Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,799 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
On September 15, in a scene that America’s enemies are hoping mimics similar events in the 60s and 70s, a coalition of anti-American amateur anarchists will descend on the nation’s capital attempting to convince the US Congress to surrender in the War on Terror.

They won’t know even know to whom they’d like us to surrender, nor what the terms of such a travesty might be. But their ilk didn’t care in the 70s and the new crowd doesn’t care now.

But this time, also flocking to the Capitol with a far greater sense of purpose, direction and duty, will be the Eagles: America’s veterans and pro-troop patriots. Just as they did on March 17, the Eagles again will deflect the hatred hurled at our military, the attempts to deface our memorials, and the political efforts to bully a shaky Congress into giving away the successes that have been earned through more than two centuries of democracy.

When the so-called Vietnam anti-war “movement” gained momentum, (and, as it turned out, was only an anti-American war), it succeeded in convincing Congress to abandon South Vietnam, just as South Vietnam was showing that it was well on its way to military and political stability. The resultant chaos cost the lives of millions of civilians who fell to the savagery of the communist onslaught.

Even though the phony peace movement was directly responsible for setting the stage for this holocaust, the blame was conveniently shifted by useful idiots in the media and Congress to the American military, which had performed magnificently despite a media blackout of our successes that was broken only by braying criticism of the military.
Those who claimed they stood for peace, John Kerry, Jane Fonda, Henry Kissinger, Ted Kennedy, John Murtha, stood by silently, feigning ignorance or non-involvement as the communist death squads tortured and murdered babies, the elderly, teachers, civil servants, police, college professors, and day workers by the millions in southeast Asia.
This could not have happened without help. The anti-American forces were aided and abetted by a media that was, and still is, a disgrace to the concept of First Amendment rights to freedom of the press.

The media, starting with Walter Cronkite who blatantly lied to America after our forces won an overwhelmingly victory against the communists in the Tet Offensive of 1968, was more than complicit in falsely portraying America’s military as incompetent on one hand or murderous thugs on theother. Cronkite was only the most visible media co-conspirator. But the rest of the American media trotted alongside like lemmings, just as the modern media is doing today.

Meanwhile mindless strumpets like Jane Fonda who had spent the 1960s touring college campuses touting the false promise of worldwide communism were allowed to cavort in enemy country with impunity, striving to negatively impact troop morale, wreaking havoc with American prisoners of war, and delivering political victory to an enemy that had been devastated on the battlefield.

In the end, Southeast Asia was lost, millions died, hundreds of American POWs known to be alive and held by the communists in Laos, were abandoned, and America’s standing in the world took a hit that was so disastrous we still are feeling its effects to this day.
The outcome does not have to be the same as it was three decades ago. As America fights against Islamic terrorists and the nations that support them, we dare not allow the anti-American creeps who pass themselves off as “anti-war” to win. In Vietnam we lost a war and millions died, but the war didn’t come back to America. This one will, so we have to win it here, in Congress and in the media, so our forces can win it abroad.
Tomorrow, September 15 , the “ANSWER” group -- funded by the usual left-wingers, arrives in Washington to stage demonstrations including a “die-in” in which -- without the permission of the families of our war dead -- they will pretend to die while holding signs and placards labeling themselves with names of our combat dead. And it will go on from there. But unlike 1971, this time they will not be coming to town alone.

When they arrive in DC, these phonies will again face massed pro-troop Americans who will gather as Eagles did so successfully on March 17, and again we will show that those who would tear down and destroy America are but a flock of haters, a mere whisper in a wind tunnel, compared to the tornado of the Eagles.

Groups bringing pro-troop patriots to DC on Sept. 15 including Eagles Landing; Move America Forward which is hosting a nationwide caravan of families and supporters starting in California on Labor Day, Sept. 3, and arriving in DC on the 15th; Military Order of the Purple Heart; Gathering of Eagles; Free Republic; and Vets For Freedom; among many others.

