How Would Libs Fight Terrorism and Terrorists?

[red states rule]

First thing we do is pull out of Iraq, and let the terrorists go free. Then what? What is the liberal plan to fight terror?

We all join hands and sing,"kum-by-ya"?

I got it , two words.

-"We Surrender."

[Gaffer]

I have been asking this question of liberals for years. NEVER got an answer. Just Bush bashing or personal attacks. That's their way to fight terrorism.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Bring the troops home, consolodate our defenses, and tend to our domestic problems.
That includes closing our borders, a ten year moaratorium on immigration, expulsion of all non-citizens, and instituting nationwide healthcare reform.

Then sit back and watch them fight it out with each other.

If they can't get to us, we win.

[nevadamedic]

I have been asking this question of liberals for years. NEVER got an answer. Just Bush bashing or personal attacks. That's their way to fight terrorism.

That's all Liberal's do, blame President Bush for everything. It's pathetic.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Bush gets blamed for what he's guilty.

I stated a plan, but no answer from the peanut gallery.

Why am I not surprised?

[nevadamedic]

Bush gets blamed for what he's guilty.

I stated a plan, but no answer from the peanut gallery.

Why am I not surprised?

Your right, President Bush is guilty, of being one of the greatest President's in history, you Liberal's are just intimidated by him.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

He's a great pres like the Titanic was a solid ship.

How about addressing my post, you know, the part that has to do with the topic?
Or don't you know what a topic is?
You don't seem to.

[Sitarro]

Bring the troops home, consolodate our defenses, and tend to our domestic problems.
That includes closing our borders, a ten year moaratorium on immigration, expulsion of all non-citizens, and instituting nationwide healthcare reform.

Then sit back and watch them fight it out with each other.

If they can't get to us, we win.

Simplistic plan, why am I not surprised? If the terror assholes take over the Middle East (that is exactly the whole point of all of our actions there, to prevent that from happening)they can control the world's economies ..... besides attempting to destroy Israel, immediately. Israel, not interested in being destroyed(and not being a bunch of pussies) would unleash it's formidable weaponry and destroy major portions of the Middle East, in turn, destroying the oilfields which run the world's economies.

You see Spyder Tuba, it's just not as simple as you kids in the antiwar-bowel-movement think it is. When the world economies collapse...... who do you think will suffer the most...... no, not the rich..... the poor. They will need a lot more than free health care when that happens.

You want to try again? Try coming up with an original thought this time.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Simplistic plan, why am I not surprised?
Most good plans ARE simple.
Its the complicated ones that fail.


If the terror assholes take over the Middle East (that is exactly the whole point of all of our actions there, to prevent that from happening)they can control the world's economies .....
Not if we work to avoid our addiction to OIL.
Without oil, their just abuncha sad barbarians killin each other.

So, we already have great electric car technology, hydrogen fuel cells and other possibilities.
Lets use them.

No amount of oil is worth a single human life.


besides attempting to destroy Israel,
Good, let'em, they shouldn't even be there anyway, and it was a mistake to let em live there.
Its always been a mistake to support Israel, and it is the primary reason why the fuckin ragheads hate us.
So let em do it.
Maybe the Israelis will wise up and move too.
If not, they can blow each other up for all I care, just as long as the Americans are out of the fuckin way.


You see Spyder Tuba, it's just not as simple as you kids in the antiwar-bowel-movement think it is.
Nice insult.
And I thought you wanted to have a civil discussion.

I was all for it, but I should never believe that a republifascist ever wants anything to do with civility.


When the world economies collapse......
I doubt that, but if so, so what.
Its happened before, and the world survived.
It'll happen again, and we'll survive again.

There's nothign more aberrant in nature than a status quo.


You want to try again? Try coming up with an original thought this time.
You didn't disprove the validity of anything yet, so why should I?

My initial proposal is still like iron.

Why don't you try again?

[avatar4321]

He's a great pres like the Titanic was a solid ship.

How about addressing my post, you know, the part that has to do with the topic?
Or don't you know what a topic is?
You don't seem to.

