Terrorists Root for Democrats

[The Galatian]

How very much like the Bush enablers, to blame all the things Bush has done, on his critics.

Thousands of American troops are dead because Bush and his advisors ignored the advice of their military people. Not enough troops, not enough equipment, and endlessly stupid strategies that killed our people needlessly. Morale? Falling apart. It's why so many retired generals are insisting that Rumsfeld has to go. It's why the service newspapers are calling for the same thing.

Support for the terrorists. Even Bush's own intelligence people admit that his policies have increased the threat of terrorism.

And the terrorists know it. And that is why they are hoping Bush's party remains in power.

 

[dispen4ever]

Whew! I'm a strong supporter of the obvious: government of, by, and for the people, but after reading some of the confused people in this thread, I'm beginning to wonder.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

The terrorists vote for the Democrats.
The liberals vote for the Democrats.

What they get, in addition to withdrawal from the Middle East, is abortion on demand, including partial birth; homosexual marriages; homosexuality declared a civil right; speaking out against abortion and homosexuality a hate crime. From those huge federal coffers that are overflowing with $$$$$, they'll get cradle-to-grave medicare; cradle-to-grave education; Christianity backed into a corner while Islam flourishes; national identity cards which one must show to any officer of the law on demand, even without probable cause or reasonable suspicion; 100% support of the ACLU and its objectives ~~ Wow! It's a long list!

You hang in there, Carpro. You're right on target. The terrorists and liberals just don't get it.

 

[Daisy]

Since some of them are now known as "cold blooded killers", thanks to Murtha, even though they have never been charged.

Right. "Cold blooded" was the wrong thing to say - "hot blooded" would have been more apt.

 

[carpro]

Right. "Cold blooded" was the wrong thing to say - "hot blooded" would have been more apt.

Does that mean you are joining mouthy Murtha as calling them "killers" based on your limited knowledge of the case?

 

[genesis 12-15]

Your list, dispen, probably included experimentation with stem cells from aborted babies. The assembly line will be something to take schoolers to see ~ for extra credit.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

The terrorists vote for the Democrats.
The liberals vote for the Democrats.

Yea, right! :laugh: :laugh:

Only a fool would truly believe something like this.

 

[Petra-O IX]

Whew! I'm a strong supporter of the obvious: government of, by, and for the people, but after reading some of the confused people in this thread, I'm beginning to wonder.



The terrorists vote for the Democrats.
The liberals vote for the Democrats.

QUOTE]
Well now we know where can find the terrorist , better shuffle our troops from Iraq back home so we can arrest them at the voting booths.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Calling our troops terrorists or uneducated rubes like Kerry did, cold blooded killers and "broken" like Murtha did, Nazis like Durbin did, and keepers of gulags like Kennedy did is not what I call being critical of the administration.

Those are direct attacks on the courage and integrity of our troops.

Liberals just don't get it.:BangHead:

Would you support ANY military action the U.S. got into? Say, attack Canada, Mexico, Great Britian?

 

[Petra-O IX]

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
Calling our troops terrorists or uneducated rubes like Kerry did, cold blooded killers and "broken" like Murtha did, Nazis like Durbin did, and keepers of gulags like Kennedy did is not what I call being critical of the administration.

Those are direct attacks on the courage and integrity of our troops.

Liberals just don't get it.

Would you support ANY military action the U.S. got into? Say, attack Canada, Mexico, Great Britian?

And I would still like to see the original quotes from Kerry(did he really call them uneducated?), Murtha and Durbin. What Carpro says they said is one thing(His interpretation) and what they actually said in full context is another.
C'mon Carpro, show us the quotes to substantiate your claims.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

No, but liberals can't seem to help themselves.


Liberals just don't seem to get it.

And yes, to some liberal politicians that should know better, it's all about political power. And if it takes a few hundred more of our troops to die for them to get that power, that's acceptable to them.

But they would never admit it. Instead they'll try to use those deaths they helped cause as leverage to get the power they so desperately seek.