But for all the efforts of these fine organizations, the true test of America’s willpower, its dedication to our shared values and principles, and its willingness to take the War on Terror to the terrorists, lies with mainstream Americans. America’s veterans, our true warriors, not phonies who doctor their service records and award themselves medals for non-existent acts of valor, will stand tall, as they always do.

If Congress is to bend to the will of the people, which our Constitution says it must, then the will of the people must be shown, loudly and clearly, and most importantly, in person. This must be accomplished by the participation of mainstream America, because we all have a stake in this -- our lives, and continuing freedom for future generations. Come to Washington. Join us.


Colonel George Day.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Col. George Day, USAF (Ret.) received the Congressional Medal of Honor for valor in combat on August 26, 1967.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
You cannot be serious....anti-war is anti-American?? That's going too far.

War is the health of the state.

If we don't like something, the State declares war on it.
War on Terror
War on Drugs
War on Cancer
War on Poverty

Last time I checked none are going 100% to plan.

It is dissent from government policies that exposes the true patriot.

"If everyone is thinking the same then no one is thinking."-General George S. Patton

America has a tradition of being against wars. The American people don't like war because war is a terrible, terrible thing. The American people know it and the Founders knew it. Thats why they gave Congress the sole responsibility to declare war, not in the hands of the President. They saw that giving the power to go to war must be decided by the people via their representatives.
The Republican Party has been anti-war, traditionally. McKinley was reluctant to go to war against Spain. He only went to war when public pressure was immensely supportive of war with Spain. Eisenhower ran on ending the Korea war. Nixon ran on ending the Vietnam War. Ronald Reagan himself was highly critical of Johnson for going to war so carelessly in Vietnam. George Bush in 2000 campaign on a foreign policy of non-intervention; being humble and not bullying other nations to do things our way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
What you and a few others fail to understand is that there is a difference in being against war and being for an enemy.

Anarchist are generally ignorant morons who would probably be the first dead in a sate of anarchy.

Anarchists are the people who looted and pillaged New Orleans.

Anarchists are nobody's friends.



People who advocate for Muslim Wahhabists and want to support them instead of our own military, soldiers, and government should be hung for treason at worst and deported at the least.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
12,929 Posts
most of the time i'm anti-war, but am strongly pro-american. i did not think we should have gone into iraq when bush did, but i did feel we needed to go into afghanastan. i was against vietnam, only reason i could see we were there was to bolster big business, i was 001 in the draft, resisted joining untill nixon ended it, saving my butt by a few months, BUT, if i had been drafted, i guarantee i'd have been over there pulling the trigger, trying to stay alive, not standing up waving a white flag. now that we are in a couple of wars, maybe 3, 2 on foreign soil, one here at home, let me say that even though i'm MOSTLY anti-war.... if i was in washington this weekend, i'd be standing on the supporters side..... can you figure that out. not too hard for me.
 

·
Silver Bullet Member
Joined
·
2,856 Posts
you gotta be kidding me.... right?

theres a difference between anti-war and anti-american. I love america, but think this iraq thing is a bunch of bullshit. let them fight each other, instead of our guys having to suffer through it. Also, why waste all that money on iraq? spend it on making our country better.


So I'm against our soldiers getting maimed and killed, and I'm against pissing away our hard earned money. Yep, I guess I must be anti-american
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
12,929 Posts
bch7773, i'm with you. we should have lety them duke it pout and then gone in and cleaned up the mess, then maybe we would have made a few friends instead of a lot of enemies. right now, we need friends. the inspectors were in there, doing their jobs, that's where i'd have left it. now, i know of soldiers going over there for the 4th time.... THAT'S A LOAD OF CRAP. after 2 tours in a political BS war, i believe the solder should be granted a choice, you can go back for the 3rd, 4th, 5th tour, or after 2 you can opt out, stay home and raise your family. when will it end? and in my opinion, we should have chased osama to the ends of the earth, and killed him, before getting into more crap that really wasn't pressing. just 2cents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,799 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
As Democrats in Congress and the organized left denounce the cautious optimism of Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus (“General Betray Us,” according to moveon.org), some Members continue to consort with the enemy in ways reminiscent of Hanoi Jane Fonda in the early 1970s.

