Renamblacans harder on(in?) pages.

Osama?

Yo Mama!!

Reps are soft on terrorists---they aren't even chasing any. All they are doing is invading a country that was no threat to us and calling its citizens terrorists. Dems would actually catch Osama.

Guaranteed that under republicans Osama will never never never never never never be caught.

The stench of failure is all over this administration. Tick Tock, Tick Tock.

Dems soft on terror...Repubs soft on not spending money like drunken sailors.

Fair enough.

Bush can interrogate and spy on Al-Queda all he wants, nobody is stopping him.
He just can't torture.
And is this even an issue? Torture has been proven to provide unreliable information.

As for interrogating and spying on Americans, nobody's even stopping that either.
All Bush has to do is get a warrant and he can find out the name of your immaginary friend from 2nd grade.


But as to Bush's main charge, I admit I am guilty as charged.
I would refuse to violate the Constitution under any circumstance, even if I felt it put American lives at greater risk.

It's called Live Free or Die!
But of course, that requires balls, something neocons don't have.

Bush can't run on anything positive because everything he has done is negative and reeks of failure.

This includes dealing with "terror". We're supposed to believe that this useless, worthless imbecile will handle terror better than his dog Barney or the Democrats. Give me a break.

Dems 'Softer' on Terrorists

The Reps shouldn't sell themselves short. Reps are just as soft on terrorists as anybody. If someone else was in power we might be using our military to actually hit terrorists, instead of just using them as a security detail while the military contractors line their pockets. What a rip.

What does Bush want? He just got Habeus Corpus thrown out of 'terrorists' cases and is doing everythng the terrorists wanted short of declaring the Constitution null and void. Given them Iraq as a main recruiting tool), and instilled fear with rhetoric not matched by accomplishment.

The Bush Administration's own ineptness is a much greater threat of being 'soft' on terrorism. We are LESS safe from their efforts. That nugget comes from all quarters. Heck, they didn't even care enough to catch Public Enemy #1, Osama Bin Laden in FIVE years.

And Afghanistan is falling apart and we can't spare the troops to save it before it's too late. "Georgie Boy, you're doin' a heck of a job".

"Dems 'Softer' on Terrorists"

This implies that Republiphiles are soft on terrorists.

Bush "Soft between the ears".

Bush is soft on terror.

Proof?

There are more terrorists.

Pretty easy math.

Bush: Soft on facts. Soft on truth. Soft on responsibility. Soft on success.


Need I go on?

I'm still waiting for OBL to make an appearance before the erection. Or have they finally figured out that that card has been played too often?

Bush, or rather the guy with his hand up Bush's back, pulling the strings that make his jaw go up and down, wants to sell the erection on bumper-sticker slogans. It's a panic move. ANYONE who looks behind his nonesense can see that it's baseless. They're hoping to net the few who don't look. Thing is, those votes are already going to the Right, so I guess it's a matter pf preaching to the choir which is a pretty bad sign, politically.

Bush "Soft between the ears".

Posted by itsme at 2006-10-05 07:40 AM

I disagree. "Soft" between the ears would indicate the presence of grey matter...

Renamblacans harder on(in?) pages.

Posted by northguy3 at 2006-10-04 10:30 PM | Reply | Flag


am I supposed to feel bad for thinking that this is pretty funny?

well lets see here...

dems love it when the times and other papers give out classified information as long as it is anti bush

dems dont want to interrogate prisoneers if it might make them feel bad about themselves and ooooooooooo it might even hurt the nice old terrorist

dems WILL cut and run from iraq if they have a majority


dems have offered virtually NOTHING in the way as a plan for victory.



and lets see....there were a couple of comments that there are more terrorists now than before......please... again lets get in the 'way back' machine to the 40's...

well mister roosevelt.....we really shouldn't attack the japs in okinaw and are you really planning a bombing raid on japan with that doolittle nut......dont you know that you will just make them mad and MORE JAPS WILL SHOW UP.........

glad that some of you werent in control at this time.

"dems WILL cut and run from iraq if they have a majority"

HUH??

What happened to "dems will not win in Nov"????

Not so sure of your party anymore, are ya??

"One hundred and seventy-seven of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists,' " Bush said.

This is an outragious lie. They did not vote against 'listening to terrorists'- they voted against the President's unfettered access to conversations between anybody and anybody. The man is continuing to try to scrape up the 'fear factor'.