Are you totally unaware of what's been going on for the last 7 years? "Liberals" didn't start the war in Iraq. Radical Neocon extremists did. Who make political hay out of the continuation of an unjust war? The Republican party and especially GW. Why did heightened terrorist levels of concern just magically seem to happen right before previous elections? I'm looking for something to happen tomorrow.

 

[carpro]

Would you support ANY military action the U.S. got into? Say, attack Canada, Mexico, Great Britian?

Once the battle is joined for whatever reason against whatever foe, you will never hear a word from me that could adversely affect the morale of our troops in combat.

You'll have to depend on the likes of Murtha, Kerry , Durbin, Kennedy and Pelosi to encourage our enemy and discourage our troops.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Once the battle is joined for whatever reason against whatever foe, you will never hear a word from me that could adversely affect the morale of our troops in combat.

You'll have to depend on the likes of Murtha, Kerry , Durbin, Kennedy and Pelosi to encourage our enemy and discourage our troops.

So, as long as we are engaged against this supposed enemy in Iraq, anything the President does should be endorsed regardless of what it is, right?

 

[carpro]

So, as long as we are engaged against this supposed enemy in Iraq, anything the President does should be endorsed regardless of what it is, right?

I don't believe I said that at all.

This is what I said and I mean every word, exactly as written:

"Once the battle is joined for whatever reason against whatever foe, you will never hear a word from me that could adversely affect the morale of our troops in combat.

You'll have to depend on the likes of Murtha, Kerry , Durbin, Kennedy and Pelosi to encourage our enemy and discourage our troops."

 

[Terry_Herrington]

I don't believe I said that at all.

This is what I said and I mean every word, exactly as written:

"Once the battle is joined for whatever reason against whatever foe, you will never hear a word from me that could adversely affect the morale of our troops in combat.

You'll have to depend on the likes of Murtha, Kerry , Durbin, Kennedy and Pelosi to encourage our enemy and discourage our troops."

At what point will you turn against a sitting president during a time of war? Will you submit to anything they deem as necessary in order to win the war?

 

[carpro]

I can turn against the policies of the President any time I please without calling our troops terrorists or uneducated rubes like Kerry did, cold blooded killers and "broken" like Murtha did, Nazis like Durbin did, and keepers of gulags like Kennedy did or minimizing their sacrifice and calling their deaths useless and meaningless and wasted like many liberals do.

 

[saturneptune]

I can turn against the policies of the President any time I please without calling our troops terrorists or uneducated rubes like Kerry did, cold blooded killers and "broken" like Murtha did, Nazis like Durbin did, and keepers of gulags like Kennedy did or minimizing their sacrifice and calling their deaths useless and meaningless and wasted like many liberals do.

Last time I checked, Murtha served in Vietnam just like you. Is this a my Vietnam experience is better than yours? If you are around our age, chances are very good you were there. So what? That gives you no right to demean someone else who served there. How about your Vice President buddy Cheney, who never lifted a finger to serve this country, and only shoots fellow hunters? How about your buddy Bush, who has about as much claim to service as a hat rack?

Last time I checked, the Constitution gives Murtha or any other American the right to free speech whether you like it or not. We will see how the nation feels about your top notch leadership of this country the day after election day.

 

[carpro]

Last time I checked, Murtha served in Vietnam just like you. Is this a my Vietnam experience is better than yours? If you are around our age, chances are very good you were there. So what? That gives you no right to demean someone else who served there.

Last time I checked, the Constitution gives Murtha or any other American the right to free speech whether you like it or not. We will see how the nation feels about your top notch leadership of this country the day after election day.

I did not demean Murtha or his service but he has made remarks that encourage our enemies and demoralize our troops. With his background, his remarks are particularly damaging.

I hold him responsible for those remarks.

 

[The Galatian]

Relax. The few remaining Bush enablers are panicking as the consequences of six years of incompetence and corruption are becoming clear.

So they'll say anything, even blame the Iraq war on ordinary Americans, if they think it will help. Grasping at straws, they are.

And it's kinda fun to watch.