The Titanic was a solid ship. How the heck do you think it sank so fast?

[avatar4321]

Oh, and to answer the original question: spitwads.

[gabosaurus]

If there had been a "liberal" president (instead of Bush), there would not be a "war on terrorism." Simply because there would not be a terror threat.
A liberal president would have concentrated on running the United States instead of concentrating on deposing some lunatic who badmouthed his daddy. A liberal president would also have been smart enough to pay attention to the daily warnings about international threats. A liberal president would not have started a war to satisfy his own desire to be Teddy Roosevelt.
A liberal president would not spend his entire term of office antagonizing terrorist sources. He would concentrate on domestic programs and defending the homeland, as opposed to meddling in other people's business.
A liberal president would not make daily efforts to encourage fear, bigotry and religious hatred. He would not send Americans to die on foreign soil, then bathe in their blood after dinner.
A liberal president would not have followers who ejaculated to each daily report of new carnage and torture camps. They would not have Sept. 11, 2001 to celebrate as the great day in their presidency.

[avatar4321]

If there had been a "liberal" president (instead of Bush), there would not be a "war on terrorism." Simply because there would not be a terror threat.
A liberal president would have concentrated on running the United States instead of concentrating on deposing some lunatic who badmouthed his daddy. A liberal president would also have been smart enough to pay attention to the daily warnings about international threats. A liberal president would not have started a war to satisfy his own desire to be Teddy Roosevelt.
A liberal president would not spend his entire term of office antagonizing terrorist sources. He would concentrate on domestic programs and defending the homeland, as opposed to meddling in other people's business.
A liberal president would not make daily efforts to encourage fear, bigotry and religious hatred. He would not send Americans to die on foreign soil, then bathe in their blood after dinner.
A liberal president would not have followers who ejaculated to each daily report of new carnage and torture camps. They would not have Sept. 11, 2001 to celebrate as the great day in their presidency.

Our enemies arent going to stop killing us simply because we wont fight them. What is so damn difficult to understand about this?

[nevadamedic]

Most good plans ARE simple.
Its the complicated ones that fail.


Not if we work to avoid our addiction to OIL.
Without oil, their just abuncha sad barbarians killin each other.

So, we already have great electric car technology, hydrogen fuel cells and other possibilities.
Lets use them.

No amount of oil is worth a single human life.


Good, let'em, they shouldn't even be there anyway, and it was a mistake to let em live there.
Its always been a mistake to support Israel, and it is the primary reason why the fuckin ragheads hate us.
So let em do it.
Maybe the Israelis will wise up and move too.
If not, they can blow each other up for all I care, just as long as the Americans are out of the fuckin way.


Nice insult.
And I thought you wanted to have a civil discussion.

I was all for it, but I should never believe that a republifascist ever wants anything to do with civility.


I doubt that, but if so, so what.
Its happened before, and the world survived.
It'll happen again, and we'll survive again.

There's nothign more aberrant in nature than a status quo.


You didn't disprove the validity of anything yet, so why should I?

My initial proposal is still like iron.

Why don't you try again?

You are a fucking Hipocrit. It's not ok for us to kill terrorists but it's ok for Isralies to be slaughtered. You need some serious medication.

[red states rule]

I have been asking this question of liberals for years. NEVER got an answer. Just Bush bashing or personal attacks. That's their way to fight terrorism.

The white flag they wave is a good clue

[red states rule]

If there had been a "liberal" president (instead of Bush), there would not be a "war on terrorism." Simply because there would not be a terror threat.
A liberal president would have concentrated on running the United States instead of concentrating on deposing some lunatic who badmouthed his daddy. A liberal president would also have been smart enough to pay attention to the daily warnings about international threats. A liberal president would not have started a war to satisfy his own desire to be Teddy Roosevelt.
A liberal president would not spend his entire term of office antagonizing terrorist sources. He would concentrate on domestic programs and defending the homeland, as opposed to meddling in other people's business.
A liberal president would not make daily efforts to encourage fear, bigotry and religious hatred. He would not send Americans to die on foreign soil, then bathe in their blood after dinner.
A liberal president would not have followers who ejaculated to each daily report of new carnage and torture camps. They would not have Sept. 11, 2001 to celebrate as the great day in their presidency.

