Replies

how you feel about the responses to your question."""

NOT SURPRISED.

"""I also wonder how you feel about the 'no one ever said Saddam was connected to 9/11' comments."""

BALDERDASH

My purpose is to stimulate some independent thought among freepers who are too willing to be guided by the administration's propaganda slogans re. the war in Iraq. (I'm a rare bird - a conservative Republican - NOT a Buchananite - who opposed the Iraq invasion from the outset as a diversion from Job 1: capturing and killing Al Quada. It's precisely because I'm NOT a pacifist or appeaser that I wanted us to go with force and fury against the culprits of 9-11, before using 9-11 as an excuse to pursue unrelated agendas - which is what I consider the invasion of Iraq to be. Now, Saddam, Al Quada and its networks having been neglected, on a relative scale, by us, their threat continues and perhaps has grown - that's the message I take from yesterday's bombing). Therefore, it was an appropriate time for some pot-stirring, and that was the point of starting this thread.

"I'm a rare bird..."

Indeed you are. One who parrots the BS of Michael Moore and Charlie Rangle and tries to pass yourself off as a conservative while dipping your serpant tongue into the blood of innocents to use for your political agenda.

Yes, you're a bird alright...a carrion feeding vulture.

You think we're not working 24/7 to get Osama?
President Bush warned us all that some might tire of the WOT.

Two Japanese soldiers from WW2 just walked out of the jungle in the Phillipines this year! That war was over 60 years ago. We may not get him before he dies but get him we will.

I've seen only two posts expressing support for what you've said, you seem to hold a real minority view here (either that, or the others aren't talking), so I appreciate your response.

You haven't mentioned it, but seeing as your priority is fighting terror networks, I was curious about what you thought of the recent morphs of the so-called 'flypaper theory'. For example, from the President's recent speech:

Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq -- who is also senior commander at this base -- General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said: "We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us."

Does that strike a cord with you at all?

My purpose is to stimulate some independent thought among freepers who are too willing to be guided by the administration's propaganda slogans re. the war in Iraq. (I'm a rare bird - a conservative Republican - NOT a Buchananite - who opposed the Iraq invasion from the outset as a diversion from Job 1: capturing and killing Al Quada. It's precisely because I'm NOT a pacifist or appeaser that I wanted us to go with force and fury against the culprits of 9-11, before using 9-11 as an excuse to pursue unrelated agendas - which is what I consider the invasion of Iraq to be. Now, Saddam, Al Quada and its networks having been neglected, on a relative scale, by us, their threat continues and perhaps has grown - that's the message I take from yesterday's bombing). Therefore, it was an appropriate time for some pot-stirring, and that was the point of starting this thread.

Look kiddo just because its not reported by the MSM does not mean we are neglecting the hunt for Osama. Would we STILL have 100,000 troops in Afganistan if we gave up the hunt for Osama? I did not think so.