Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Polybius
Well, I wouldn't go as far as saying that [the Democrats] are "pro-terrorist".

How, then, do you explain their inordinate concern with the "rights" of these "terrorists"?

I question whether they have addressed a fraction of the rhetoric and effort toward the memory of the WTC victims as they have on the issues of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.

If they are not "pro-terrorist", they are the next thing to it. In Cold War lexicon, "fellow travellers".

60 posted on 06/23/2005 6:42:16 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: okie01
If they are not "pro-terrorist", they are the next thing to it. In Cold War lexicon, "fellow travellers".

Just like during the Cold War they weren't pro-communist they were anti-anti-communists. Why they didn't then or now just go with the simpler anti-American name, I just don't know.

61 posted on 06/23/2005 6:43:51 PM PDT by NeoCaveman (And our prisoners at Gitmo eat better than I do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

To: okie01
Well, I wouldn't go as far as saying that [the Democrats] are "pro-terrorist".

How, then, do you explain their inordinate concern with the "rights" of these "terrorists"?

As I noted in my Post 31, because the terrorists are currently fighting against the U.S. military.

If George Bush were to strike a deal with the terrorists, the Democrats would be raging about how the terrorists should be boiled in oil.

The Democrats are not "pro" anyone or anything.

They are simply anti-America and anti-Bush.

69 posted on 06/23/2005 6:58:12 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson