Liberals will get us all killed

[Pendragon_6]

July 1, 2006
Kevin McCullough
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

One of my regular listeners, Frank from Staten Island, reminded me midway through my broadcast this past week, "Kevin you don't say it enough anymore!"

"What's that"? I asked him.

"What you used to say, you know, you remember - liberals are going to get us all killed!"

Frank's right, I don't say it as much anymore and yet there may be nothing more important for our nation to understand than the reality of that statement. Liberals don't have a clear cut sense of right and wrong. They are fuzzy when it comes to moral absolutes, and they sure don't seem to have any clue when it comes to national security.


In Full
WND (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50877)

[DesertFox]

It needs to be said in order to prevent it becoming reality.

[DoctorDoom]

If they can blame it on Bush, the loss of a thousand or a million American lives (except theirs) would be relished by the hideous scum. When did we start tolerating traitors?

[aaron11]

When did we start tolerating traitors?

January 20, 1969-- Nixon's Inauguration.

Had we smacked the left down then~~~.

[DesertFox]

Piffle. Nixon was a lotta things, many of them unsavory, but a traitor he was not.

[aaron11]

Piffle. Nixon was a lotta things, many of them unsavory, but a traitor he was not.

I apologize for leaving that open, that is not at all what i meant. I was referring to the left's all out assault on Nixon for no other reason then the R in front of his name. Funny, they didn't mind Vietnam when it was a Democrats war...

Doom asked when we started to tolerate traitors, IMO, it was either when we allowed the demonizing of McCarthy or when we allowed the all out assault on Nixon/Vietnam.

[Kathy29]

More than liberals will get us all killed is that liberals want to get us all killed. Nothing was more disgusting than reporters asking if Zarqawi had been beaten or (horrors, worse yet) shot, rather than having his insides turned to mush by a 500 pound bomb or two.

Let's not get all teary eyed about the war on terrorists who gleefully kill. That's just the latest incarnation of liberals wanting to get us all killed. Liberals have wanted to get us all killed for decades. Only, their favorite killers were just ordinary run-of-the-mill murderers and sadists upon whom we should heap mercy. We must heap mercy you understand or we will become "just like them". Liberals have wanted to get us all killed for decades.

There are close comparisons to the way libs deify terrorists and the sainthood they allocate to the run-of-the-mill murderers and assorted street thugs. That's why Tookie Williams had what amounted to a state funeral and they still cry out to "free Mumia". That's why we cannot prosecute child rapists and child killers because libs want to feel their pain but never ever the pain of the victims. You can't bring the dead back to life and if your child is offed killing the killer, it doesn't solve anything.

The liberal love affair with killers didn't start with Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. It won't end there, either, because the liberal love of death dealers does everything it can to prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves and their loved ones. Never stop a murderer from hacking your wife to pieces; if you do, you are a danger to killers everywhere.

To liberals there is a major difference between a thrill killer and some Joe who is simply defending his life. The thrill killer is sick and needs understanding not punishment. The Joe doesn't need sympathy. He can take care of himself or herself. In failing to sympathize with the killers, Joe flies in the face of liberalism. In fact, Joe insults liberalism by rejecting its mutual masturbatory resolutions. In the topsy-turvy world of liberalism, it is JOE who must be eradicated, everyone else can be cured.

[Maggie_T]

WOO-HOO! :claps: :claps: :claps:

See, Kathy. This is why you were elected POM. Your post is brilliant.

I've been saying it till I got blue in the face. Liberals WANT another 9/11. They believe that in order for America to expiate her sin of greatness, civilization, freedom, progress (the genuine kind, not the farce that those who are against flushable toilets pretend to be for), first she must be humiliated and defeated.

Forget Christians being redeemed by the death of Jesus Christ. That's superstition. Liberals believe that in order to achieve redemption, Americans must be exterminated by dark-skinned, 3rd World barbarians. Only if our country (with all of us in it) is reduced to rubble by Islamofascists will liberals feel redeemed from the White Guilt that oppresses them.

And of course, the fact that they will have something else to blame Bush for doesn't hurt, either.

Liberals: the lowest form of life on this planet.

[DesertFox]

Some liberals are young and some are stupid, but most liberals are sick in the head.

But that doesn't move me to want to cure them. I'd happily shove them in jail and would happily bear the jail costs.

[Maggie_T]

I like the idea of Ann Coulter becoming Empress of the USA and deporting all liberals to Cuba, China, and North Korea. Or maybe even France. Then, liberals would learn to speak Franch. Like Mama T! Hey, they couldn't ask for more.

What a wonderfully patriotic thing that would be! And liberals would be so happy in those workers' paradises they want America to emulate so badly. :evilgrin:

Sigh! Stuff dreams are made of.

[DesertFox]

Agreed. But for liberals, I would call myself a political moderate. Problem is that 'moderate' anymore means something I'd never associate myself with.

[ConspiracyBuff]

Meanwhile teachers all over are just shoving liberalism down children's throats, producing ignorant, sick in the head liberals like a factory.

[Maggie_T]

I hear you, Fox. Lately, "moderate" means that you're either a spineless wuss who caves in to democrats' every whim, or that you are downright treasonous, and a Constitution rapist, like McVain.

Me, I'm a no-nonsense right-winger, member of the vast right-wing conspiracy. And proud of it, too.:evilgrin:

[Maggie_T]

Take the New York Times, for example, in their direct reporting of how we were spying on the conversations that al-Qaida were having with sleeper cells in our nation via specific types of cell phones. Guess what? Those who would behead us stopped using those types of communications methods.

Yes, but terrorists' "right to privacy" has been respected. That's all liberals care about.


See, with liberals, its always American citizens who should be killed, not those who would behead.

Exactly. Oh, and the unborn as well, don't forget them.

