots to find more targets to destroy. They were warned the next attack would send them back to the stone age if they did not return to negotiations. They understood that well enough and soon afterwards our POW's were on planes headed back home! War protestors? They were home smoking pot and snorting cocain learning a new dance craze called disco.
Mrs Green you don't even know who I am to say I have no concern for millions of Southeast Asians that were brutally murdered by communists. That's a big problem with liberals, it's not ok to say because someone has a conservative point of view that they don't care about the lives of innocent human beings, it's just not true and you don't even realize how misinformed you sound saying that. Liberals say they care about others but they never put their money where their mouth is. They always want the govewrnment to take care of it for them!
All you libs can do is complain and whine and ask what is Bush going to do? You have no solutions--jg
Last time I looked, the Bush administration controlled all three branches of government. And all the committees in Congress are headed by Republicans. Democrats hold no power and have no voice in how anything should be done in Washington. That's how conservatives like it--one party rule.
The Democrats have offered many plans for Iraq. You refuse to listen and your government marginalizes anyone who isn't in your party.
It's Bush's monumental failure now. His and his alone.
He wouldn't listen to anyone but his neocon buddies, (who it turns out have mostly abandoned his catastrophic bungling).
but have plenty of complaints as you sip you fine wines and dip your expensive bread into imported cheeses.--jg
You are a poor, misguided chump if you believe the propaganda that has been fed to the masses by the Rovian machine. If it makes you feel smug to think all liberals sip wine and eat "expensive bread," [whatever that is--expensive French bread? Italian? Stollen?] then go ahead and feed your silly prejudices and misdirected contempt. That is truly hilarious.
Cheney could buy and sell you, me, Marie, twf nantucket and most of Oklahoma. But of course, you only ridicule wealthy liberals, not the fat cats in the Republican party. You don't think Cheney and Rummy and Condi drink wine and dip "expensive bread" in cheese? Hah! Misguided chump. You've fallen hook, line and sinker for the GOP's culture war. Hah!
What hypocracy, what sheer audacity for even coming to the forum to speak when you have nothing useful to add.jg
Please tell me how coming here with a different point of view is "hypocracy" [sic]????
If I weren't here, all you people would do is pat each other on the backs and say how brilliant you are.
You've got me to kick in the teeth and call traitor! Be thankful!!!!
If I weren't here, all you people would do is pat each other on the backs and say how brilliant you are.
YOU are here, and I do that anyway. J_G? You are brilliant. Marie? You are brilliant. Skye? You are brilliant. I give you all pats on the back.
Really, Mrs. Green...you give yourself far too much credit. Patting your own backside like that is pathetic. Go masturbate somewhere else.
The above comment was rude and obscene on my part. Is that the kind of dialogue you wish to have, Mrs. Green? I can exchange ad hominems, if you'd like and we can continue shouting past each other without listening. Is that what you want? What's the point? Or, do you want to have a civil discussion?
I don't know when you first started posting here, but so far all I see is a lot of vitriolic anger and bared fangs. I don't think of you as a bad person or anything like that; I don't think of you as unintelligent. But if you look back at your posting tone, how do you expect those who disagree with you, to respond? You are baiting people into a flame war. Why? What do you hope to accomplish, by wasting your time and Marie's time? If you want to affect "hearts and minds" and get people to pause and think, adopting a more civil tougue might gain you some headway and credibility. That goes for myself as well. We can disagree without being disagreeable, if we so choose.
j_g and mrs. green...you make me recall another thing about Vietnam: Nixon committed himself when he became president to the idea of "Vietnamization", which was to train more and more South Vietnamese troops to become self-sufficient; and consequently, part of the plan was steady troop withdrawal and intensified bombing. In '72, when Nixon was running for re-election, and after Operation Linebacker II, he finally got the North Vietnamese onboard with the Paris Peace Accords. Part of the package included two secret agreements: one was billions of dollars in reparations, after the war. But the North did not get it, because they had broken their agreement by invading the South. The 2nd secret agreement was with the South Vietnamese. He gave them a solemn pledge, in writing, that if the North broke agreements, and invaded the South, America would get back in, and provide whatever aid the South needed; even troop support. Unfortunately for the South Vietnamese, Nixon was driven from office by the Watergate scandal. When the North Vietnamese invaded the South, an unelected President in the form of Ford pleaded with Congress to enforce our agreements and honor our pledge to our South Vietnamese allies. In 1975, more than one million innocent Vietnamese fled in terror from a massive invasion by the North. Congress and the anti-war movement did nothing to alleviate the suffering.