Well, FEAR OF BUSH is going to cost him and his bullies.

well lets see here...

dems love it when the times and other papers give out classified information as long as it is anti bush

TH: That is a lie.

dems dont want to interrogate prisoneers if it might make them feel bad about themselves and ooooooooooo it might even hurt the nice old terrorist

TH: that is a lie. Torture is ineffective and counterproductive-fact.
EXAMPLE-Incorrect intel that was used to justify invasion of Iraq was garnered from torture.


dems WILL cut and run from iraq if they have a majority

TH:That is a lie. Dems will come up with an alternative to the failure policies currently in place.


dems have offered virtually NOTHING in the way as a plan for victory.

TH: that is a lie, many democrats have come up with a variety of plans. Bush has NO Plan for Iraq, that is proven.



and lets see....there were a couple of comments that there are more terrorists now than before......please... again lets get in the 'way back' machine to the 40's...

TH: There are more "terrorists" now than in 2001. Fact. Bush is a failure in war on terror. Proof? There are more terrorists and more terrorist activities 5 years later, not fewer not slightly more, far more. That is called failure.

well mister roosevelt.....we really shouldn't attack the japs in okinaw and are you really planning a bombing raid on japan with that doolittle nut......dont you know that you will just make them mad and MORE JAPS WILL SHOW UP.........

TH: from December 7 1941 til August 1945, FDR mobilized the american people built and maintained a unified allied effort and targetted the people who attacked us. Compare that with bush's accomplishments.

glad that some of you werent in control at this time.

TH: please attempt to list 3 successes bush has achieved.

3 successes??

Ha! That's too easy.

First there's...no that didn't work, Oh wait! How about...ummm no.

I'll get back to you.

BLT

TH: that is a lie, many democrats have come up with a variety of plans. Bush has NO Plan for Iraq, that is proven.

Who are they, and what have they stated, besides "run away"? I can only laugh at the cut-and-run party trying to act like it finally has a backbone. My aunt's chihuahua puffs out its chest and lets off a mean growl, but I don't take that seriously either. Go back to focusing on pedofoley, as it doesn't involve a whole lot of thinking or doing much of anything. You guys got that down to a science.

Yeah, and sooo much "thinking" was done before we invaded Iraq.

Now run along and ply with Auntie's poochy.

cookfish,
a. Please see Murtha and Biden to begin with. Please read my previous posts for a nonpolitician's plan, to begin with.

b. what is bush's plan and please demonstrate how he is implementing a winning strategy in Iraq?

WHen answering point b please address the significant increase in violence in Iraq.

Please also point to specific policies measures that support the presidents rhethoric.

For example bush constantly points out the importance of winning in Iraq, how it is so important to our security and the world's security.(that is rhethoric).

What specific policies is he implementing to make sure we win in Iraq.

Go back to point b and see how Iraq is falling apart, that there is no security and democracy and freedom are failing in Iraq. EXAMPLE are you aware that freedom of speech is being limited in Iraq using laws with the same exact language that Saddam used?


If you do not respond with specifics I will consider you a punk.

BTW stay the course is not a plan, that is called rhethoric.

truth........so you are saying that dems didnt have a couple of parades and lots of back slapping and harumps when the times let out classified secrets in a time of war.......please....'aint' buying that


the left's defintion of torture is really what matters here, I think.


and just what is this DEM PLAN to achieve victory in iraq? havent heard much about it.....


and how many times must we mention this...
from the LA times and the pen of lowrey and rivkin........

"leaving aside the issue of how and when alqaida came to be in iraq. It is there now, and it considers iraq a central battlefield. What we are fighting to prevent in iraq...a country, or a chunk of it, established as a terrorist base,.....is exactly what we fought to detroy in afghansitan immediately after 9/11 and are fighting to prevent for reemerging there now."


there are more terrorist in iraq because as in the opinon of this writer and me........cause thats where the war is.........

Redeployment is not cut n run, I don't care how many fake votes the repubs run on the subject.

truthhurts- Hope is not a plan either.

Democrats are NOT against listening in on terrorists phone calls.

We are for doing it legally with judicial oversight.

Democrats are NOT against interrogating terrorists.

We are for not using torture because torture is counterproductive and ineffective and against the basic tenets of our countries values.

Democrats are not against improving our police's abilities to fight "terrorists".

We are for protecting US Citizens basic rights so that we do not live in a police state. We recognize that hte best way to fight "terrorists" is to spread freedom not to impede it.