... the New York Times would prefer these weapons (of mass destruction) be ignored so the insurgents actually find them first to use them against American troops. (Remember, Americans are the only ones who should die, not those whom terrorists would behead!)

-----

(This program) would actually help save American lives, so of course it must be stopped!

-----

Frank is right. I need to say it more often.
Liberals will get us all killed.


Absolutely. Unfortunately for them, the going is rather slow. Must be the reason liberals are so frustrated and irate these days.

[DesertFox]

They're frustrated and irate because of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Victor Davis Hanson, David Horowitz, MaggieT, et al.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Kathy29:
Never stop a murderer from hacking your wife to pieces; if you do, you are a danger to killers everywhere.

:unsmile: That's no exaggeration, either. Do you remember the liberal outrage, when George H. Bush asked Michael Dukakis if he would've furloughed Willie Horton, had Kitty Dukakis been Horton's victim?

:rolleyes: Their response was that Bush was a racist, just because Horton happened to be black, as if that made a difference.

:sulk: [NOTE to the lurkers from another website. Go ahead, feature this remark as "darned". Join the race-baiting wackos, like you've already done, before.]

[cerberus]

....you people can't be serious. It's one thing to disagree with you political opponents, but just listen to yourselves. You sound like you forgot to take your medication or something. 'Liberals want to get us killed'?
If you ever wonder why you aren't taken seriously by most of America, or labeled extremist reactionaries, look no further....
jeez

[DesertFox]

Jeez. Talk about not being serious. It's liberals, not conservatives, who stand up and shout every time something serious is done to prevent another terrorist attack.

We don't have to worry about being taken seriously. Liberals take us VERY seriously, and so do other conservatives. It's people such as you who aren't taken seriously by most of America.

[DesertFox]

I'm impressed, Marbleheader. That's a post of the first order.

[ConspiracyBuff]

I'm impressed, Marbleheader. That's a post of the first order.
<!-- / message -->
What the hell is the first order?

[ConspiracyBuff]

BTW- Im impressed as well.

[Rhino]

....you people can't be serious. It's one thing to disagree with you political opponents, but just listen to yourselves. You sound like you forgot to take your medication or something. 'Liberals want to get us killed'?
If you ever wonder why you aren't taken seriously by most of America, or labeled extremist reactionaries, look no further....
jeez
Sort of like 'killing our children' or 'poisoning the environment' or 'party of hate'? C'mon, cerb, can't you recognize hyperbole? Both sides engage in it.

[Kathy29]

:unsmile: That's no exaggeration, either. Do you remember the liberal outrage, when George H. Bush asked Michael Dukakis if he would've furloughed Willie Horton, had Kitty Dukakis been Horton's victim?

:rolleyes: Their response was that Bush was a racist, just because Horton happened to be black, as if that made a difference.

:sulk: [NOTE to the lurkers from another website. Go ahead, feature this remark as "darned". Join the race-baiting wackos, like you've already done, before.]

It's no exaggeration. I stole it almost word for word from the Prosecutor's statement at the parole hearing of Tony Martin.

To refresh. Tony Martin lived in rural England. In the middle of the night his home was broken into by an armed assailant. Mr.Martin successfully defended himself against the assailant and promptly found himself behind bars. He was convicted of causing bodily injury to the man who broke into his home. At his parole hearing, the prosecutor claimed that Mr. Martin showed no remorse (for having saved his life) and remained a danger to armed assailants. Parole was denied. The sentence has been served and Tony Martin is free today.

Which is why I will continue to say that liberals want us all dead. What liberals would do in a world populated only by the most vicious killers is a puzzle?

[Kathy29]

....you people can't be serious. It's one thing to disagree with you political opponents, but just listen to yourselves. You sound like you forgot to take your medication or something. 'Liberals want to get us killed'?
If you ever wonder why you aren't taken seriously by most of America, or labeled extremist reactionaries, look no further....
jeez

It is the liberals who want Jose Padilla released. It is the liberals who want Gitmo closed and all of the inmates brought to the US for criminal trial or sent back to the battlefield.

Why?

Because there is a greater chance that Padilla might blow up Chicago or at least a few apartment buildings. Maybe some of the Gitmo inmates will get released or escape or stay in the country and blow up a mall or preschool. Or, just get sent back to kill American soldiers in the ME.

And you think I'm not serious! Unbelievable. Of course I'm serious.

[Naturalized-Texan]

:unsmile: That's no exaggeration, either. Do you remember the liberal outrage, when George H. Bush asked Michael Dukakis if he would've furloughed Willie Horton, had Kitty Dukakis been Horton's victim?
As I remember, it was the debate moderator who asked that question, not Bush.

[gnome]

If I might make a point... every liberal I've spoken to think it would be horrible to have another event similar to 9-11. But I'll speak for myself. Like everyone else, I would be appalled by the loss of innocent lives (and those of rescuers trying to save innocent lives). But if you want to know what I think of the political implications--it will surely not be a boon to liberalism as I think it would lead to massive curtailing of civil rights.

[Kathy29]

Every liberal I've ever spoken to says it would be horrible to have another event similar to 911. Immediately followed by some blather about how it would be our fault. Liberals NEED to have more events like 911, precisely because they would be able to say it was our fault. Who cares what thoughtful platitude they come up with.

Liberals don't care about the civil rights of ordinary citizens. They routinely trample on those civil rights and call it some twisted perversion of freedom. What liberals care about are the presumed civil rights of those responsible for the awful event. Rights which they would vociferously support. Much like they do now.

[DesertFox]

Spot on, K29, about liberals and the civil rights of ordinary citizens. Not to mention their caterwauling about how mean we Righties are, yet it was Al Gore who accused conservatives of having 47 chromosomes, and Bobby Byrd who called us nig-gers, and Ted Kennedy who said Robert Bork's America (conservative America) was a place where women died of abortions and black people sat in the backs of busses, and liberal newscasters who cattily talked about Katherine Harris' lipstick being smeared on like that of a prostitute.