It's not a Republican or Democrat shame. It's an American shame.
Word,
YOU are here, and I do that anyway. J_G? You are brilliant. Marie? You are brilliant. Skye? You are brilliant. I give you all pats on the back.
~~~~~~~~~~
Thank's for the pat on the back!
:-)
I have my moments lol....
This year's Democratic plan for the future is another inane sound bite designed to trick American voters into trusting them with national security.
To wit, they're claiming there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq, and while they're all for the war against terror — absolutely in favor of that war — they are adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. You know, the war where the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as "Iraqi civilians," even if they are from Jordan, like the now-dead leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). That war.
As Howard Dean put it this week, "The occupation in Iraq is costing American lives and hampering our ability to fight the real global war on terror."
This would be like complaining that Roosevelt's war in Germany was hampering our ability to fight the real global war on fascism. Or anti-discrimination laws were hampering our ability to fight the real war on racism. Or dusting is hampering our ability to fight the real war on dust.
Maybe Dean is referring to a different globe, like Mars or Saturn, or one of those new planets they haven't named yet.
Assuming against all logic and reason that the Democrats have some serious objection to the war in Iraq, perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support. That would be easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.
They oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers. Spying on al-Qaida terrorists is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror!
Enraged that the Bush administration deferred to the safety of the American people rather than the obstructionist Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, one Clinton-appointed judge, James Robertson, resigned from the FISA court in protest over the NSA spying program.
Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold called for a formal Senate censure of President Bush when he found out the president was rude enough to be listening in on al-Qaida phone calls. (Wait until Feingold finds out the White House has been visiting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "MySpace" page!)
Last week a federal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ruled the NSA program to surveil phone calls to al-Qaida members in other counties unconstitutional.
Democrats oppose the detainment of Taliban and al-Qaida soldiers at our military base in Guantanamo, Cuba. Democrats such as Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, have called for Guantanamo to be shut down.
The Guantanamo detainees are not innocent insurance salesmen imprisoned in some horrible mix-up like something out of a Perry Mason movie. The detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. You remember — the war liberals pretended to support right up until approximately one nanosecond after John Kerry conceded the 2004 election to President Bush.
But apparently, imprisoning al-Qaida warriors we catch on the battlefield is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror.
Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has compared Guantanamo to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet gulags, based on a report that some detainees were held in temperatures so cold that they shivered and others were forced to listen to loud rap music — more or less approximating the conditions in the green room at "The Tyra Banks Show." Also, one of the detainees was given a badminton racket that was warped.
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert complained this week that detainees in Guantanamo have "no hope of being allowed to prove their innocence." (I guess that's excluding the hundreds who have been given administrative hearings or released already.)
Of course all the usual "human rights" groups are carping about how brutally our servicemen in Guantanamo are treating the little darlings who are throwing feces at them.
Democrats oppose the Patriot Act, the most important piece of legislation passed since 9/11, designed to make the United States less of a theme park for would-be terrorists.
The vast majority of Senate Democrats (43-2) voted against renewing the Patriot Act last December, whereupon their minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, boasted: "We killed the Patriot Act" — a rather unusual sentiment for a party so testy about killing terrorists.
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry — the man they wanted to be president — called the Patriot Act "an assault on our basic rights." At least all "basic rights" other than the one about not dying a horrible death at the hand of Islamic fascists. Yes, it was as if Congress had deliberately flown two commercial airliners into the twin towers of our Constitution.
They oppose profiling Muslims at airports.
They oppose every bust of a terrorist cell, sneering that the cells in Lackawanna, New York City, Miami, Chicago and London weren't a real threat like, say, a nondenominational prayer before a high school football game. Now that's a threat.
Post a Comment
<< Home