Cookfish buys in to the party of catch-phrases:

"Stay the Course"

"Mission Accomplished"

"Bring it on"

"Cut and run"

"They stand up, we stand down"

"they were for it, before they were against it"

"I'm the Decider"

"Islamofascists"

I'm sure I am missing dozens of Rovian catch phrases... too bad catch phrases and buzz words seem to be all that the Repubs and Admin. can come up with. Finally, America is starting to wake up to see behind the words.... that the Emperor has no clothes and the Wizard is just a weak-willed fat old man pulling the levers "Don't look behind the curtains!!".

We should have a thread dedicated to memorializing catch phrases and buzzwords used by the Republicans.... I sense that it would be great comedy!!

Bush has proven that he doesn't know who the terrorists are. You shouldn't get to criticize others on this topic when you responded to 9/11 by focusing most the attention on Iraq.

What's the Repud plan for victory in Iraq BLT?

You know, the guys who got us into this clusterfuck?

Haven't they come up with new to accuse the dems of? I'm really sick of the same ole same ole stuff from these ass clowns.

Democrats are NOT against listening in on terrorists phone calls.

We are for doing it legally with judicial oversight.

Democrats are NOT against interrogating terrorists.

We are for not using torture because torture is counterproductive and ineffective and against the basic tenets of our countries values.

Democrats are not against improving our police's abilities to fight "terrorists".

We are for protecting US Citizens basic rights so that we do not live in a police state. We recognize that hte best way to fight "terrorists" is to spread freedom not to impede it.

Posted by truthhurts at 2006-10-05 09:08 AM | Reply | Flag:


I agree 100%.Though I'd say this goes for most sane people.

Dfiant- "foley is a democrat"

Hey BLT? Didi you get your invite to the big 20 million dollar "Victory Party"?

rofl

Apparently BLT has "cut and run"!

truth........so you are saying that dems didnt have a couple of parades and lots of back slapping and harumps when the times let out classified secrets in a time of war.......please....'aint' buying that

TH: where were these parades? I did not see them. Release of spying story, very very important.

the left's defintion of torture is really what matters here, I think.

TH: have you read the torture legislation? Basically anything not causing death or dismemberment is ok. Please read the legislation. Some legal scholars believe that killing and or dismemberment, when not combined with another act, is no longer a prosecutable offense.


and just what is this DEM PLAN to achieve victory in iraq? havent heard much about it.....

TH: Please see Biden. FOr me the first thing is to define victory and by define it means more than just stable iraq cause we had that pre 3/03. i will be happy to debate that subject, something republicans are very hesitant about doing.


and how many times must we mention this...
from the LA times and the pen of lowrey and rivkin........

"leaving aside the issue of how and when alqaida came to be in iraq. It is there now, and it considers iraq a central battlefield. What we are fighting to prevent in iraq...a country, or a chunk of it, established as a terrorist base,.....is exactly what we fought to detroy in afghansitan immediately after 9/11 and are fighting to prevent for reemerging there now."

TH: have you any understanding of the concept of a catch 22? Iraq is the purest example of it.


there are more terrorist in iraq because as in the opinon of this writer and me........cause thats where the war is.........


TH:Define terrorists. Iraqi violence is a sunni shiite struggle for control of Iraq. Terrorists is a word with an infinite number of definitions and is a very counterproductive term to use when trying to solve a problem.

I agree Iraq is a major problem. I agree that Iraq is important. I agree we hold an incredible responsibility to correct.

However, the US cannot solve the problem unless we provide true security until a stable society can be established. Otherwise our presence is a magnet and catalyst for violence. see that is catch 22. If we stay we bring stability and instability.

"there are more terrorist in iraq because as in the opinon of this writer and me........cause thats where the war is........."

How can people like you not see, that terrorists by their very definition do not engage in conventional warfare?? Iraq may be a recruiting ground, but any recruits bent on hurting us WILL NOT STAY THERE. They can't stand against the American military.... its the most basic, common sense that they will commit terrorist acts elsewhere, WHERE WE ARE VULNERABLE.

Terrorists are about TERROR, they can't sow terror where we expect attacks (like in Iraq). Most of the violence in Iraq is sectarian Sunni-Shia, with a dabble of nationalists who just want foreign soldiers out of their country.