Liberal Lefties are the most mean-spirited, ungenerous, self-serving, arrogant, lying pieces of shit since Pol Pot.

[cerberus]

Sort of like 'killing our children' or 'poisoning the environment' or 'party of hate'? C'mon, cerb, can't you recognize hyperbole? Both sides engage in it.
Indeed Rhino, and usually I just let hyperbole slide. However, I'm not convinced that a lot of what's said here IS hyperbole. From the consistant postings of some I'm pretty convinced they actually think that way (present company excepted; you have usually been very rational and level-headed, even if we disagree).

[Rhino]

I'm not certain of some on either side, but generally it's hyperbole.

[DesertFox]

If you gonna bloviate, do it hyperbolically.

[Maggie_T]

Indeed Rhino, and usually I just let hyperbole slide. However, I'm not convinced that a lot of what's said here IS hyperbole. From the consistant postings of some I'm pretty convinced they actually think that way (present company excepted; you have usually been very rational and level-headed, even if we disagree).

I certainly am. Is that what you wanted to hear? Well, glad to oblige.

Of course, liberals bleat "Oh, how awful" at the thought of another 9/11. They would not dare say any different, if someone put the question to them squarely. Hypocrisy is their trademark.

But I bet that deep down inside, they all wish it. Think about it. Think about Bela Pelosi, Chucky Shumer, Hillary Clinton, cerberus, et al going "That's because Bush didn't protect us! He didn't protect us! He didn't protect us! Impeachment! Impeachment!" till they foamed at the mouth, if another 9/11 occurred ... forgetting all the time that they pulled endless, shrieking tantrums over racial profiling, deporting all illegal immigrants, preventing Al-Qaida members from "studying" at Yale, preventing Al-Qaida sympathizers from "teaching" at universities, punishing the New York Slime for revealing security measures, listening on terrorists' phone conversations and watching their e-mails, and other measures that would helpd to keep the country secure. Instead, liberals' idea of security is harassing little old ladies in wheelchairs at airports.

Yes, I sustain that liberals (ok, maybe not ALL of them) want another 9/11. Just like they would like nothing better than to watch Bush's asssasination.

Darn! Where are the Lee Oswalds of this world when you need them!

No, I won't apologize. I never apologize when I tell the truth.

[Naturalized-Texan]

There can be no doubt that had the liberals, and most other Democrats, united behind President Bush to support the war effort and to support our troops, the Afghanistan and Iraq operations of the War on Terror would have ended long ago and there would be stable democratic governments in control in both nations. Moreover, had the liberals, and most Democrats, united behind President Bush, Iran wouldn't have dared rattle its nuclear saber.

[Rhino]

I'm reminded of the movie Patton

Codman: You know something, General? Sometimes they can't tell when you're acting and when you're not.
Patton: It isn't important for them to know. It's only important for me to know.

[Maggie_T]

:thumb:

[DoctorDoom]

<center><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/PelosiALL.jpg"></center>

[Maggie_T]

It most certainly is, Lub. It most certainly is.

[ConspiracyBuff]

Indeed they are quite sick and twisted.

[Maggie_T]

And they don't even know it, poor bastards.

[gnome]

Some of you must have met some really bone-headed liberals. My own experiences haven't found so many people that would see their countrymen dead in order to be right. Most people I know prefer it the other way around, regardless of their ideology.

[Jester21]

There can be no doubt that had the liberals, and most other Democrats, united behind President Bush to support the war effort and to support our troops, the Afghanistan and Iraq operations of the War on Terror would have ended long ago and there would be stable democratic governments in control in both nations.
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. The reason that the war is still going on, and that so many people are against it isn't because of liberals, it's because they don't believe Bush has any plan to get us out of there.

Bush had a united country behind him when he invaded Iraq, and even more so when Afghanistan was taken out. He blew it through his own poor planning. Don't pin Bush's failures on anyone other than him.

[aaron11]

Your assertion that he failed is just that an assertion. I certainly don't see a free and united Iraq as a failure, nor do i see tens of thousands of dead terrorist's as a failure, neither do the 60 some million Iraqi's and Afghani's. The Iraqi campaign has been one of the most successful campaigns in military history.

[DesertFox]

The reason that the war is still going on, and that so many people are against it isn't because of liberals, it's because they don't believe Bush has any plan to get us out of there.Doubtful. HIGHLY doubtful. All we have to do to get out of there is leave, and everybody knows it. Of course, if we leave before we finish what we're there to do, the whole world will recognize that as defeat.

Nobody is against the war because there is no plan to get us out of there. People oppose the war because they hate Bush. If he wanted to leave today, those same people would be saying what I'm saying about finishing what we started.

[Wyatt_Junker]

If what happened in Vietnam after the last American helicopter left wasn't enough, then what also happened in Cambodia just two years later should have sure as hell flicked the lightbulb on over the head of the lib.

The fact that it didn't, should not surprise anyone. The CP was very thorough in assuming power in the void after we left, committing large scale genocide of the first order.

If what happened after the end of Desert Storm when the UN recommended we leave without toppling Saddam - that we bought into the childish rhetoric that our mission was strictly to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait while leaving him firmly in place - didn't appear naively disingenuous to a lib, then nothing would. You could call it what you like, regional 'balancing', keeping Saddam on a short leash via sanctions while using the UN as a weapons proctologist etc. etc.

It was all anti-war camp sugar coating.

