what if the liberals would have supported their country?

Question

lets pretend the libtards didnt spend all their energy saying that bin ladin is only "accused". lets say they didnt spend all their time worrying about the rights of terrorists caught in iraq spending time in gitmo. lets pretend they werent leaking information about how we were tracking alquedas bank deposits. lets pretend they were supporting the troops and the president. lets pretend they were parroting al jazeera.

lets pretend that they were saying idiotic statements like "war for oil" while the united states spends billions to try to save the middle east to falling to our enemies.

lets pretend that they were interested in UNITING against our common enemey.

wouldnt we be done in iraq by now? i think we would.

the libtards count dead soldiers every day like its a scalp to hang on their wall. just a politcal game. sick sick sick

great answers it will be hard to choose.

funny at the pathetic liberal answers--still sticking with the old president lied line. they will never change. its impossible to beleive we have taken a single drop of anyones oil, in fact we put out 200 well fires in kuwait for them for free. the hatred of the left is unbelievable

Answer 1

Al Zawahiri thinks that the demos are great?

Al Qaeda has sent a message to leaders of the Democratic party that credit for the defeat of congressional Republicans belongs to the terrorists.
In a portion of the tape from al Qaeda No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri, made available only today, Zawahri says he has two messages for American Democrats.
"The first is that you aren't the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen -- the Muslim Ummah's vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq -- are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones
Zawahri calls on the Democrats to negotiate with him and Osama bin Laden, not others in the Islamic world who Zawahri says cannot help.
"And if you don't refrain from the foolish American policy of backing Israel, occupying the lands of Islam and stealing the treasures of the Muslims, then await the same fate," he said.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006...

Answer 2

I agree with the premise behind your statements but as much as I hate to admit this, their right to invoke their freedom of speech is the very fabric this nation was built on. They enjoy the right to voice their opinion very much the same you and I do. It's just a shame they do not wish to extend this same freedom to all people of the world and bring democracy to the people yearning for it.

P.S. to Richard LaRose... it is NOT a war for oil! However, it IS about establishing a democracy in a country that can prove to be very beneficial to the well-being of our nation! We don't need their oil. We have enough under the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve to outlast the expected dependancy for oil and all we'd have to fight to get it are a bunch of 'tree-huggers'. It's more about oil being a resource for capital to fund terrorism against us. Get a clue!

Answer 3

You are a magnificent spin doctor!!
First of all I can't think of ANY person left of center who is "counting scalps" as a political game! On the contrary...Anyone who is l.o.c. knows that the Iraq war is causing the deaths of our troops and the reasons that President Bush used to invade Iraq don't hold up!!!
He has even said so in the last few months!
So now he wants to throw more American lives at a problem that couldn't be contained in the beginning and many feel cannot be effectively contained unless you are willing to deploy at least 100,000 troops to Iraq to completely secure the country.
The President didn't have an effective battle plan in the last 3 years and he admitted they made mistakes and weren't completely efficient and effective in Iraq.
So now he gets another at bat!?
How many strikes do you get when you are playing with American lives??
Quit playing ******* games and DO IT RIGHT!!!
Oh by the way.......
Osama isn't in Baghdad or Karbala or any other city in Iraq!1
He and Saddam weren't friends or co-conspirators he is in Afghanistan. Why isn't he under arrest? I didn't make it up he is enemy #1 and should have been our first order of business.
There were many Americans who were against the U.S. invading Iraq and even though we were against the POLITICAL decision to do so.....now that we have invaded why isn't EVERYTHING being done to support our troops so that they can quickly accomplish their goals there?
The Bush administration has had 4 years of total control to get the job done ...how can you blame the Left? Even if we did alot of complaining the right had full control of the decision making process!!
DON'T FORGET.....
9/11 was a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.
Whatever terrorism Saddam was committing against his own people ...........he didn't attack us or any other country.
Even back in Bush Sr.'s time they didn't feel that removing Saddam from his country was justified!! Remember?
Stormin' Norman WANTED to but the administration of the time wouldn't let him! Why? Because our goal in Desert Storm was to get Iraq's military out of Kuwait.....not preside over judgement of Iraq's government or how they governed their people.
If you really don't think that our involvement in Iraq isn't a financial decision for President Bush and his cronies you are deluding yourself!!!
Hindsight is wonderful!! Foresight.....Big Money is hoping the average American is too involved in their own lives to see the man behind the curtain!!!
Why shouldn't politicians be corrupt in your reasoning they are given the green light to play their misdirection games because fellow party followers will defend them even when they are caught! Sometimes you just have to admit when you've been caught!
President Bush has seen the movie "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" too many times. I'm not going to follow his little two-step dance. I don't care if you don't want to use ALL of the cards!! They exist for a reason and if you are going to be my president I want you to be honest and have my best interest at heart....NOT your financial interests!!!

P.S. Soon Big Money is going to HAVE to admit that we need to fund developing alternatives for oil and the consumption of fossil fuels. We have the technology to create automobiles and other modes of transportation that require absolutely NO fossil fuels.
We don't need it!
Scientists have said that we are depleting our environment and the politicians who publicly claim that "other" scientists disagree with that view point only do so because it conflicts with the bottom dollar!


Patois~Bravo!!!
Very eloquent!

Answer 4

I think most neolibs are a disgrace the give comfort and encouragement to the enemies of the US. I will try and show you by example.

When president Clinton was bombing Bosnia (no strategic importance but a noble cause nonetheless) you notice the republicans did not undermine him and criticize him 24/7 this is the big difference between the 2 parties as republicans we know that if America succeeds we all do.... Democrats it is always the ends justifies the means

Answer 5

Maybe we could have won the war on terrorists if we weren't having to fight the liberals as well. Why are they wasting their time fighting us good proud Republicans instead of the murdering terrorists? That in itself makes it pretty obvious to me who they want to win the war!

Answer 6

Let's pretend you had an education.

War for Oil? Why don't you read the Bush and Wolfowitz Doctrines.

Both are the strategies employed & in practice by the Bush administration when it comes to Pre-Emptive war, global dominance and the control of natural resources.

The final copy of these documents was published and presented by the bush administration in 2002.

You call Liberals retards but you know nothing. You base this accusation on a personal bias and hatred.. knee jerk reaction. I've listed my sources to both these doctrines.. read them... then tell me it's not a War for Oil.

Think for yourself man... you're too easilly fooled by catch phrases and words.

Answer 7

. the mission in Somalia went so well when it morphed into that, eh?I would have to say that if they acted that way, they would BE modern liberals..modern liberals will only support a military action if it is bloodless for America AND we can be shown to be feeding the poor

Answer 8

Don't EVEN try to blame this whole Iraq fiasco on liberals. Liberals didn't stand up in front of the American people and lie about why we were going to Iraq in the first place. Liberals aren't the ones who stood on an aircraft carrier and declared victory FAR too soon. And, liberals weren't the ones who have failed to manage the war in general.

THAT WOULD BE YOUR REPUBLICANS!!!

Answer 9

Only in a perfect world, my friend. It's sad, but so true. You know, I was thinking last night about Waco, and Clinton, and Reno, and how they heartlessly killed those innocent people (women, and children too). I mean, they barbecued those poor people. Not one single Liberal said one damn thing about it, but yet, they'll rally around the enemies, and blame America for the enemy's hate toward us. Their hypocrisy amazes me!

Answer 10

I think your wrong. Don't start laying the blame for the presidents policies on democrats. I see the groundwork being layed if this is unsuccesful already. Oh if the democrats would have only supported it, it would of worked. Blame them.
Take some responsibility will you.