Jun 06 2007

Are We Safer? Are We Fighting Back!?

Published by at 9:37 am under All General Discussions,Bin Laden/GWOT

Democrats ask the silliest questions. Their entire debate seemed to be about “are we safer” since 9-11 and George Bush. The answer is yes on many levels. The real question is “are we fighting back? Are we defending ourselves?”. The answer is a resounding “hell yes!” And of course to fight back means to take casualties. So the question to dems is “should we stop trying to fight back?” That is their Surrendercrat proposal. Give up and accept defeat and let Islamo Fascism roll over us. We are not only safer, we are fighting back in order to survive. The option is….?

4 responses so far

4 Responses to “Are We Safer? Are We Fighting Back!?”

  1. kathie says:

    Medical care for all, more affordable education for all, do something about Louisiana, raise taxes, did I forget something? Remember the GWOT is a bumper sticker.

  2. kathie says:

    Medical care for all, more affordable education for all, do something about Louisiana, raise taxes, did I forget something? Remember the GWOT is a bumper sticker.

  3. Soothsayer says:

    Safer??

    As a result of the ill-advised and illegal invasion of Iraq? I think not. The surge is accomplishing only one thing – more of our troops are being killed faster. Thanks again, George.

    Meanwhile . . . one of our “allies” is sending aeveral thousand troops across the Turkish/Iraqi border in northern Iraq to chase Kurdish guerrillas who operate from bases there. Talk about a potential disaster . . .

    In other news from Iraq – it appears Iraqi police have been setting roadside bombs that kill US troops. We can’t trust Iraqi troops or police, because as far as we know – they’re all operating under hidden agendas.

    Republican contenders are in an all-out race to distance themselves from the discredited policies of George Bush and his support is crashing among conservatives, reports the latest Pew poll:

    For the first time in Pew Research Center polling, disapproval of President Bush’s job performance outnumbers approval by more than two-to-one (61% disapprove, 29% approve). Bush’s job approval is down six points from April, and is three points below the previous low measured in November and December of 2006. The decline in Bush’s support is most notable among Republicans.

    Add to this the fact that Gen. Sanchez has now thrown in the towel:

    The man who commanded US-led coalition forces during the first year of the Iraq war says the United States can forget about winning the war. I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time. Sanchez called the situation in Iraq bleak, which he blamed on “the abysmal performance in the early stages and the transition of sovereignty.

    Again, thank you George and Dick for the most miserable job ever done by a president and vice president in the history of our Republic.

  4. thecentercannothold says:

    3700 killed and 35,000 maimed for life in the 2001-2007
    period show we have not been “safer” in that period. Yet
    corporate talk show diletantees who ran fromVietnam service
    are busily lying about Vietnam’s end and the Korean no-win
    war to justify continued quagmire-and permanent bases in
    Iraq.

    EG Clear Channel’s Mike “chickenhawk” McConnell
    infers America should have stayed in Vietnam to the present
    if it would have avoided the ensuing bloodbath-even though
    the South Vietnamese government , like the Iraqi government,
    showed no signs of stabilizing on its own-and ignoring, of course
    American invasions of both nations CAUSED whatever bloodbath
    ensued after departure.

    Bush (and McConnell) should recognize , there will be no Korean/European style bases established–the Iraqi insurgents will
    relentlessly attack any such attempt and supply lines could not be maintained.

    The troops should be removed and some placed where they can
    do some good-the Rio Grande.