If Gore was President, he would still be looking for the controlling legal authority that would allow him to respond

[red states rule]

Bush gets blamed for what he's guilty.

I stated a plan, but no answer from the peanut gallery.

Why am I not surprised?

What is your plan? We can't see it because of the yellow streak running down your back

[stephanie]

If there had been a "liberal" president (instead of Bush), there would not be a "war on terrorism." Simply because there would not be a terror threat.
A liberal president would have concentrated on running the United States instead of concentrating on deposing some lunatic who badmouthed his daddy. A liberal president would also have been smart enough to pay attention to the daily warnings about international threats. A liberal president would not have started a war to satisfy his own desire to be Teddy Roosevelt.
A liberal president would not spend his entire term of office antagonizing terrorist sources. He would concentrate on domestic programs and defending the homeland, as opposed to meddling in other people's business.
A liberal president would not make daily efforts to encourage fear, bigotry and religious hatred. He would not send Americans to die on foreign soil, then bathe in their blood after dinner.
A liberal president would not have followers who ejaculated to each daily report of new carnage and torture camps. They would not have Sept. 11, 2001 to celebrate as the great day in their presidency.

You did write all this as a joke right???

Bill Clinton your last liberal savour, had the first world trade center bombing, the Oklahoma Miur building Bombing, the USS Cole bombed, he bombed Iraq,He took over the branch Davidians, where your liberal government killed eighty of your fellow citizens...Elian Gonzalez the little boy who was saved from the waters that his mother drowned in, trying to escape from Cuba...,well your liberal government jackbooted him out of the arms of his relatives here in the United States, so your liberal saviour could send him back to a hellhole of a county, just so he could please Casto and the Cuban government..
Your liberal government sent our military into a couple of countries, and they were killed and paraded around in the streets as trophies....You sure do have a narrow and shallow view of what your liberal saviours look like...
And if you think Any Government will legislate people to not have any bigotry, or hate in them...

You my dear..Really need to get your head out of the Clouds, and live in Reality......:laugh2:

[red states rule]

snip


On the positive side, facing down this insurgency and defeating it provides us with an excellent opportunity to discredit the cause of Islamism. The Islamists share one crucial characteristic with the old Arab nationalist strongmen: they promise their followers strength. They promise victory and conquest as a balm for the deep-seated Muslim sense of inferiority and humiliation. Bin Laden described the theory behind his international terrorist crime spree as the "strong horse" theory: the people will support his cause because they regard it as successful, while they see the enemy as weak.

Winning in Iraq would have a unique power to discredit the view that the terrorists are the strong horse. The terrorists already know that they can't win in a conventional, stand-up fight. A victory in Iraq would tell them that they can't win an insurgency, either. The Islamists would come across, to their supporters and sympathizers in the Arab and Muslim world, as just another group of posturing failures who promised greatness and delivered humiliation.

There are two things we ought to do to win the counter-insurgency war. The first is to follow the new counter-insurgency strategy employed by General Petraeus within Iraq, a strategy based on intensive study of previous counter-insurgency wars. The second is one that is not being tried: to starve the insurgents of funding, training, weapons, and support by toppling the regimes outside of Iraq who are supporting the insurgents.

But there is one prerequisite that makes these other measures possible: we have to stay in Iraq and keep fighting.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/iraq_is_a_test_we_cannot_fail.html

[Spyder Jerusalem]

You are a fucking Hipocrit. It's not ok for us to kill terrorists but it's ok for Isralies to be slaughtered. You need some serious medication.


If we aren't the ones killin' people, fine.

That's all I ask.

That we Americans maintain the moral superiority that has made us great.
We lost that when we started entering wars for profit.

If the Israelis wind up gettin killed, well, guess what, ITS NOT OUR PROBLEM.
It doesn't seem to be our problem when millions are slaughtered in Darfur or Cambodia, so why are the Israelis so fuckin' important?
Could it be the christer "prophecy" connection?