True terrorists.... its a lifelong pursuit. They'll feel no need for a victory in Iraq, when they have safe havens in Syria, Pakistan, Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon.... and throughout the world. If their goal is to hurt the U.S. and U.S. interests around the world... then Iraq is the least of their targets. We've screwed it up enough already, as it is.

terrorist terror tereror terrororoer teroroeror terrorer

chist this is nonsense.

terrorists are anyone bush deciderers is.

Iraq is in a civil war. that is one group of iraqis fighting another. There are a few, very few foreigners in the country.

Get used to that fact.

By removing sh and destabilizing the country we helped create the insurgency which we are now calling terrorists.

If bush were serious about Iraq he would secure the country so that a democracy could flourish.

That would require significantly more troops.

Troops that we do not have.

That is why Iraq is what Iraq is.

Get used to it.

Bush's strategy?

Woodward: Rumsfeld sees this (Condi's strategy that she release to the Press) and goes ballistic and says, "now wait a minute, that's not our strategy. We want to get the Iraqis to do these things." Well, it turns out George Bush and the white house liked this definition of the strategy, so it's in a presidential speech he's going to give the next month. Rumsfeld sees it. He calls Andy Card, the white house chief of staff, and says, "take it out. Take it out. That's not our strategy. We can't do that." Card says, "it's the core of what we're doing." That's two and a half years after the invasion of Iraq. They cannot agree on the definition of the strategy. They cannot agree on the bumper sticker.

TH, your post at 9:21 sums it up quite well.

However, the US cannot solve the problem unless we provide true security until a stable society can be established. Otherwise our presence is a magnet and catalyst for violence. see that is catch 22. If we stay we bring stability and instability.

Posted by truthhurts at 2006-10-05 09:17 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


cant disagree with this much....but how do we do that if we ...yes I will say it....cut and run?


DATA>......thank you..it makes my day to think that I have tortured you....its called justice for all the torture you brought to your teachers with your trombone.......LOL

I think we'll have to start calling the Republican strategy "Stay and die" just to be rhetorically fair.

well I think democrats should be for more than bullshit sloganeering which is all that hte Repubs are good at.

However I prefer the slogan

America Tortures.

To remind people of who faux christian George Bush really is.

Non-Headline:

"Boy dunder and WH admin soft in the head"

I think I'm going to make a black square window sticker with a big white "W" in it, and under it instead of "The President" I'm going to put "The Torturer" in red.

Bush claims Dems are soft on terror while Bill Frist says we need to allow the Taliban back into the government of Afghanistan. If my memory serves me correctly, the Taliban protected Osama and Al Quaeda and refused to change course even when Bush threatened to go to war against them. NOTHING HAS CHANGED ABOUT THAT! If anyone is soft on terror it would be the Senate majority leader (probably a Democrat according to Faux News).

cant disagree with this much....but how do we do that if we ...yes I will say it....cut and run?

The question I have for you BL2 is,
Is there anything Bush is planning to do differently in the next two years than he's done in the last 3?
If I vote for the GOP, are things goint to change?

Because at this point, with soldiers dying in Iraq for nothing, I'll vote for Cut 'n Run before I vote for Stay the Course.

So what is the GOP plan? Are we sending more troops? Are we changing tactics, changing strategies?
Are our soldiers going to do anything more than be human IED detectors?
Is that your idea of supporting the troops? Cheering them on as they get blown up?

I don't think "cut and run" is the answer, I'm not sure if timed troop pullout is the answer either. We can pull out after Iraq's government is in control; they have a military and police force that are legitimate.
The real problem is the incompetents in charge of things now. We need to get rid of the morons, and put some smart people in charge, people who will get stuff done.

I think this pull out talk is counter productuve for the Dems, because it is unreasonable.

Bush: Dems 'Softer' on Terrorists

Until they take their daily dose of Lie-agra.

"Bush can't run on anything positive because everything he has done is negative and reeks of failure."

Bush is not running for office... Think he did that already.

I think his point is that the administration before his did little to stop terrorists from gaining strenth and territory or bases... Bill should have blown them all off of the mwap instead he was afraid of his ratings... At least we can all say that Bush does not fear polls or ratings...

I like him for that... The dems would have changed course fifty times already to suit POLLS.... Anything to keep them positive... Just like Clinton running from Samolia, and frequent In-action in responce to terror attacks around the world. Oh yea he lobbed a few missiles... But his sec of stated also warned the target that they were coming... Unbelievable...