Dennis Kucinich is the latest among the Congressional Democrats to travel the road to Damascus, to give aid and comfort to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

In an interview with a tarted-up reporter for Syrian state television, Kucinich laid out his plan for unilateral U.S. surrender in Iraq, the Middle East, and indeed just about anywhere America might seek to get engaged under its own flag in the world.

Outside of the blog for his hometown newspaper, and a straight-up news account from NewsMax, Kucinich’s latest sneak attack on the left flank of the war on terror was widely ignored.

It should not have been. Kucinich is not merely a disgrace to Congress and the Democratic Party. By sucking up to a dictator and deriding U.S. troops in Iraq on a foreign state-run television program, he has disgraced his nation and his flag.

Here are a few samples of what Dennis of Damascus told the Syrian public, with the helpful (but unneeded) prompting of his cover-girl interviewer.

“I feel the United States is engaged in an illegal occupation,” he said. “Americans have an increased understanding today of how wrong the war was and is, and I think they're looking for a new direction, and that's certainly what I'm offering.”

He had come to Syria to meet with “His Excellency,” the Syrian dictator, “so that people are aware that there are members of Congress and in this case, a presidential candidate, who believes that Syria has a very important role to play in bringing about stability, in participating in a political process, which will help create the conditions which can lead to peace.”

Yes, well. That’s what Hanoi Jane said in May 1972 when she traveled to North Vietnam.

The Israeli Air Force recently had something to say about Syria’s contribution to peace and stability last week, when it bombed what appears to have been a shipment of Iranian missiles destined for Hezbollah as it was passing through eastern Syria.

An Israeli official told reporters on Wednesday that the air strike had “left a big hole” in Syria. The Syrians have complained to the United Nations.

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker also derided the notion that Syria was a force for stabilization, noting “malign actions” by Syria and Iran in fueling the insurgency in Iraq.

But if you listen to Dennis of Damascus, that’s okay. All we need to do is talk to the dictators.

Kucinich said that Assad “showed a real desire to play a role in helping to create a peaceful settlement of the conditions in Iraq, as well as a grander approach towards creating peace.”

As he told Syrian television, “the United States must end the occupation, close the bases, bring the troops home, but we must have a parallel political process that reaches out to the international community, with the help of Syria and Iran, that would bring an international peace-keeping force, move it in as our troops leave, so there is no vacuum.”

What Kucinich wants is very clear. He wants to turn Iraq over to Syria and Iran, with the imprimatur of the United Nations. He conveniently expects the UN to send the bills to the U.S. taxpayer and dump the political blame for the bloodshed to follow on President Bush.

“I crafted my peace plan with people who served in the UN with peace-keeping missions over the years,” Dennis of Damascus said. “Not only must we stabilize Iraq. We must pay reparations to Iraq for the great human tragedy that has been caused. Perhaps as many as a million innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of this war.”

But wait: here comes the heart throb. Syria’s wonderfully humanitarian leader has taken in some of those Iraqi refugees. “A million and a half are in Syria, and I met with some of them, and I can tell you that this is a great human tragedy.”

Most of the Iraqi refugees in Syria are Christians, as I have noted on this page. But Kucinich conveniently forgot that.

He also forgot to mention that Syrian-backed Sunni Muslim jihadis were responsible for driving them out of them homes in the first place.

In a subsequent interview in Beirut with the Associated Press, Kucinich explained why he had not used the opportunity of his Labor Day travel to the Middle East to visit with U.S. troops in Iraq.

“I don’t want to bless that occupation with my presence,” he said. “I will not do it.” So much for a Democrat supporting the troops.

All of this could be dismissed as pure comedy if it weren’t for the fact that the Kucinich/MoveOn.org wing of the Democratic party represents real money and influence.

The Washington Times reported on Thursday that MoveOn.org “ranked third in the country among political action committees in total receipts from January 2005 to June 30, 2006, with $14.1 million.”