The facts were easy enough to intuit before they revealed themselves. Saddam punished the rebels severely, nearly ruining our credibility as a good faith partner, ntm the entire mission of the first persian gulf war. Everything became a joke. The no-fly zone restrictions were constantly violated, the sanctions practically crippled Iraq's infrastructure for the next 10 years only hurting the poor while keeping the elites(and Saddam) firmly locked into power, and the oil-for-food scam, one of the biggest bribe scandals in history, developed in the moral wake of our uncourageous indecisiveness which in turn (it is estimated) killed up to 500,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqi children. You go half ass, expect the doctor to prescribe you a colostomy bag.

All this was the result of pressure from our domestic Left contingent, that we not appear like kingmakers in the region. 'Backing out' sheepishly would be the tonic gesture to make amends for our war-making brutality in freeing Kuwait.

That's lib logic for you. Pretend to be weak so that others will 'like you' and when it kills innocent lives, more than a war ever could, comfortably ignore it and move on.

Yes, libs like death. Nothing has changed because they have learned nothing. History is new to them every time. Even in Iraq now. It is a mirror image to every genocidal grostequery, the absence of benevolent strength means the introduction of amoral force. And when you lack the political courage to finish things, we find that weeds are hardy and can grow back whenever the rootball is not pulled up but only cosmetically beheaded for the appealing visual effect.

Libs are nihilists. DDT is a perfect example, abortion is another. The millions upon millions of deaths which are directly tied to today's liberal left do not change their mind. In fact, they encourage their resolve.

It's like Omega Man. They yearn for a tribal world, the one where the warlords take over just after the holocaust winds subside. Mad Max, the Road Warrior, is their disciple. A world without gasoline. It's their heaven. A perfect globe free of the ravages of exhaust, carbon monoxide and CO2. Back to the beginning and if it means humans die in the process, so be it. At least the earth will be free of the virus known as mankind. The Nietzchean affixation of absence consuming presence. The modern day left will then rejoice in being erased themselves, finally, as their suicidal fetish, especially the eradication of Western Heritage(since she is the cause of all this evil) as they gleefully go down with the ship. If it takes genocide to make it happen, then genocide it is.

The left's track record on paper screams this.

[Wyatt_Junker]

I just let hyperbole slide. However, I'm not convinced that a lot of what's said here IS hyperbole. From the consistant postings of some I'm pretty convinced they actually think that way.

And you would be wise to do so. However, you would be much wiser to diagnose the claims of the left. Otherwise you will only continue living in the candied world of fake orgasms and fanciful etiquette, a place it seems you enjoy to hide quite frequently.

[Lubbock]

For you folk from the Left who worship at the altar of that Godless religion, Liberalism, let me clear up one thing for you, right here and right now: this nation was never united after the September 11<SUP>th</SUP> attacks.


I bought into that "united" fallacy for a long time. Looking back, I can see that performance when both Houses of Congress came together on the Capitol steps, held hands and sang God Bless America was window dressing.


The Left never had any intention of doing anything to stop terrorism other than using it for a huge money grab, while placing every stumbling block known to man in the path of the President.


I could count on the fingers of one hand, those from the Left who actually give a damn about anything other than controlling the Presidency, the High Court, and both Houses of Congress.


The Left would gladly see tens of thousands of their fellow Americans dead at the hands of Militant Islam if spilled blood would get them back into a position of power.


Hyperbole?


Not at all. The Left present proof positive of just that assertion, day in and day out. Every word they speak, every action they take.

[Maggie_T]

Some of you must have met some really bone-headed liberals.

Yes, Gnome. They all post here.

My own experiences haven't found so many people that would see their countrymen dead in order to be right. Most people I know prefer it the other way around, regardless of their ideology.

You lead a sheltered life, my friend.

Sorry, Gnome. I didn't mean to be disrespectful. I gladly admit that you the kind of person who defines the "exception to every rule" concept: you are a courteous, civilized liberal.

But there ARE liberals out there who would like nothing better than to see America humiliated and defeated. Even at the price of thousands of dead Americans.

[Naturalized-Texan]

For you folk from the Left who worship at the altar of that Godless religion, Liberalism, let me clear up one thing for you, right here and right now: this nation was never united after the September 11<SUP>th</SUP> attacks.

I bought into that "united" fallacy for a long time. Looking back, I can see that performance when both Houses of Congress came together on the Capitol steps, held hands and sang God Bless America was window dressing.
Absolutely correct. Oh, some libs put on a good show after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but within less than 6 weeks the libs were claiming that we were in a Vietnam-type quagmire in Afgnanistan, just a few days before the Taliban and al Qaeda crumbled.

The Left never had any intention of doing anything to stop terrorism other than using it for a huge money grab, while placing every stumbling block known to man in the path of the President.

I could count on the fingers of one hand, those from the Left who actually give a damn about anything other than controlling the Presidency, the High Court, and both Houses of Congress.

The Left would gladly see tens of thousands of their fellow Americans dead at the hands of Militant Islam if spilled blood would get them back into a position of power.

Hyperbole?

Not at all. The Left present proof positive of just that assertion, day in and day out. Every word they speak, every action they take.
In the couple of months leading up to the 2002 elections President Bush was insisting, correctly, that he needed no further authorization from Congress to invade Iraq. He stated, correctly, that the Congressional resolution immediately following the 9/11 attacks was all the authorization he needed.

The Democrats saw that President Bush had the almost complete support of the American people and realized that if they didn't get on record for supporting the War on Terror (even if they didn't), they faced a huge defeat in the 2002 elections. President Bush, knowing that he already had the support of the people, agreed to let the Democrats go on record. That was a brilliant move on Bush's part because it further highlighted the Democrat weakness on national security. The rest, as they say, is history. The Republicans rode to a huge victory in the 2002 Congressional elections.

Later Democrat actions and rhetoric proved that they never did support the War on Terror and never did support our troops, and still don't

[omegatrump]

Some of you must have met some really bone-headed liberals. My own experiences haven't found so many people that would see their countrymen dead in order to be right. Most people I know prefer it the other way around, regardless of their ideology.