Obviously, genocides, muders, and human suffering aren't enough to get us involved, so why should we be involved in that?

If the Israelis can't hold their own, then maybe they should move somewhere else.

Let these primitive ragheads fight it out amongst themselves, and worry about our own country for a change.

[nevadamedic]

If we aren't the ones killin' people, fine.

That's all I ask.

That we Americans maintain the moral superiority that has made us great.
We lost that when we started entering wars for profit.

If the Israelis wind up gettin killed, well, guess what, ITS NOT OUR PROBLEM.
It doesn't seem to be our problem when millions are slaughtered in Darfur or Cambodia, so why are the Israelis so fuckin' important?
Could it be the christer "prophecy" connection?

Obviously, genocides, muders, and human suffering aren't enough to get us involved, so why should we be involved in that?

If the Israelis can't hold their own, then maybe they should move somewhere else.

Let these primitive ragheads fight it out amongst themselves, and worry about our own country for a change.

Any time there has been a major genocide we have gotten involved moron. Think back to the Nazi's that you love to refference so much and your beloved Saddam.

[darin]

If they can't get to us, we win.



Interesting insights into the mind of a madman! :)
The only way we win, is to kill every-last one of 'them'. Their women and children, if required.

[nevadamedic]

Interesting insights into the mind of a madman! :)
The only way we win, is to kill every-last one of 'them'. Their women and children, if required.

Yup, casualties of War, better them then us...............:salute:

[Spyder Jerusalem]

I have never heard anyone so proud of murder.

Except Ted Bundy.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Interesting insights into the mind of a madman! :)
The only way we win, is to kill every-last one of 'them'. Their women and children, if required.

You disgust me.

I hope that for every woman and child that dies thanks to you, someone close to you in your life dies as well!

That is, if you have any.

With this kind of psycopathy, I doubt anyone can stand to be around you any longer than it takes to give you yer thorazine.

[nevadamedic]

You disgust me.

I hope that for every woman and child that dies thanks to you, someone close to you in your life dies as well!

That is, if you have any.

With this kind of psycopathy, I doubt anyone can stand to be around you any longer than it takes to give you yer thorazine.

That's it, start the personal attacks on a staff member, you really arn't that bright.

[nevadamedic]

I have never heard anyone so proud of murder.

Except Ted Bundy.

I'm proud of protecting our country BY ANY MEANS NECCISSARY.

[darin]

You disgust me.

I hope that for every woman and child that dies thanks to you, someone close to you in your life dies as well!

That is, if you have any.

With this kind of psycopathy, I doubt anyone can stand to be around you any longer than it takes to give you yer thorazine.

banned from thread.

[Sitarro]

He's a great pres like the Titanic was a solid ship.

How about addressing my post, you know, the part that has to do with the topic?
Or don't you know what a topic is?
You don't seem to.

Another silly quote or are you actually trying to say that President Bush IS a great President? The Titanic was a very solid ship......it sank because the pilot hit an iceberg not because of any flaws in the design.

You don't think before you speak do you spyder?

[nevadamedic]

Another silly quote or are you actually trying to say that President Bush IS a great President? The Titanic was a very solid ship......it sank because the pilot hit an iceberg not because of any flaws in the design.

You don't think before you speak do you spyder?

The only real flaw was the lack of Life Boats, as they wanted more deck space, but that didn't contribute to it sinking, it would have just saved the majority of the people on there.

[red states rule]

That's it, start the personal attacks on a staff member, you really arn't that bright.

Perhaps he will get some time off to cool down

[red states rule]

I'm proud of protecting our country BY ANY MEANS NECCISSARY.

Libs have put their party ahead of their country

[red states rule]

Here is another example on how Dems do not want to hear any good news coming form Iraq



Oh, Boyda: Kansas Congresswoman Walks out on General's Positive Iraq Testimony
By Tom Blumer | July 30, 2007 - 13:02 ET
From the Gavel -- At a House Armed Services Committee Hearing on Iraq Legislation this morning, Kansas Congresswoman Nancy Boyda apparently heard as much good news as she could stand.

