"Ted Kennedy says the Iraq War “was made up in Texas” for political gain.
House minority leader Nancy Pelosi calls the President “an incompetent leader” with “ no judgment” who “has on his shoulders the deaths of many more troops.”
Introducing Kerry, Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley says the Bush administration worries him more than Al Qaeda does.
Howard Dean advanced the theory that President Bush had advance knowledge of the 911 attacks.
Former Vice President Al Gore screams that President Bush “betrayed this country”.
Gore also calls the military’s prison system “Bush’s gulag”.
Kerry’s national security advisor Rand Beers says the President under funds homeland security because the most targeted areas are in democratic states.
On a more direct candidate-to-candidate basis, John Kerry attacks President Bush’s National Guard service three times in one interview.
He said the President “can’t even answer whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard”; “can’t even show or prove that he showed up for duty in the National Guard”; and “has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty.”
Kerry also accuses President Bush of placing a “target” on the backs of U.S. troops"
"..., June 14, Durbin said, “…you most certainly would believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others that had no concern for human beings.
Sadly, that is not the case.
This was the actions of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.”
He was referring to the treatment he believes prisoners at Guantanamo Bay receive.
He compared American servicemen to the worst killers in modern times."
Then add the likes of
Murtha and his demoralizing comments about our troops.
It doesn't take long to see that they are determined to undermine the war effort.
The shame of it is it's all for nothing but political gain.
It is reasonable to expect a report of such great magnitude to be updated often.
I mean, if it is of such great importance for you to count the bodies as one would assume, seeing as how this whole study was done in the first place.
I suspect the attention of the author of this study wanned when he got paid. Which ties in nicely with the useful idiot term used on the website.
Speaking of myths...what ever happened to all those underground bunkers Saddam was supposed to have had anyway? I would have thought by now PBS would have done a made for tv special on them or something.
You may think it's reasonable that the study would be updated, often, but it wasn't for whatever reason - funding, logistics, interest...Since the study was NOT updated, it is the opposite of reasonableness to expect the number produced by a single published study to somehow update itself.
The number is based on reality rather than expectations.
That statement proves that you didn't read the study and are just speaking from ignorance.
So where did you cut & paste this from, carpro? You're suppose to post your source.
You haven't proven that liberals with words are more dangerous than militant jihadists with weapons. How is Durbin decrying the misery at Gitmo more dangerous than suicide bombers crashing planes into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon? Furthermore, it's a partisan lie that Durbin compared our servicemen to "the worst killers in modern times"; he compared the civilian command to them.
Murtha called for enough ground troops in Iraq to stablilze that country OR getting out. How is that more demoralizing than not having enough troops to prevent the reconstruction done so far from being destroyed?
The only thing you've proven is that your concept of "dangerous" is totally political, not reality-based and incredibly trivial.
That's exactly what I intended to prove.
Mealy mouthed, defeatist, politicians are far more dangerous to the war effort than any jihadist toting a gun or bomb ever could be.
BTW
I've asked you before; since when does one have to attribute what they write themselves?
Seems to me that our military met the objective given to them of overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
The Iraq quagmire is a result of very poor, if any, planning by the Bush administration as to what would happen afterward.
Maybe they thought that a democracy would just spring up spontaneously.
Since when do you open a paragraph using quotation marks (") and a different font than the default? If you wrote it yourself, why would you use elipses in your text?
There are quite a few phrases in quotes with no reference.
That's exactly what I intended to prove. Mealy mouthed, defeatist, politicians are far more dangerous to the war effort than any jihadist toting a gun or bomb ever could be.
Make up your mind, Daisy.:laugh:
[quote=Daisy
The only thing you've proven is that your concept of "dangerous" is totally political, not reality-based and incredibly trivial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro BTW I've asked you before; since when does one have to attribute what they write themselves?
"Since" I wanted to.
I write it. I punctuate it any way I want.:thumbs:
All quotes are properly attributed to the person who spoke the words. You want the "references", look 'em up yourself. Google, or some other search engine is useful for such searches.
If you'd like to see the rest of the editorial, I'll be glad to send it to you by PM. But I can promise you , you won't like it.:smilewinkgrin:
Yes indeedy, why shouldn't you sprinkle "what you wrote" with quotation marks and "... pointless" elipses"? :laugh:
I'm fairly familiar with your posting style; this is an aberration for you and a senseless one at that.
If you consider it proper to omit select words and all context - which I do not.
Hey, you found the words, you should have the references. Once you provide the references you took the words from - then I can look it up to see if by leaving out words in the sentences and plucking the sentences from their paragraphs you distorted the meaning or not.
Sure, go ahead. But why do you think I won't like it?
It's good for a person to read things they don't like every so often.