Jun 06 2007
Are We Safer? Are We Fighting Back!?
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….?
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.
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.
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:
Add to this the fact that Gen. Sanchez has now thrown in the towel:
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.
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.