So she did the old cut-and-run by walking out (as The Gavel explains, "She is responding in part to General Jack Keane, who testified before the Committee but left before Rep. Boyda’s remarks, and was reportedly one of the architects of the escalation policy"; there should probably be a "from" before the second mention of Keane's name):

"I was certainly hoping that General Keane would be able to be here as well. Let me say thank you very much for your testimony so much, Mr. Korb, and I just will make some statements more for the record based on what I heard mainly General Keane. As many of us, there was only so much that you could take until we, in fact, had to leave the room for a while, and so I think I am back and maybe can articulate some things that after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to."

"But let me just first say that the description of Iraq as if some way or another that it’s a place that I might take the family for a vacation, things are going so well, those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying here’s the reality of the problem and people, we have to come together and deal with the reality of this issue."


Note that she:

Is almost certainly mischaracterizing the general's testimony -- unless someone can find Iraq described by the general as a suitable family vacation destination (good luck).
Is afraid of positive news becoming known (this would appear to be a smoke signal to Old Media to ignore this testimony).
Is, in effect, calling an multi-star general a liar, even though he was likely under oath.
By walking out on a general's testimony, is showing that SHE is more interested in keeping opinion on Iraq divided than getting at the truth.
But she supports the troops. (/sarcasm)

Let's visit her campaign web site's home page, shall we? Going to the last paragraph:

Now our challenge is to turn the promise of our campaign into action in Congress. Kansans cast their ballots on Election Day to end the era of one-party rule, so I am working every day in Washington to replace partisanship with leadership.


Nancy Boyda's (possibly contrived?) hearing cut-and-run act was surely not an example of leadership.

From a Google cache of her "issues" page during her 2006 campaign (click on "Foreign Policy" to see the text; backup stored here in case Ms. Boyda has Google cache scrubbed):

"Stay the course" is a political slogan, not a military strategy.

The administration must establish a responsible, realistic plan for dealing with the insurgency and a timeline during which the Iraqi citizens must establish a viable government for themselves.


So the administration has refined its plan, and a general comes in to explain how it's going, in part to see if it meets Ms. Boyda's "responsible, realistic" criteria. Apparently, Boyda's definitions of "responsible" and "realistic" never encompassed "improving the situation in Iraq"; in fact, it seems that she can't even handle the idea that the situation might be improving. Her expressed fears that good news might actually be reported would seem to betray a wish on her part that the mission fail, and her belief that good news testified to by a multi-star general, probably under oath, shouldn't get out.

In light of her veiled plea to Old Media to ignore Keane's testimony, will be interesting indeed to see how Old Media will play the testimony and Ms. Boyda's snit fit, or whether it will bother to cover either.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2007/07/30/oh-bodya-kansas-congresswoman-walks-out-generas-positive-iraq-testimony

[red states rule]

Any time there has been a major genocide we have gotten involved moron. Think back to the Nazi's that you love to refference so much and your beloved Saddam.

Dems do have their plan to fight terrorism

Murtha/Pelosi blueprint for defeat
With Congress's August recess less than one week away, it should hardly come as a surprise that Rep. John Murtha, the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, is readying more legislative mischief. Mr. Murtha, a close political ally of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has made it clear that plans to use the $459.6 billion defense appropriations bill, which comes to the floor this week, to short-circuit the current military campaign against jihadists in Iraq and shut down the prison at Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo).

Mr. Murtha plans to offer three amendments to the fiscal 2008 defense appropriations bill: One would set a 60-day timeline to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq (which will certainly help al Qaeda and the like in planning the Rwanda-ization of the country). A second Murtha amendment would implement the Pennsylvania Democrat's "slow-bleed" strategy for ensuring a U.S. military defeat by conditioning funds for the war upon the military meeting some unattainable standards for training and equipping the troops. Should the administrate violate the strictures in an effort to reinforce besieged American soldiers or prevent genocide, we have no doubt that if the Democrats are still in the majority that they will be holding oversight hearings and issuing subpoenas to U.S. military commanders and senior Pentagon officials, summoning them to testify about "why they broke the law" by sending these soldiers to the battlefield.