The ones we meet all support the ones we have to watch destroying our nation. You can usually tell them by the stupid look on their face, then when you see the stupid bumper sticker on their car you know your intuition was right.

Somebody asked,"when did we start tolerating liberals"? I would say it goes back to before FDR.

[DesertFox]

Wyatt just posted a Hall of Famer. Nice work, dude.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. The reason that the war is still going on, and that so many people are against it isn't because of liberals, it's because they don't believe Bush has any plan to get us out of there.

Bush had a united country behind him when he invaded Iraq, and even more so when Afghanistan was taken out. He blew it through his own poor planning. Don't pin Bush's failures on anyone other than him.:rolleyes:
I really pity you. You have been so thoroughly brainwashed by the Big Lie Propaganda spewed by the liberal-controlled media and the liberal leadership of the Demonrat Party that you are incapable of seeing the truth. Please get yourself educated about the truth before it's too late.

[Jester21]

Your assertion that he failed is just that an assertion. I certainly don't see a free and united Iraq as a failure, nor do i see tens of thousands of dead terrorist's as a failure, neither do the 60 some million Iraqi's and Afghani's. The Iraqi campaign has been one of the most successful campaigns in military history.

The assertion was that the reason we're not out of Iraq is because certain elements of society are not united behind Bush. I simply pointed out that the reason we're not out of Iraq is largely due to Bush's incompetence than anything else. Well, more Rumsfeld, but Bush hired him.
All we have to do to get out of there is leave, and everybody knows it. Of course, if we leave before we finish what we're there to do, the whole world will recognize that as defeat.
Maybe I shouldn't have said 'plan to get us out of there.' I meant 'plan to win.' (And THEN get us out of there). I don't want to leave before the job is done, but Bush's 'strategy' of twiddling his thumbs and hoping things get better is just getting our troops killed. If his plan is to just continue what we've been doing, then it's pointless-there will never be a time when you get all those fundies to settle down. At the very least, increase the troop numbers to a level that can provide better security for the entire country, not just select enclaves.
I really pity you. You have been so thoroughly brainwashed by the Big Lie Propaganda spewed by the liberal-controlled media and the liberal leadership of the Demonrat Party that you are incapable of seeing the truth. Please get yourself educated about the truth before it's too late.
I think I'm seeing things more clearly than you are. I don't care what the Democratic Party is saying; last I checked they were sputtering about how they'd do things better if they were in charge, but providing no specifics. I'm not saying "So-and-so would do it better." I'm saying "Bush is doing it poorly". And if he's going to be incompetent, why not be incompetent in a way that doesn't get people killed unnecessarily?

[DesertFox]

You must have no military experience. Nothing is ever easy in any war, though this particular war doesn't compare to other wars for death and destruction.

Neither Bush nor Rumsfeld is incompetent. The war is going very well. You need to read something besides the MSM to get a truer picture of what's going on.

[Lubbock]

People like Poster #54 don't care a thing about the truth.

[gnome]

Yes, Gnome. They all post here.



You lead a sheltered life, my friend.

Sorry, Gnome. I didn't mean to be disrespectful. I gladly admit that you the kind of person who defines the "exception to every rule" concept: you are a courteous, civilized liberal.

But there ARE liberals out there who would like nothing better than to see America humiliated and defeated. Even at the price of thousands of dead Americans.

If I have represented myself as well as you say, I think it's the most I can hope for at the moment.

[Kathy29]

One of the big lies that the liberals say over and over is that Bush has no plan to end the war in Iraq. I really don't know how many times he must articulate the plan. Immediately after he explains the plan in great detail, a liberal democrat will show his or her stupid (meant in the most serious sense of the word) talking head and say "There is no plan". Sometimes one can only be embarassed for such stupidity, sometimes one can only wonder why they don't just come out and say "Yes, there's a plan, but we don't like it." I suppose the reason why liberal democrats cannot do this is because they have no plan themselves, except for the same plan Bush has. I suppose that this is the reason why Nancy Pelosi with great pomp claims that the democrat plan, is to have no plan.

[Lubbock]

Armchair Generals are such a hoot!

[Peachdiane]

If I might make a point... every liberal I've spoken to think it would be horrible to have another event similar to 9-11.

Well of course they're going to say that. Actions speak louder than words, however. Their "hate America/blame America" actions show they do indeed want another 9-11. They absolutely want another chance to show their support for hate-filled extremists, give out "benefits" to them, try to "understand" them, and have peace movements everywhere. They are Leftists, and they are hate-America Leftists. As Ann Coulter said, they hate America even more than the Muslim terrorists do!

[Timberwolf]

Wyatt just posted a Hall of Famer. Nice work, dude.
Ditto that, DF...we need to get Freecers in control of our government.

[Lazarus]

...Me, I'm a no-nonsense right-winger, member of the vast right-wing conspiracy. And proud of it, too.:evilgrin:Mmmmmmmm I love it when you talk like that...:biggrin:

[Maggie_T]

A lot more where that come from.

I've declared my personal little war on liberals. From now on, they are to expect no patience, no tolerance, no politeness, no respect, no nothing from me.

I WiLL TAKE NO PRISONERS! :devil:

[Foquet]

:)

I declared that type of war on them about 20 years ago. Personally and online.

You always kick a political dog when it is down and then run it over. Then you tempt them with a "put to sleep" drug and then take it away from them and start them all over again. And again.

They deserve nothing else.

A lot more where that come from.

I've declared my personal little war on liberals. From now on, they are to expect no patience, no tolerance, no politeness, no respect, no nothing from me.

I WiLL TAKE NO PRISONERS! :devil:

[Kathy29]

A lot more where that come from.