The group trailed two other pro-Democrat PACS – Emily’s List, which raised $20 million, and the Service Employees International Union, which raised $14.4 million during the same period.

Kucinich is not the only member of Congress who wants to cozy up to America’s enemies.

Tehran Tom – excuse me, the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, California Democrat Tom Lantos – has said repeatedly that he wants to travel to Tehran to negotiate some kind of peace-in-our-time with Iran’s clerical dictators.

Lantos first bruited his desire to travel to Tehran in January 1998, but was quickly rebuffed by the Islamic Republic of Iran authorities.

After his much-disputed April 2007 trip to Damascus with House speaker Nancy Pelosi, Lantos said he was ready to escort the gentle-lady from California to Tehran:

"Speaking just for myself, I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning, because however objectionable, unfair and inaccurate many of [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's] statements are, it is important that we have a dialogue with him,” Lantos told reporters at the time.

In May, Lantos joined a letter that Sen. Arlen Specter (R, Pa) sent to the speaker of the Iranian parliament, suggesting a joint meeting of U.S. and Iranian parliamentarians.”

Also signing the letter were “Peace In Our Times” Senators Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel, Chris Dodd, and Representatives English, Moran, Gilchrest and Meeks.

In his letters and meetings with Iranian authorities to obtain the release of Woodrow Woodrow Wilson Center scholar Haleh Esfandiareh, who was arrested in Iran early this year, Congressman Lee Hamilton reportedly offered to broker visits to Tehran by top Democrats in Congress.

Hamilton had “very large discussions” with Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations in New York, a source close to Hamilton told me, “that covered a broad range of subjects involving U.S.-Iranian relations.”

Esfandiareh was released after Hamilton sent a letter to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, outlining his ideas for renewed U.S.-Iranian exchanges.

Hamilton was summoned to Iran’s mission at the United Nations in New York to receive a two paragraph reply from Khamenei in August, that signaled the ayatollah’s intention to release the jailed Iranian-American scholar as a gesture of good will.

We have seen these kinds of “good will” gestures many, many, many times before.

Whether it’s Neville Chamberlin returning from Munich in 1938, or Norwegian Nazi puppet Vidkun Quisling, who I profiled in my book, Preacher’s of Hate, the practise and its results are sickeningly familiar.

It’s called appeasement.

And the result, sooner rather than later, is always war.





Kenneth R. Timmerman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,292 Posts
In the words of Senator Robert Taft, AKA, "Mister Republican"...


“As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government … too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.”

Then there's that infamous America-hating traitor, Theodore Roosevelt, who had THIS to say in a newspaper editorial printed while America was fighting an honest-to-goodness DECLARED war...

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.



This kind of crap has got to stop, guys. There WILL be a frank discussion of the war, and the foreign policy of this country, and if that is "anti-American" by your lights, then that’s just TFB. These cut-and pastes are sadly typical of the proto-fascism, wrapped in a flag and carrying the cross that passes for Republicanism these days. :(

About 70% of the American people want our troops out of Iraq. Are they all "Anti-American" too?

Ah, forget it. We now return you to the Dolchstoßlegende already in progress...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
I would not be surprised to find that Dirty and Mouser boy are anti American.

The proof is in what they preach.

I rarely site statistics since everyone knows that a majority of quoted statistics are mined and manufactured.

Using your statistical logic I could say with a degree of accuracy that 98% of gun boards user think that you are both douches.

I could prove that statistic just as honestly or logically as left-media proves their statistics.

I could care less about what the readers of Newsweek or MSNBC think.

They do not represent America.

They represent MSNBC and Newsweek.

When you are posting these statistics you are displaying exactly how desperate you really are.

In fact these stats are almost as bad as quoting "Republican" presidents out of context.

What you and a few others fail to understand is that there is a difference in being against war and being for an enemy.

The both of you seem to be for the enemy.

Not just the enemy, but any enemy.

There are people who protest for a reason.

Then there are people who protest for the sake of protesting. The people who are permanently dissatisfied. The seeds of discontent.

