Is the liberal media to blame? Does this guy need his medication like the rest of the soft-on-terror liberals?
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/01/15/DDGRJN7FMR1.DTL
2007-01-19 09:59:38 · 20 answers · asked by Gary 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The premise of your slanted, dishonest question presumes the erroneous connection between terrorism and Iraq.
Saddam had no connection to 9-11.
Saddam had no alliances with al qaeda.
No WMDs were found in Iraq.
2007-01-19 10:07:14 · answer #1 · answered by Jack C 5 · 7⤊ 7⤋
Liberal doesn't mean soft on terror, especially when it is about taking a thoughtful, measured stance on terror. Instead of trying to be a cowboy and run into a war we weren't ready for, liberals wish the administration had, or would adopt a plan that involved thinking, on some level.
Looking back, Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, and Truman (who had the guts to drop the A-bomb, were all liberals. If you think that present day liberals are the only ones who are soft on terror and weak, consider that While they may not have a solution to the problem in Iraq, they do not jump into a situation that they aren't ready for and that will cost lives. You may think that means they are weak or afraid, but it really means that they are wise and careful.
2007-01-19 10:09:02 · answer #2 · answered by maxworth 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Are they now? More likely, this is an attack by their political opponents. What does soft on terror mean?
The question is mearly how does one be TOUGH on terror?
DOES BEING TOUGH ON TERROR MEAN DESTROYING OUR FREEDOM.
What about this idea of a war on terror. Is that not a bit lame. What is terror? Some people fight you and some don't. But terror is a method of waging war when you don't have better weapons, ...
The real question is are liberals SOFT ON DEFENDING THEIR COUNTRY AGAINST threats?
I don't believe they are, although they are sometimes slower to react violently. This is generally an attempt to avoid killing the wrong people.
2007-01-19 10:12:33 · answer #3 · answered by rostov 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
They're not-as a matter of fact, as part of the House 100-hours, The House approved legislation 299-128 that would require increased screening of airline and port cargo and change how federal security grants are distributed. Senate Democrats are expected to propose a measure, but Republicans have raised concerns about costs. Bush opposes many of the House provisions. These were the 9/11 commissions recommendations. and should have been implemented long ago...
2007-01-19 10:08:43 · answer #4 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I stand somewhere in the middle of the liberals and conservatives. I think those that would turn their heads when United States interests are attacked should immediately leave office. They do not have the nations best interests at heart. I think the bullying tactics should not be allowed to happen. After reading the news, the promises of bi-partisan leadership is just that an empty promise. Power is a heady thing that ruins the best of intentions.
2007-01-19 10:08:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Since when does admitting something was a huge mistake and not remotely connected to 911 has any relation to being soft on terror? You should take a freshman course in logic.
2007-01-19 10:20:50 · answer #6 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
This bunch is the flower children of the 70's The feel good crowd.
Comparing liberalism to Washington, Truman? Someone needs to go look up history. The views of these men Could NOT be anywhere near the Al Gores and Pelosis of the liberal party of today.
2007-01-19 10:20:25 · answer #7 · answered by rdyjoe 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
WOW.
Let's see, the "Tough on Terror" President has managed to wage two wars in the name of terrorism, but can't catch a 6'5 terrorist dragging a dialysis machine around everywhere he goes? Liberals aren't soft on terror, they just don't believe in fighting wars that have ABSOLUTELY Nothing to do with terrorism.
In almost 6 years Bush hasn't caught the terrorist behind 9/11 so HE IS SOFT ON TERROR.
2007-01-19 10:08:48 · answer #8 · answered by The Skizzanator 2 · 8⤊ 3⤋
You're delusional aren't you. Sending 21000 more troops to Iraq isn't going to get rid of terrorism. Even the Pentagon and CIA know that. Last time I looked, they weren't liberal.
2007-01-19 10:10:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
I agree with him 100%. Call me soft if you need to; I thank you for your brave military service in Iraq. It's good to see young people sacrifice for what they so fervently believe.
2007-01-19 10:12:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Baiting again. It's like being tuned in to Fox News.
2007-01-19 10:11:09 · answer #11 · answered by N H 2 · 5⤊ 2⤋