I've declared my personal little war on liberals. From now on, they are to expect no patience, no tolerance, no politeness, no respect, no nothing from me.

I WiLL TAKE NO PRISONERS! :devil:

We must be in the same army.

[Maggie_T]

I'm glad we are, Kathy. I couldn't ask for a better comrade-in-arms than you. ;)

[Kathy29]

Maggie some time ago I got into an argument with a guy in the park over his unleashed dog. I got so mad at him, I called him a democrat.

"You're a democrat" in the same tone as if calling him an SOB.

That's my opinon.

I'm glad we are in the same army and I think it's growing.

[Foquet]

Army? Hell, when it comes to those slimes....you bring in the Army, Navy, Air Force and the Marines and level their beliefs, like a Tyco City.

Never stop attacking them, for a sec. And you gals know that in spades and practice it well. :claps::D

[sunsettommy]

=Jester21]The assertion was that the reason we're not out of Iraq is because certain elements of society are not united behind Bush. I simply pointed out that the reason we're not out of Iraq is largely due to Bush's incompetence than anything else. Well, more Rumsfeld, but Bush hired him.

So that is your complaint.That we have not left Iraq is because of incompetance?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Maybe you ask the Iraqi government on why they insist that we stay a while longer.:rotflmbo:

Iraq was a terribly beaten nation from decades of murderous Husseins rule and the infrastructure of the nation was in bad condidtion.Then too the small bands of fanatics keep blowing up people,mostly Iraqi's.

That is the real reason why we are still there.War always destabilizes the area.So it is wise to stay untill it is stabilized.

Maybe I shouldn't have said 'plan to get us out of there.' I meant 'plan to win.' (And THEN get us out of there). I don't want to leave before the job is done, but Bush's 'strategy' of twiddling his thumbs and hoping things get better is just getting our troops killed. If his plan is to just continue what we've been doing, then it's pointless-there will never be a time when you get all those fundies to settle down. At the very least, increase the troop numbers to a level that can provide better security for the entire country, not just select enclaves.

Gawd you must have been in a cave when it happened......

WE WON THE WAR IN IRAQ THREE YEARS AGO!

The rest here is a mumble......

Wow you really think it is easy to spot a terrorists who look like the civilians? Oh please tell us how we can do better.


I think I'm seeing things more clearly than you are. I don't care what the Democratic Party is saying; last I checked they were sputtering about how they'd do things better if they were in charge, but providing no specifics. I'm not saying "So-and-so would do it better." I'm saying "Bush is doing it poorly". And if he's going to be incompetent, why not be incompetent in a way that doesn't get people killed unnecessarily?


Ok YOU tell us how it can be done better.

:listen:

The President has a lot of obstacles to overcome and that includes the treasonous democrat party and MSM.

You are talking like a moonbat here and that is sad.

[Timberwolf]

They are "speshul" :coco: tommy...be nice. :evilgrin:

[Jester21]

Maybe you ask the Iraqi government on why they insist that we stay a while longer.
For the most part, the Iraqis don't want us there.

WE WON THE WAR IN IRAQ THREE YEARS AGO!
There have been more deaths after the war was 'won' than before....is that typical?

Wow you really think it is easy to spot a terrorists who look like the civilians?
I got news for you: increasingly, the terrorists ARE the civilians.

Ok YOU tell us how it can be done better.
I already did; you even quoted it:
At the very least, increase the troop numbers to a level that can provide better security for the entire country, not just select enclaves.

The President has a lot of obstacles to overcome and that includes the treasonous democrat party and MSM.

It amuses me when people talk about the 'difficulties' GWB has had to overcome. I think he is possibly one of the luckiest men to ever walk the earth. It's not the democrats causing him problems; it's the moderate republicans. The democrats can't do anything without support from at least some republicans. And say what you want about the press, but they also get criticized for being too deferential to Bush.

[Maggie_T]

Guys, don't wast your time on jester. He's the typical liberal who blames everthing bad on Bush, and justifies and excuses Islamofascists' every terrorist attack.

Same old, same old.

[Jester21]

Guys, don't wast your time on jester. He's the typical liberal who blames everthing bad on Bush, and justifies and excuses Islamofascists' every terrorist attack.

Same old, same old.
On the contrary; I am not a liberal. Just more liberal than most people here. I blame things on Bush because I believe he is incompetent as President. So far I think his track record leaves much to be desired. I don't think I've ever excused a terrorist attack.

[Foquet]

Examples please:

I am willing to hear you out...since W has had many missteps in his term.

[DesertFox]

For the most part, the Iraqis don't want us there.Proof, please. There have been more deaths after the war was 'won' than before....is that typical? Depends on which war you talk about. It's true of El Salvador, where more people die today every day during peacetime than ever died at the peak of their 12-year civil war, 1979-1992. It was and still is true in Castro's Cuba, though it's questionable that there ever was a "war" there when he took over. It was true of Lenin's revolutionary war in 1917 Russia, after which Stalin killed tens of millions of Soviet citizens. It was true of Mao's revolutionary war, after which he killed scores of millions of Chinese. It was true of Pol Pot's civil war, after which 40% of the Khmer population was murdered. I can go on, but you get the point: There are plenty of examples of a country having more deaths after a war was 'won' than before. I got news for you: increasingly, the terrorists ARE the civilians.You can prove this?

[kkkron]

Depends on which war you talk about. It's true of El Salvador, where more people die today every day during peacetime than ever died at the peak of their 12-year civil war, 1979-1992. It was and still is true in Castro's Cuba, though it's questionable that there ever was a "war" there when he took over. It was true of Lenin's revolutionary war in 1917 Russia, after which Stalin killed tens of millions of Soviet citizens. It was true of Mao's revolutionary war, after which he killed scores of millions of Chinese. It was true of Pol Pot's civil war, after which 40% of the Khmer population was murdered. I can go on, but you get the point: There are plenty of examples of a country having more deaths after a war was 'won' than before. You can prove this?