I vote Republican for those reasons. They at least will hound the bastards until they are out in the open and then they actually have the Balls to PULL THE TRIGGER. Sorry Bill, You're a friggin whimp ass sissy boy...

dems WILL cut and run from iraq if they have a majority

Posted by bushlovertwo


...you mean like the republitards cut and ran in Vietnam???

Bash,

Bill isn't running either....

Okay, you can nail Clinton for inaction on the Cole from Oct. '00 to Dec '00. I do however think you should factor in his lame duck status and the fact that the country was in a crisis as to who the next Pres would be. Is that the point where you'd want Clinton starting a war?

But I'm curious, what was Bush's response to the USS Cole from Jan '01 to Sept. '01?

What has Bush's response been to Iraq getting worse and worse?

well mister roosevelt.....we really shouldn't attack the japs in okinaw and are you really planning a bombing raid on japan with that doolittle nut......dont you know that you will just make them mad and MORE JAPS WILL SHOW UP.........

glad that some of you werent in control at this time.

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2006-10-05 08:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Or more like "Mr Roosevelt, them Japs attacked us....how long is it before we bomb Sweden for what them Japs did to us???

BL2, what is the admins reason du jour for our presence in Iraq?

... At least we can all say that Bush does not fear polls or ratings...

I like him for that... The dems would have changed course fifty times already to suit POLLS.... Anything to keep them positive... Just like Clinton running from Samolia, and frequent In-action in responce to terror attacks around the world. Oh yea he lobbed a few missiles... But his sec of stated also warned the target that they were coming... Unbelievable...

. Sorry Bill, You're a friggin whimp ass sissy boy...

Posted by bashthis at 2006-10-05 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Imagine that, a politician doing what the people actually want instead of just ignoring everyone......those crazy dems and there idea of listening to the people.....pure insanity!!!!

As for Bill being a "wimp (no h) ass sissy boy", who was it again that was a cheerleader??

Gimmee a B
Gimmee a U
Gimmee an S
Gimmee an H

Whats that spell? COWARD!!

Hey libs, this guy MUST be one of your storm troopers. Gimme a break and give him a valium? Please?

Is this really news?


The pro-terrorist left has more in common with Al-qaeda then they do with Am-ericans

Lets review....


They despise the values this country was founded on

They would rather justify our enemies then destroy them

and lets face it.... people being able to persue happiness as opposed to being told what makes them happy really makes them sick

They despise the values this country was founded on


Like Habeus corpus? Access to a lawyer? Being charged with a crime and not just held for 4 years incommunicato? Not torturing our enemies and being held to treaties(like the geneva convention) that we've signed?

Those values?

pro-terrorist left

Fool.

I don't know where tro post this, so I'll post it here for starters:

Bill O'Reilly said tonight on his show that George Soros is "THE most dangerous individual in the United States."


He actually said that. O'Reilly is seriously paranoid and delusional.

Mr. Murdoch- even you can see that.

So what is the GOP plan?

Right - you apologists for the Bush doctrine ask what is the Democrats' plan. Much more to the point is what is YOUR plan, after all these years?

You don't have one.

So you criticise the party out of power because they don't have one?

BL2, what is the admins reason du jour for our presence in Iraq?


Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2006-10-05 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag:



common....I am beginnging to think more and more what a friend of mine has said all along....that its not about iraq...its always been about iran.....and it does make sense in a lot of ways

and norm.......If we could make quicker progress with the iraqui security and military...that would go along way and I would certainly support changing what we might be doing in this regard and dont think I am a blind supporter....if progress means getting rid of rumsfeld, for instance, then by all means do it and do it now........



and then there was............

BLTontoast-kindly take the crap you've been pullin' outta yer ass on this thread-wad it into a tight little ball-and put it back where it came from......

Posted by frankf55 at 2006-10-05 03:11 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

]

frank.........you know that ass of mine that you talk about.....well kiss it ....
nice to see your post. I was about to think that more and more libs were willing to talk about issues without thier bullshit...glad to see that you brought me back to reality.

If we could make quicker progress with the iraqui security and military...


that is not a plan that is a goal.

No progress has been made on iraqi security and the military.

No progress has been made because there is no defining what the hell is going on there.

Yeah!! we built up 300,000 Iraqi security forces

ooopss. those security forces are the ones perpetrating the violence.

gee guess we should get rid of the army and police and start over again.

How exactly does one make shiite and sunni get along?

The Rice method? "Hey you guys better start getting along!"