I suspect you may be part of the latter group as well.

Face it Dirty and Mouser boy,

If even a solid minority of people thought and acted as you both do, we would have lost WWII. (not that either of you would mind)

You both need to look at your own cut and paste crap and decide if it really fits well with your life as an American.

Is this really how you feel?

Is this what you are or want to be?

People who advocate for Muslim Wahhabists and want to support them instead of our own military, soldiers, and government should be hung for treason at worst and deported at the least.

You need to live with the people who are on your side.

You don't deserve to live here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,292 Posts
Reading Retired Marine's latest rant, I realize that "proto" gives guys like him too little credit.

The Iraq war has cost $700 billion and counting. Reading the above rant, I can't help thinking that money would have been better spent developing a time machine, so ret_marine and all his like-minded Freeper/LGF buddies on the so-called right could all go back in time 66 years, and actually fight the war they desperately wish this one was.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,341 Posts
Wake up DT, mauserlad and accept reality.

Iraq has 116 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, probably twice as much with a total value of $16 trillion and an export potential of $90 billion/year at current prices if its oil industry was functioning properly.

Way too much money to let some megalomaniac dictator or religious fanatic/terrorist get his slimy hands on it, especially considering that the 9/11 attacks only cost $500,000, tops.
Right now we're paying the price for Bush 41's failure to eliminate Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War, regardless of the sensibilities of our Saudi hosts and Arab allies, and of Clinton's weak wristed response to Saddam's and Osama's attacks on us.

Let you have your way and the price we pay in the future will be far worse than 9/11, far worse than our current casulty rate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
Retired marine, you seem to take stuff right from der Furher's playbook.


"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Oh and JJk, we should have thought about that before we removed Saddam. Also, if we wish to stop giving money to terrorists, we have to become energy independent. They get most of their money from the oil we buy from them.

There you go again.....9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, NIIIIIIINE EEEEELEVEN! The neo-con's only talking point when they run out of ideas.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
35,171 Posts
***
you seem to take stuff right from der Furher's playbook.
I've noticed that Internet arguments frequently involve at least one comparison to either Hitler or the Nazis, particularly when the topic involves politics and the person doing the referencing is having trouble supporting their contention with information.

-point reduction-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
Mouser Boy seems to have a great admiration for the Nazi party and their plan.

They were based on the kind of socialism and oppression he is all for.

That is why he is always referencing Nazis.

He is much like a self loathing homosexual that way.

I am lead to believe that he is silly and ignorant enough to believe it would have worked and he would have been one of the chosen few who were not euthanized for ethnicity reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,292 Posts
I've noticed that Internet arguments frequently involve at least one comparison to either Hitler or the Nazis...

If the jackboot fits...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,114 Posts
Antiwar is not Anti-American

We as a country have not always been pro-military; as a matter of fact, we largely distrusted large standing military establishments historically and are not sutied to be an imperialistic people until big business began influencing government policy, largely in Latin America. Typically, Americans were happy to live their lives without large scale overseas involvement until WWII when it became a necessity to counter Nazi, Japanese and then Soviet ambitions. We still are a peace-loving people (although heavily armed, as we should be) with the best basic intentions to help our fellow human beings through peaceful endeavors.

But we have been lied to regarding Iraq and our involvement in the Middle East, and the outrage is swelling because our treasure and the blood of our young has been wastefully spilled for a people largely without understanding or gratitude for our sacrifice and our rather small army has been depleted through numerous unit deployments. We now find ourselves in the middle of a civil war, having removed the cruel dictator and linchpin (Saddam Hussein) from Iraqi society. He used brutality to hold a society predicated on cruelty together, just as his contemporaries did, just as the Ottoman Turks, the Abbasid caliphs, the Assyrian, Babylonian and Akkadian empires did. When we leave, another (cruel) dictator will assume power because that is the nature of the Middle East (excepting Israel, which is more a European-Jewish hybrid). Even Jordan resorted to violent force when Palestinians began to exret their area dominance. Change in the Middle East is military in nature and it is not worth another US soldier's life to prolong the inevitable change. That's why many Arabs and Iranians choose to relocate to the West. Unfortunately, like Californians, they try to bring their unfortunate neuroses with them when they re-settle.

