Terrorists Root for Democrats

Daisy,

You just do not get it.

And if I could force myself to give you bad advice, I would suggest that you join the military so that your experience might help you get it.

But that would be bad advice - more women leave the military scarred for life than do men.

 

All our troops felt exactly the same way and you, of course, know exactly what way that is? How presumptuous! The ones who do feel "that way" may have been led to that by having heard the distortions of people like you rather the actual words. What someone "feels" is true is more important than what is actually true? What a crock!

The smear campaign on Murtha is particularly egregious.

 

ROFL!

I can't get up . . . someone throw me a rope!

Imus is a wild man . . . Don't agree with some of what he says . . . but, at least he is always funny. Rush isn't a very good comedian anymore.

 

Col. Jessup alert! Col. Jessup alert!

I understand why the screenwriter wrote this scene because I see it in real time. I was always taught by real veterans of humility that those who brag and put down are really insecure and feel entitlement ...never forget this ,you serve the common good and the constitution ..it is not the other way around....but with that said we must do things for the troops...armor, benefits, education, retirement, and honor them. but they are not above the common good of the people of the United States of America and her Sovereign God help by the benefactor of the Constitution.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylDkY9RiE30 (rated PG_13 intense scene vetting out the truth)

 

Now the American people are disloyal? C'mon, face the facts, it was dishonest and cowardly of Bush to pretend criticism of him equals attacks on our troops. You know it, why deny it?

If Bush were truly a patriotic American, he'd leave the troops out of it, and quit hiding behind them.

But then, his behavior when he was in the service rules out any possibility of him being a patriot. Patriots don't run away when they are called upon to serve.

 

Bush is not America. He shut down defenses against terrorism before 9/11, and then he failed to finish the war against terrorism in Afghanistan so he could have his personal war in Iraq. And now we have serious terrorist wars going in both countries. He has bungled almost everything he's attempted, and even his own intelligence people admit that he increased the danger of terrorism against America. Why would anyone want to continue that?

So, when he gave the Taliban a breather, and they regrouped and hit us again, killing more of our troops, could we say that was "aiding and abetting?" When he failed to heed the warnings of his own generals, and ended up killing over a thousand of our troops in the process, is that "aiding and abetting?"

I know personal responsibility is a dirty word to the Bushistas, but when is the guy going to be man enough to assume responsibility?

 

Thank you for this reply. I was going to post something but decided not to waste my time. Carpro will misinterpret anything you, I, or anyone he perceives as "liberal" says to him.

It goes beyond pressing the envelope; it is deliberate lying and slander in order for the Republican party to stay in power at any cost. He has learned well the lesson taught to him by people like Rush Limbaugh.

 

When all you have as a retort is a personal insult, you have lost the argument.

 

Terrorists root for democrats? Oh brother! This has to be the most simple minded propaganda ever. :sleep:

 

Daisy, el., al,

Reasoned response does not work. So why would you expect that your latest retort would gain more than a retort?

We (THE USA) went to war to defend the country. WE went to war against a known enemy that has attacked American soil over 6 times (WTC 3 times). They actively targeted US soil many more times. THEY HAVE BEEN MORE EFFECTIVE, IMHO, then the communist terror cells before them. THEY HAVE stated that their goal is to 'lure' the USA into a war that we cannot win. They have attacked other countries on their soil more than a dozen times. The casualties that they have inflicted exceed 5,000 civilians . . .

The only reasonable question is: do we want to "fight a war that we cannot win", here or there?

Can the President do much better - yes. But, is it reasonable to assume that President Bush should be less distracted by all of the personal attacks upon his character and the characters of his staff members, than what President Clinton was by the monica affair? It has been Pres. Clinton's contention that had he not been distracted, he would have handled osama better.

War is WAR . . . I do NOT want war. But, if you CANNOT GIVE A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE - then YOU ARE part of the problem and not part of the solution.

I do not see a solution. Nor do I think that the Democrats have a solution. So, the reality is that BOTH sides are using the war on terror for the political objective of power here in the USA . . .

I just pray that God will bring the revival that we need so badly.

 

The problem with your logic, EG, is THEY who attacked us, wasn't Iraq at all.

 

So have those who order the deaths and either never served or were never in harm's way, and those who think war is dandy and never served.

 

By "work" do you mean a discussion insues -or- do you mean that everyone else slaps their forehead and exclaims, "You're so right, EG!"?

I don't mind a retort, EG, but it ought to consist of more than a personal insult. I don't expect more from certain people; I merely mentioned that it indicated that he had lost the argument.

Um, yeah, but that was the Taliban & al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We're talking about Iraq here which has not ever attacked us. We had no need and no cause to go to war against Iraq. You seem to be conflating one with the other just like the Bush administration hoped.

The only reasonable answer to that question is "No." There are however many scores of other reasonable questions.

Distracted not by the affair, but by the endless, open-ended investigation by Starr with its Leak O'the Week. Do you really for one moment believe that Bush is scanning the messageboards pausing only to weep at the criticisms?

Hey, don't SHOUT at me, EG, that's rude. How about Murtha's suggestion that we either commit sufficient troops to establish civil order or get out? Do it right or don't do it at all?

 

The attack on Murtha is particularly egregious.

 

Those who cut and ran when their country called on them, resent those who did serve bravely.

And that is all that needs to be said about it.

 

Absolutely, and I seriously doubt Sen. Murtha is seeking fame. He loves his country, and wants what is right for it.