Yes, but all of those were civil wars which involved the winning side annihilating everyone on the opposing side. Here, the 'winning side' (America) is losing more actual troops to the Iraqis than during the war.

[DesertFox]

all of those were civil wars which involved the winning side annihilating everyone on the opposing side.You have confirmed my suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about. Here, the 'winning side' (America) is losing more actual troops to the Iraqis than during the war.It hasn't occurred to you that the reason this is so, is that our warfighting is so far superior to any that has ever existed, that our own troops don't die at anything approaching the rates of earlier armies. Because of that, the actual war lasted only three weeks, during which we killed fewer of the enemy than any other army in the history of the world, including our own in 1991 which held the former record. We have gone far out of our way NOT to kill the opponent, whereas they have gone far out of their way to kill us in the most grisly ways possible.

This follow-up has last more years than the war did weeks. Of COURSE we have lost more during this period than during the war. You need to learn some history before running your mouth.

[Jester21]

Examples please:

I am willing to hear you out...since W has had many missteps in his term.
Examples of what? Things Bush has done wrong?

-Iraq--not going in, that was ok. It's how he's led since then that drives me nuts.
-his handling of the economy;specifically the massive deficits he runs
-his stance on stem-cell research
-his SCOTUS pick--Roberts is ok; Alito I think is terrible.
-his claim to essentially unlimited Presidential power
-his wiretapping program. I don't believe it materially helps in catching terrorists, and I also think it's a very dangerous slope to be on. I don't think any government should be monitoring the general communications of its citizens.
-his unwillingness to follow the laws regarding his wiretapping program
-his insistance on keeping congress in the dark on any number of intelligence issues
-pressuring the CIA to get WMD proof regarding Iraq, then overstating it, then blaming them when it proved false
-his unwillingness to follow either international or domestic law regarding detainees in Guantanamo Bay
-the rendition program that results in people being tortured. Torturing people is simply wrong.
-his diplomatic efforts with the rest of the world: most countries were solidly on our side after 9/11, thanks to his incompetence/arrogance/rudeness we are increasingly isolated. That may not bother many people, but we can't conquer the entire world. Until we can, we need to get along with them.
-getting sidetracked on the WOT...OBL is still out there, the Taliban is creeping back in Afghanistan, etc.
-I think he enjoys considering himself a War President. Nobody should enjoy being a War President.
-his response to Katrina
-his 'signing statements' that he adds onto any law he disagrees with. Congress makes the laws, George--not you.
-his prescription pill program
-his No Child Left Behind program.....this one is minor for me. I think it's a failure, but I don't have kids so it personally has little effect on me. But it is indicative of a continuing pattern of lousy governing.

Basically, I think my biggest complaint with him is his willingness to operate outside the rule of law. I could deal with him being incompetent if I thought that he believed there were limits on his power. But he thinks he can do anything he wants, and that makes him dangerous.

That's off the top of my head. There are also a number of things that I think have gone right in spite of his efforts. All in all, I think he's in over his head as President.

I would also like to point out that in principal I don't disagree with many of the things Bush has done, just the way he's done them. This goes back to that whole 'incompetence' thing again.

[Jester21]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">For the most part, the Iraqis don't want us there. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Proof, please.
Here; mid 2004
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw1087493762531B262
Most Iraqis have lost confidence in the United States-led occupation and would feel safer if foreign troops left their country, a poll commissioned by the coalition authority has found.

The poll, conducted in May and obtained by Reuters on Thursday, found only 10 percent of Iraqis had confidence in US-led forces - down from 28 percent in January. Fifty-five percent would feel safer if those troops left Iraq immediately.

Here; late 2005.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1599185,00.html


the poll also said that 82% of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of foreign troops and less than 1% believed the troops were responsible for improvement in security. Forty-three percent believed conditions for peace and security had worsened.
Here; early 2006
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg2
Asked what they would like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do, 70% of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces. This number divides evenly between 35% who favor a short time frame of “within six months” and 35% who favor a gradual reduction over two years. Just 29% say it should “only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq.”
There are, however, variations along ethnic lines. Sunnis are the most unified, with 83% wanting US forces to leave within 6 months. Seventy percent of Shia agree on having a timeline, but divide between 22% who favor withdrawal in six months and 49% who favor two years. Among the Kurds, on the other hand, a majority of 57% favor reducing US-led forces only when the situation improves.



Depends on which war you talk about. It's true of El Salvador, where more people die today every day during peacetime than ever died at the peak of their 12-year civil war, 1979-1992. It was and still is true in Castro's Cuba, though it's questionable that there ever was a "war" there when he took over. It was true of Lenin's revolutionary war in 1917 Russia, after which Stalin killed tens of millions of Soviet citizens. It was true of Mao's revolutionary war, after which he killed scores of millions of Chinese. It was true of Pol Pot's civil war, after which 40% of the Khmer population was murdered. I can go on, but you get the point: There are plenty of examples of a country having more deaths after a war was 'won' than before.
I was going to point out that these all involve the victors of the various wars, but that's already been done.
the reason this is so, is that our warfighting is so far superior to any that has ever existed, that our own troops don't die at anything approaching the rates of earlier armies.
Then why are we still taking losses? Given our skills, you would think 3+ years would be enough to stabilize a small country like Iraq. It's because we're pussyfooting around in there. Send more troops, or get the hell out of there.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">I got news for you: increasingly, the terrorists ARE the civilians. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
You can prove this?
Here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031702087_pf.html
The vast majority of insurgents, probably more than 90 percent, are believed to be Iraqis from the Sunni minority group that largely ruled the country before the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Here:http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/05/06/09/168406.html