Mr. Murtha's third amendment would close the Guantanamo Bay facility. He hasn't said precisely what he wants to do with these terrorists, but his Democratic colleagues have weighed in, including Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia (who has been perhaps the most fervent congressional advocate of shutting down Gitmo) as well as House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton of Missouri and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan.

Messrs. Skelton and Conyers want to grant the detainees habeas corpus rights, permitting them to challenge their detentions in federal court. while Mr. Moran has suggested: 1) sending them back to their countries of origin (he doesn't specify whether these people would be turned over to security services in countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, or set free to rejoin their jihadist comrades on the battlefield — something that has already happened in at least 12 cases involving prisoners released from Gitmo); or 2) imprisoning them here. By arming unlawful combatants captured on the battlefield with a panoply of rights a la American criminal defendants, the Democrats are creating a perverse incentive for foreign enemies of the United States join terrorist groups and violate the laws of war — knowing that even if they behave as barbarians, they can fight everything out in U.S. courts, represented by lawyers working with groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights.

While we're discussing new "rights" for Gitmo detainees, there's new evidence suggesting it is false to assert that most of the men locked up there are hapless innocents or low-level functionaries who pose no real threat to American forces. A new study published by the Combatting Terrorism Center at West Point concludes that between 73 and 95 percent of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners represent a threat to U.S. forces; they include veterans of terrorist training camps, al Qaeda fighters and men who have experience with explosives, rocket-propelled grenades and sniper rifles.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070730/EDITORIAL/107300002

[theHawk]

Dems do have their plan to fight terrorism

Murtha/Pelosi blueprint for defeat
With Congress's August recess less than one week away, it should hardly come as a surprise that Rep. John Murtha, the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, is readying more legislative mischief. Mr. Murtha, a close political ally of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has made it clear that plans to use the $459.6 billion defense appropriations bill, which comes to the floor this week, to short-circuit the current military campaign against jihadists in Iraq and shut down the prison at Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo).

Mr. Murtha plans to offer three amendments to the fiscal 2008 defense appropriations bill: One would set a 60-day timeline to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq (which will certainly help al Qaeda and the like in planning the Rwanda-ization of the country). A second Murtha amendment would implement the Pennsylvania Democrat's "slow-bleed" strategy for ensuring a U.S. military defeat by conditioning funds for the war upon the military meeting some unattainable standards for training and equipping the troops. Should the administrate violate the strictures in an effort to reinforce besieged American soldiers or prevent genocide, we have no doubt that if the Democrats are still in the majority that they will be holding oversight hearings and issuing subpoenas to U.S. military commanders and senior Pentagon officials, summoning them to testify about "why they broke the law" by sending these soldiers to the battlefield.

Mr. Murtha's third amendment would close the Guantanamo Bay facility. He hasn't said precisely what he wants to do with these terrorists, but his Democratic colleagues have weighed in, including Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia (who has been perhaps the most fervent congressional advocate of shutting down Gitmo) as well as House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton of Missouri and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan.

Messrs. Skelton and Conyers want to grant the detainees habeas corpus rights, permitting them to challenge their detentions in federal court. while Mr. Moran has suggested: 1) sending them back to their countries of origin (he doesn't specify whether these people would be turned over to security services in countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, or set free to rejoin their jihadist comrades on the battlefield — something that has already happened in at least 12 cases involving prisoners released from Gitmo); or 2) imprisoning them here. By arming unlawful combatants captured on the battlefield with a panoply of rights a la American criminal defendants, the Democrats are creating a perverse incentive for foreign enemies of the United States join terrorist groups and violate the laws of war — knowing that even if they behave as barbarians, they can fight everything out in U.S. courts, represented by lawyers working with groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights.

