Obama Pulls a Kerry, Bashing the Troops

[fossten]

Yes..you are correct. But they flew in from Afghanistan or Sudan or some other places. These weren't local Al-Queda operatives living in Iraq. Again..there was no "strong" presence in Iraq.


There is also evidence (and photos) of US officials meeting with Taliban terrorists in the US. Does that mean there was a "strong" Taliban presence in the US and that the US was a haven for terrorists? Add to that fact the US gave the Taliban millions of dollars. On the surface, if you were so inclined, you could say by these actions the US is friendly to terrorist groups like the Taliban. (you'd have to be on many illegal drugs to think this though!) Afterall..we all know what would be said if Saddam was giving millions to the Taliban and hosting lavish parties for them as was done for the Taliban visit to Texas.

I don't disagree that Al Queda had been in Iraq. But I disagree that they had a strong or large co-ordinated group there that precipitated the Iraq war.

I'll bet you don't even understand the Bush quote you are using as your sig. If you did, you wouldn't use it. He's referring to catapulting the propaganda put forth by the Democrat Party and the media by repeating the truth over and over again, because it doesn't take long for a false story to get legs when it's supported by the media.

Funny how you take things out of context. Go find another Bush quote that actually represents what you believe, that Bush sucks. Or leave it as it is and I will continue to laugh at you.

 

[daves2000ls]

You quote the man, then don't refer at all to the quote. Nor did you rebutte anything about the US allowing Taliban terrorists to stay at the Bush ranch in Crawford, TX, or about the terrorist bases in countries other than Iraq. If we truly want to take this war to our enemies we need to get our army on the move. To sit in one country and take casualty after casualty for the better part of the decade is not the way to win a war. When the Allies invaded Normandy in 1944 did they sit around and wait for the Nazis to send reinforcements to France. NO! They sent out the Air Corps to cut off the transportation of their troops to the battlefield. They fought tenaciously to breakout of the hedgerows. In Viet Nam did our country go into Cambodia and Laos to cut the Ho Chi Minh trail? Yes, but to a limited extent, and only after the public support for the war had wained. I believe that this war has passed the critical point of mobility and has become a static war, much like the Great War did in 1915. And what came of that war: Armistice (peace until the next war). And that peace only lasted 21 years. Really, only 13 years. From 1918 to when the Japanese invaded Manchuria in 1931. The Germans were at it again before 25 years could pass ( Armistice Day = 11 November 1918. Invasion of Poland =1 September 1939). To win this war on terror we must actively seek and destroy ANY terrorist camp in ANY country, even our own, with fury that hath not been seen since the closing days of the Korean conflict.
You only spoke of the Bush quote in his signature, which is irrelevant.

 

[RRocket]

I'll bet you don't even understand the Bush quote you are using as your sig. If you did, you wouldn't use it. He's referring to catapulting the propaganda put forth by the Democrat Party and the media by repeating the truth over and over again, because it doesn't take long for a false story to get legs when it's supported by the media.

Funny how you take things out of context. Go find another Bush quote that actually represents what you believe, that Bush sucks. Or leave it as it is and I will continue to laugh at you.

Fossten,

I think you might be mistaken. He is not referring to the Democratic Party. Heck..he didn't say anything negative about the democratic party or ANY of his detractors when he said that. He even made a joke about it and the people laughed. He was talking about how his new social security might work, and he repeated some things several times prior. Here's the actual paragraph.

"Now, a personal savings account would be a part of a Social Security retirement system. It would be a part of what you would have to retire when you reach retirement age. As you -- as I mentioned to you earlier, we're going to redesign the current system. If you've retired, you don't have anything to worry about -- third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

Boy...you sure took quite the leap to determine what he said was referring to the Democrats....or anybody else for that matter. Here...read the whole thing and you'll see nothing of what you mentioned. Who's taking what out of context exactly??

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html


Oh...and since when do we have to "set-up" our signatures to make sure everyone knows what context they are in? I mean...look at YOUR signature. I suppose you could say it was taken out of context because what she said was:

"I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to find alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence!"

Though to be fair, she has used that speech a few different times, so who knows which iteration of it you are using. But I think I'm annoyed that she used the word "alternative" twice in the same sentence.

So to help you feel warm and fuzzy, I've added a little bit to my sig. I mean it doesn't bother me that you took her comment out of context.....But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, man!

 

[fossten]

Fossten,

I think you might be mistaken. He is not referring to the Democratic Party. Heck..he didn't say anything negative about the democratic party or ANY of his detractors when he said that. He even made a joke about it and the people laughed. He was talking about how his new social security might work, and he repeated some things several times prior. Here's the actual paragraph.

"Now, a personal savings account would be a part of a Social Security retirement system. It would be a part of what you would have to retire when you reach retirement age. As you -- as I mentioned to you earlier, we're going to redesign the current system. If you've retired, you don't have anything to worry about -- third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

Boy...you sure took quite the leap to determine what he said was referring to the Democrats....or anybody else for that matter. Here...read the whole thing and you'll see nothing of what you mentioned. Who's taking what out of context exactly??

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html


Oh...and since when do we have to "set-up" our signatures to make sure everyone knows what context they are in? I mean...look at YOUR signature. I suppose you could say it was taken out of context because what she said was:

"I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to find alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence!"

Though to be fair, she has used that speech a few different times, so who knows which iteration of it you are using. But I think I'm annoyed that she used the word "alternative" twice in the same sentence.

So to help you feel warm and fuzzy, I've added a little bit to my sig. I mean it doesn't bother me that you took her comment out of context.....But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, man!

I guess living in a socialist society, you aren't disturbed by Hillary's words about wanting to "take those profits," considering she didn't earn those profits. That's understandable. Of course, it wouldn't take more than one such incident for the oil companies to stop producing. But I guess the meaning of such a Stalinist, Chavez-ian phrase is lost on you.