A senior US military chief has admitted "good, honest" Iraqis are fighting American forces.
Major General Joseph Taluto said he could understand why some ordinary people would take up arms against the US military because "they're offended by our presence"...General Taluto said "99.9 per cent" of those captured fighting the US were Iraqis

Here:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/04/wirq04.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/12/04/ixportal.html

Iraqis, rather than foreign fighters, now form the vast majority of the insurgents who are waging a ferocious guerrilla war against United States forces in Sunni western Iraq, American commanders have revealed.
Their conclusion, disclosed to the Sunday Telegraph in interviews over 10 days in battle-torn Anbar province, contradicts the White House message that outsiders are the principal enemy in Iraq.
Of 1,300 suspected insurgents arrested over the past five months in and around Ramadi, none has been a foreigner. Col John Gronski, senior officer in the town, Anbar's provincial capital, said that almost all insurgent fighting there was by Iraqis. Foreigners provided only money and logistical support.
<!--MPU STOPPED BY MEDIA -->

[DesertFox]

I see. With a couple of exceptions, the "sources" you cite are Left-oriented or far Left-oriented. Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

It's also Iraqis who are for us, Jester. Or have you missed that? Have you missed the polls that show precisely the opposite of what you cite from your Leftist sources? I guess you have. Either that or you prefer to believe the Lefty ones, which is what I suspect is the case.

And you're divorced from reality if you think that in any war or postwar situation, people don't die. They do. In most of the small wars since WWII, more people die in the immediate postwar period than died during the actual war.

By going almost entirely with Lefty sources, you betray yourself.

[Rhino]

Polls can be misleading and misinterpreted.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- More than half of Iraqis in a survey done primarily in March and early April said their nation will be better off in five years because of the U.S.-led invasion, but 55 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion of the United States.http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/29/iraq.poll/index.html

However, on the surface, the news about public opinion in the Arab world is somewhat confusing and contradictory.&nbsp; According to Richard Nadler, president of Americas Majority, a non-profit think tank, writing in National Review magazine, there is a wide gulf between how Iraqis view what has occurred since Operation Iraqi Freedom and how the rest of the Arab world views it.

The points of reference are surveys conducted by Zogby International between 2002 and late 2005 in six Arab countries: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates. In Iraq, the views have been measured by the International Republican Institute, the Gallup Organization, and Oxford Research International.

In the six nations surveyed, 77 percent believe Iraq is "worse off after the war" and only 6 percent disagree. But in Iraq, most of those surveyed approve of, and consider their lives better in, post-Saddam Iraq by a margin of 52 percent to 29 percent. By a margin of 48 percent to 18 percent, they expect their lives to improve more in the next year.

To the question, "Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the U.S.-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?" 77 percent say Yes. That figure includes 91 percent of Kurds surveyed and 98 percent of the Shiites.http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/opinion/printer_21219813.shtml

Gallup's nationwide poll of 3,444 Iraqis indicates nearly 7 in 10 believe their lives (or the lives of their family members) would be in danger if they were viewed as cooperating with the Coalition Provisional Authority.http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=11779

Kinda makes you wonder about polling methodology and reliability.

Naturally the question arises, “Why do only 35% favor the US withdrawing within six months if there would be so many assumed benefits?” The answer may lie in the response to another question that asked whether in six months Iraqi security forces will be “strong enough to deal with the security challenges Iraq will face” or will still “need the help of military forces from other countries.” Overall, 59% feel that Iraqi security forces will not be strong enough, including 55% of Shia, 58% of Sunnis and 73% of Kurds. Thus, the presence of US troops may be perceived as an unwelcome presence that produces many undesirable side effects, but is still necessary for a period.http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg1

It's a semantics game. I don't want FEMA in New Orleans, but I recognize the need. If you simply asked me if I wanted them there, the answer would be 'no', but you'd be making a mistake if you assumed that meant I thought they should be withdrawn.

[Pendragon_6]

"Basically, I think my biggest complaint with him is his willingness to operate outside the rule of law. I could deal with him being incompetent if I thought that he believed there were limits on his power. But he thinks he can do anything he wants, and that makes him dangerous.- jester21"
====================

Bush is only a dangerous nazi tyrant to the wrong side [left] of the political spectrum, who has a very warped idea of what a tyrant is. Lib-sucks are the only one's claiming, "we're living in a police state." Nothing new here. hoo-hum.

[Jester21]

Have you missed the polls that show precisely the opposite of what you cite from your Leftist sources?
Yes, I have. Please show them to me.

I don't know what to tell you regarding the politics of the sources I used.....I did a google search, and that's what came up. I do know that the WP gets hammered regularly by lefties for being too conservative (and vice versa), the other sources I have no idea what their politics are.

Look, I'm not saying it was wrong to go into Iraq. The Iraqis will ABSOLUTELY be better off without Hussein, a fact that they recognize. But I don't think we're contributing to the security of the place, we don't have enough men to do so. I think that if we continue the way we have been civil war is inevitable, so why not 1)Leave, and let them sort it out, or 2)Send enough troops to do the job.

It's a semantics game. I don't want FEMA in New Orleans, but I recognize the need. If you simply asked me if I wanted them there, the answer would be 'no', but you'd be making a mistake if you assumed that meant I thought they should be withdrawn.
Very true. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think we're contributing to the security/rebuilding of the place as best we can.....and by that, I mean by having as few deaths as possible. If you believed FEMA was just making the situation worse in NO, or having negligible impact, would you still want them there?

[Rhino]

If I believed that, but I don't, in New Orleans or Iraq. I wouldn't support leaving them to sort it out because it's quite possible we'd end up with another Saddam, or worse. As far as more troops goes, I tend to side with that general who was asked how he'd feel if the Pentagon gave him more troops. He responded that he wouldn't know what to do with them. He had all he needed.