I wish we would adopt the older Swiss model of military service where every fit male serves SOME time in the military. That would end the Chickenhawk era of imperialism we see today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
“If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws—the first growing out of the last... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government.” —Alexander Hamilton

“On what basis does the non-theistic and practical atheist make moral choices, which include going to war and capital punishment? One might answer, ‘the Constitution,’ but to many liberals the Constitution is a ‘living document’ subject to constant interpretation, re-interpretation and revision to match ‘the times.’ So is it the times that shape such a presidential candidate, or something more permanent?... Those without theological training or experience in faith often find such questions embarrassing because they don’t want to face ridicule from their mostly secular colleagues. But to hide these issues in the catacombs of journalism is a poor excuse. The questions should be asked of both the religious and the secular to help voters make up their minds which ones best adhere to godly principles and to determine what standards govern the ones who do not.” —Cal Thomas


“Leaders of the Democrats in Congress have already tried various ways of sabotaging the war effort, with arbitrary timetables for withdrawal and financing the war for only short periods, so that President Bush would be forced to pull out American troops and could then be blamed for the defeat. But that hasn’t worked either because not enough Democrats in Congress are willing to risk political suicide by obstructing the military in ways too blatant to pass muster with the public. ... One of most realistic of all the insightful statements by General Petraeus was that ‘We are not going to kill our way’ out of the problems in Iraq. There has never been a moment when anyone in Congress, the White House, or the military has ever advocated anything other than getting out when the time is right. All the arguments, the rhetoric, and the shouting is about when is the time right. Nobody thinks American troops have to stay in Iraq until the last terrorist is killed or driven out of the country. It is a question of reaching the point where the Iraqis themselves can deal with the terrorist and other problems of their country without American troops. That is the direction in which the Iraqis seem to be moving already.” —Thomas Sowell

RE: THE LEFT (Attn: Wes, Dirty, and Mouser boy)

“On the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Americans were treated to two starkly contrasting images that speak centuries of difference between the U.S. and its enemies. In Frame One, we see Gen. David H. Petraeus testifying before Congress on the status of the war in Iraq. In Frame Two is Osama bin Laden in a new video—resplendent in white robes, his beard recently rinsed dark to conceal the gray—promising that Islam will subjugate the West. One an image of courage, integrity and honor; the other a caricature of manhood. Then there is a third frame. It is a full-page ad in [last] Monday’s New York Times placed by MoveOn.org and attacking Petraeus’ integrity: ‘General Petraeus or General Betray Us?’ reads the caption. And then, ‘Cooking the Books for the White House.’ The fog of war, it seems, has seeped into the left wing of the blogosphere. One may disagree with the war—and even find informed fault with Petraeus’ report—but impugning the character of the war’s commanding officer while American forces are still fighting is what’s known as betrayal. If Petraeus were ordering the mass murder of civilians, this would be a different matter. But last time we checked, American forces were fighting to prevent innocent people from getting killed. Thus, the ad reveals more about the character of those who placed it than it does of Petraeus. It also reveals a dangerous lack of judgment... The distorted judgment that prompted an attack on Petraeus as America relives the horrors of 9/11 hints at a sinister alignment with darker forces. Bin Laden must be very pleased. He could not have done better himself.” —Kathleen Parker
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,292 Posts
Yes that's right, keep referring to me as "the left".

I'm probably more conservative than you are.

Don't you get it, Mauser? If you don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, Watch FNC, and support Rudy McRomnaHuntaThompsaHuckaBush, you must have an autographed photo of Osama bin Laden hangin' in your living room. :rolleyes:

Our favorite gyrene wouldn't know Russel Kirk from Captain Kirk. I'd bet real money he thinks G.W. Bush is a conservative, and that he drew a blank on Robert Taft. :D
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top