While we're discussing new "rights" for Gitmo detainees, there's new evidence suggesting it is false to assert that most of the men locked up there are hapless innocents or low-level functionaries who pose no real threat to American forces. A new study published by the Combatting Terrorism Center at West Point concludes that between 73 and 95 percent of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners represent a threat to U.S. forces; they include veterans of terrorist training camps, al Qaeda fighters and men who have experience with explosives, rocket-propelled grenades and sniper rifles.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070730/EDITORIAL/107300002

Its pretty scary to think we have politicians that actually want to free the terrorists that are in Gitmo. These are shitbags that were caught on the battlefield trying to kill our soldiers. Of course libs will argue that if thats the case then it should be easy to convict them in a court of law. The only problem is that would require the testamony of soldiers. Soldiers we need over there fighting a war, not stateside as part of a long and dragged out court case. Not to mention what happens if a soldier witness gets killed in action during the war? The terrorist will get to walk. But of course libs never think of these things, they just want to see their Bush-hating heros get a "fair trial" and afforded all the rights of Americans.

:pee: Liberals

[Gaffer]

Its pretty scary to think we have politicians that actually want to free the terrorists that are in Gitmo. These are shitbags that were caught on the battlefield trying to kill our soldiers. Of course libs will argue that if thats the case then it should be easy to convict them in a court of law. The only problem is that would require the testamony of soldiers. Soldiers we need over there fighting a war, not stateside as part of a long and dragged out court case. Not to mention what happens if a soldier witness gets killed in action during the war? The terrorist will get to walk. But of course libs never think of these things, they just want to see their Bush-hating heros get a "fair trial" and afforded all the rights of Americans.

:pee: Liberals

The libs are at war with Bush, they have stated as much. Anything is acceptable to be used in this war. Even the enemies of America. It has nothing to do with the prisoner rights or the risk in lives of our troops. It's all about bringing down Bush.

[nevadamedic]

The libs are at war with Bush, they have stated as much. Anything is acceptable to be used in this war. Even the enemies of America. It has nothing to do with the prisoner rights or the risk in lives of our troops. It's all about bringing down Bush.

And blaming our President for everything they can think of including the weather.

[red states rule]

Its pretty scary to think we have politicians that actually want to free the terrorists that are in Gitmo. These are shitbags that were caught on the battlefield trying to kill our soldiers. Of course libs will argue that if thats the case then it should be easy to convict them in a court of law. The only problem is that would require the testamony of soldiers. Soldiers we need over there fighting a war, not stateside as part of a long and dragged out court case. Not to mention what happens if a soldier witness gets killed in action during the war? The terrorist will get to walk. But of course libs never think of these things, they just want to see their Bush-hating heros get a "fair trial" and afforded all the rights of Americans.

:pee: Liberals

When having to stand up to terrorists libs piss there pants

The yellow stain on the ground matchs the streak down their backs

[red states rule]

And blaming our President for everything they can think of including the weather.

Libs will blame Bush for anything and everything


George Bush Broke the Fan Belt on My Mother's '95 Jeep Cherokee
At 10 o'clock this morning, received a desperate call from my dear mother.

"Damn that Bush!" she cried. "Damn him to HELL!"

"Take it easy, Ma. What's the problem?"

"My car broke down!" she told me. "I have an appointment at the unemployment office to extend my benefits another two years, and I have no way to get there! DAMN THAT BUSH! He sent my job overseas, and now he's trying to take my unemployment insurance away! What am I going to do?"

Ma has been out of work since Boeing laid her off in 2002, thanks to Bush and his tax cuts for the rich. The union hasn't called her back, and no one is hiring 65 year old Airplane Restroom Toilet Paper Dispenser Installers anymore. So she's had to subsist on her pension, social security, her 401k, alimony checks, welfare, and unemployment insurance benefits for the past two years.

"Don't worry, Ma. Tell me where you are and I'll come help."

"At the White Horse Tavern in Marysville. That's as far as I made it before the damn thing quit!"

"Mom, that's totally the opposite direction of the unemployment office."

"Oh that Bush has got me so riled up, I've lost all sense of direction!" Ma cried.

"No biggie, Ma, I'll be there as soon as I can."

"Thank you, dear. I'll go inside and have a beer while I wait."

I arrived at the White Horse a couple hours later. Sure enough, Ma was inside nursing a pounder at the bar when I walked in.

