Posted on 08/10/2006 3:20:17 PM PDT by BlueJ7
There are ample quotes of Democrats complaining that Bush Sr. should not have stopped Gulf War I, that he should have marched on to Baghdad with 500,000 troops to get Saddam. Now that Bush Jr. has done just that they say he shouldn't have wasted the time, money, and lives to do so, despite a military history record-setting force of only 150,000 high-tech troops with little loss of life.
The Democrat's favorite persuasion technique is: whatever the opposition does, cry.
The only time the Dems pay lipservice to the war on terror is after a major attack, or an attack is thwarted (i.e., after the fact).
I'm convinced that if the voters overwhelmingly reject the Dems this year, the entire corrupt enterprise of the Democrat Party will finally collapse. Please, God, make it so.
Everytime I read crap from the dems like this, I envision a whining spoiled child pulling on an adults clothing just begging for attention.
No, I think trying to do away with the Patriot Act, leaking the NSA program, SWIFT, undermining unity in the war on terror in favor of appeasement and sympathy for Hezbollah, Saddam and Al quida etc. is what hurts our winning the WOT Teddy.
I heard some idiot caller on Rush's show say that too. Why would we possibly want to take that news off the front page?? I want it noised from the roof tops that the extremists and wackos have taken over the Democratic party. I love how they think an election in which only Democrats could vote is somehow some sort of "referendum" on Bush and Iraq, as if it comes as any surprise that swamp fever Democrats are opposed to Bush and Iraq. I guess by their "logic," since 48% of Dems. voted for Lieberman in that primary, then 48% of blue state CT Democrats support Bush. Wow, 48% support for Bush among Dems. in one of the bluest of blue states?? Not bad!!!
Of course. What did you expect? Democrats have been non compos mentis on national security matters since the Nixon Administration. And whatever they do understand is subordinated to the crude calculus of electoral politics. At some level, Harry Reid must understand the connection between the Iraqi "resistance" (as directed by radical Muslims from Iran and Syria) and the worldwide Islamofascist movement. He, like Pelosi and many other Democrats just don't care. Well, Nancy Pelosi may be a bad example, because she's an idiot. An idiot that could soon be the Speaker of the House. God help us.
No matter: Democrats crave power. Democrats believe in government and resent the fact that they are kept from their rightful place by a populace too obstinate to accept their moral superiority. To them, George Bush is a dumb religious bumpkin who actually believes that crap about the US being a force for good in the world, and thinks we have the right to act without the consent of the European sophisticates whom our liberals hold in such high regard. What is to come? "If only John Kerry were President, why, this never would have happened...." and other fatal fantasies.
More rantings from the murdering, fat arrogant drunk.
I don't understand this thinking. I don't know of a single american who helped write the Koran.
Democrats are idiots.
RE post #9 - may be Teddy in one of his past lives, but very obviously he knows what to do with food even if he's drunk!
The only time a Democrat talks about the war on terror is when they think they can make some cheap political points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.