|
|
|
Any word on those other classics..... The War on Poverty and The War on Drugs? How are we doing there?
Bollox Ref |
08.20.07 - 8:03 am | #
|
|
"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
George bush
Amuseinc |
08.20.07 - 8:43 am | #
|
|
Not sure what to make of that. "We"'re clearly losing in Iraq; victory was never a possibility. But the occupation in Iraq isn't the same as the War on Terror. Or, do 84% agree that by shredding our Constitution, and making three year olds take off their shoes in the airport, we've let the terrorists win? That makes more sense to me.
Marek |
08.20.07 - 10:44 am | #
|
|
So in other words 16% of this country is batshit crazy.
baltogeek |
08.20.07 - 11:15 am | #
|
|
So...if 84% of the country are against the Crawford Caligula's little exercise in Empire Building, then obviously the road to Victory for the Dems in 2008 is to let Bush do and have everything he wants. In the most cringing, gutless, servile, bootlicking manner imaginable, no less.
Or so the Democratic "leadership" seems to think. Goodness! I don't see how this brilliant strategy could ever possibly backfire. Do you?
John D. |
08.20.07 - 11:28 am | #
|
|
Marek, you're forgetting the frame:
Iraq = War on Terra.
Losing in Iraq is the equivalent of losing the WOT.
US Blues |
08.20.07 - 11:50 am | #
|
|
John D - As much as some people would like to believe it's about the party, lots of people vote on the man.
Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton. Who would you rather have?
Anonymous |
08.20.07 - 1:30 pm | #
|
|
US Blues-right, I forgot. Because Mohammed Atta met with the Iraqi ambassador to the Czech Republic, right? And because 15 of 21 of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi. Or something like that. My bad.
Did they ask the question, do you feel safer with Saddam Hussein gone?
Marek |
08.20.07 - 1:38 pm | #
|
|
perhaps...just perhaps, it is because we are not pursuing the attack.
Perhaps it is because we are seen caving into Islamic Extremists at home and abroad?
Perhaps it is because the Dums have wedded themselves to loss and surrender?
jim |
08.20.07 - 3:22 pm | #
|
|
perhaps...just perhaps, it is because we are not pursuing the attack.
Yeah, let's bomb Iran, that'll work! We'll be greeted as liberators and the invasion will pay for itself with the oil revenues!
Loveandlight |
08.20.07 - 4:44 pm | #
|
|
jim: perhaps...just perhaps, it is because we are not pursuing the attack.
Who is this "we"? You posting from Iraq? Or from your mommy's basement? Enlist or STFU
Gay Veteran |
08.20.07 - 6:06 pm | #
|
|
There is no War on Terror so the question is irrelevant. It is simply the name of a propaganda campaign that used to be successful in electing Republicans to further the dual agenda of endless war and the consolidation of dictatorial power within the executive branch.
There are truly no standards with which to judge the capture of people associated with the murder of nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is largely regarded as the mastermind by the government and officialdom and he has been captured, but he remains in indeterminate detention with no ability to even pursue the death penalty at a trial that will apparently never occur. Since there are no standards of justice, there can only be the presumption of failure.
Of course now Democrats are in control and still conspiring to bring bills to the floor that eviscerate the Constitution so perhaps the propaganda campaign known as the "War on Terror" still meets with some success.
wengler |
08.20.07 - 11:00 pm | #
|
|
|
Commenting by HaloScan
|