"Oh Larry, thank God you're here!" she greeted me. "I don't know what I'm going to do...I'm out of work, my unemployment benefits have expired, and now my car won't run! I'm going to wind up eating dog food right out of the can, thanks to Bush and his tax cuts for the rich!"

"Would you like some more pull tabs, Mrs. Chomstein?" the bartended interrupted.

"Yeah, gimme fifty bucks on number 10," my Mom told him. "Lotta good it'll do me...I haven't won shit since Bush put on a flight suit and announced 'mission accomplished' from the deck of that aircraft carrier."

"Well, Ma, I'll go out and have a look at the car. Maybe I can fix it."

"Bless your heart, dear," she said, handing me her keys. "I'll have another beer while I wait."

When I popped the hood open on the Jeep, I could immediately tell what the problem was - the fan belt was broken. But upon closer inspection, it became obviuous that it had been cleanly and intentionally cut. I took the broken belt back inside the tavern and showed it to Ma.

"Damn that Bush!" she screeched with anger, her face turning a deep red. "That BASTARD cut my fan belt! Oooh he really knows how to PISS ME OFF! I haven't been this mad since Nixon stole my panties at Woodstock! DAMN HIM! DAMN HIM! DAMN HIM!"

"Calm down, Ma!" I told her. She was lapsing into one of her Sam Kinison screaming fits, and was already drawing a small crowd of slack-jawed gawkers. "Just relax, it's an easy fix. I'll just drive up to the auto parts store and get a new fan belt."

"Oh thank you so much, sweetheart," Ma replied, relaxing a little. "I'll have another beer while I wait."

An hour later, I had the new belt installed and the Jeep was ready to go - just as Ma came stumbling out of the bar, blood gushing from her mouth.

"Holy crap, what happened to you?"

"Oh I fell down in the baffroom and broke my toof on the edge of the terlet," Ma explained.

"DAMN THAT BUSH!" we both shouted in unison.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2004/02/at_10_oclock_th.html

[red states rule]

NYT Columnist: Laura Bush Like Deranged '24' First Lady & Evil Harry Potter Character
By Mark Finkelstein | July 31, 2007 - 16:05 ET
Bush hatred has taken on a new, virulent mutation: animus towards First Lady Laura Bush. Witness today's New York Times column by Judith Warner, ‘24’ as Reality Show [subscripton required].

Warner's jumping off point is Kiefer Sutherland's response to a question about the advent in this coming season's "24" of a woman president. Observed the actor who plays Jack Bauer: “I can tell you one thing. We had the first African-American president on television, and now Barack Obama is a serious candidate. That wasn’t going to happen eight years ago. Television is an incredibly powerful medium, and it can be the first step in showing people what is possible.”

That prompted Warner to write:


I giggled a bit nastily over this at first. What was next — claims that fingering China as a one-nation axis of evil on “24” had presaged the country’s exposure this spring as the source of all perishables tainted and fatal? That screen first lady Martha Logan’s descent into minimadness anticipated Laura Bush’s increasingly beleaguered late-term demeanor? (Has anyone but me noticed her astounding resemblance to Dolores Umbridge in “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix”?)

"24" aficionados know that Logan is a former First Lady gone mad who is currently institutionalized at a mental health facility. According to Wikipedia, "a quick scale of squeaky notes would accompany the background soundtrack whenever her character appeared, known affectionately among fans as the "cuckoo music.'"

As for Dolores Umbridge, she was one of Harry Potter's antagonists. She was the High Inquisitioner at Hogwart's School, known [per Wikipedia] for "cruelty and abusive punishments against students; she stands out especially for forcing Harry and Lee Jordan, and, it is assumed, other students who get detention from her, to write lines using a quill that magically causes the words to be cut into the skin on the back of the writer's hand and uses their blood as ink."

So Laura Bush reminds Judith Warner of deranged, cruel and abusive-to-children characters. I might suggest that the derangement resides in this author, prey to a particularly pernicious new form of BDS.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/07/31/times-columnist-laura-bush-resembles-deranged-24-first-lady-evil-h