English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Look like everyone has a short memory. Liberals were outraged over Bush attacking helpless little Afghanistan.

This proves they are anti-war sissies, iraq was just a better opportunity for the left to espouse anti-war bias, now they pretend they were "down" with Bush in Afghanistan all along.

BS is what I say.

2007-01-28 00:16:11 · 16 answers · asked by American Bad Ass 1 in Politics & Government Politics

Yes, what I should have said was liberals were initially preteneded to be for the Afghanistan war. then soon after invasion, they began the exact same drumbeat we are hearing today on iraq......

US is the bully, no plan, quagmire, killing innocents. blah,blah,blah....then iraq came around and now they decided to focus on that. they figure it would be wise to be not seen as anti war all things so they pretend again to love afghanistan......

however, every other nation on earth has pulled out of afghanistan due to the same BS liberals are spewing on iraq.

If the left is so "FOR" the Afghanistan war then stop protesting Guantamano Bay. this is where the majority of the terrorists captured from that war are being held.

pathetic support if you ask me.

2007-01-28 09:42:04 · update #1

16 answers

Yeah, kinda sad.

2007-01-28 00:19:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 4

Since all of us in Yahoo Answers have "short memory", do you have a source for your ridiculous claim?

After the attacks on Sept 11, NO ONE said anything against the US or the President , to do so was to be attacked (physically and verbally) as Unamerican, a traitor.

You will need to provide a list of the "LIberals" who were "outraged" over attacking Afghanistan and its Taliban leadership, which was proven to give aid to terrorists, including bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
What I'M outraged about is Bush promised to "smoke [Osama bin Laden] out of his hole", he said it many times in the days after the attacks. So where is bin Laden? Why hasnt he been caught, why is Bush not even LOOKING for him??

Saddam Hussein and Iraq never attacked the US, never THREATENED to attack the US and, as we all now know, he never had nukes in Iraq. He also would not allow Al- Qaeda terrorists to live or train within Iraq, denouncing bin Laden on several occasions.

Are you familiar with the phrase, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Since Hussein and the US both hated bin Laden, why would we attack and ally in the "War on Terror"?
Becuase it isnt about terror, its about oil.

In a couple years, after Bush, Cheney, Libby, Rove, Wolfowitz and Rice are in Federal Prison or on the $50,000 an hour lecture circuit, we will still be spending huge resources, fixing all the damage their lies caused in Iraq.

And since you hate "anti-war sissies" so much, I suggest you get on a plane to Iraq, pick up a weapon and do your part to defend your President, unless of course, youre a sissy too.

I guess Bush is the big Flip-Flopper, since he stopped looking for the man who admitted responsibility for the attacks on Sept 11, 2001.

Of course, its SO much easier to point a finger at the evil "Liberals" who only want our elected officials to do what they promise and treat American citizens as responsible adults.

The big question in YA should be "Why do conservatives think defending your civil rights is evil? Are they lazy? Or just naive?"

2007-01-28 10:11:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

While I respect your opinion I believe you are misinformed and I would have to disagree. As a liberal I was absolutely thrilled when we attacked the Taliban. Their policies against women, girls in schools, sharia law, destroying buddhist temples caused a great number of liberals to be quite upset. There are many, many examples that could be cited of liberals opposing the Taliban extremism and welcoming the attack on Taliban government.

What we are truly upset about now is that the war against the Taliban (and more importantly alqueda) was put on hold so that the neo-cons could attack Iraq. This was a terrible decision and resulted in the Taliban and alqueda making a comeback in Afghanistan.

Liberals are not anti-war. I spent 10 years in the USMC and know many liberal people in the military still. We simply believe it is more important to focus on problems at home: poor schools, no healthcare for many, high unemployment rates, high crime, etc.

We are not all that different from you. I think you should join us in our cause to stop the insane war in Iraq and focus on the serious problems we have in the U.S. and other parts of the world.

2007-01-28 08:28:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

I live in the most despicably blue state in the union. I am surrounded by liberals and think they range from simply wrong, to nose-picking drones, to tape recorders spouting the liberal rhyme of the day.
That said,I did not hear that much complaining about Afghanistan. Yes, they are sissies and cry about the silliest, most baseless things Ihave ever heard. But stick to the facts.

2007-01-28 09:13:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Good point. I am not sure that Liberals were all against Afghanistan though . It was soon after 9/11. Most likely they were still anti Bush then though. They were hurting from the presidential loss in 2000 still. Extreme left wingers are really Socialism flag bearers. They believe in a world government rather than the USA government. They were more quiet on Afghanistan than showing anything against it. They are not stupid and showing against that conflict would have sealed their fate with the American public.

2007-01-28 08:24:28 · answer #5 · answered by meathead 5 · 0 2

I say "BS" to whatever SOURCE you used for this ridiculous statement.

Presumably the source is your brain.

My LIBERAL brother received a Bronze Star in VietNam and is against the war in Iraq, but was pleased as punch when we hit Afghanistan.

I would love to witness the outcome if you called my brother an Anti-War Sissy to his face!!!

.

2007-01-28 08:38:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

BS is exactly what you say. We liberals supported Afghanistan wholeheartedly. This is another case of con lies. We still support Afghanistan except your Boy Genius has let OBL get away.

MORE CON BS. MORE CON LIES.

2007-01-28 09:44:13 · answer #7 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 0 0

Please post a source for your information, as I recall most of the liberals were for Afganistan war but against Iraq invasion.

There may have been some true pacifists against the Afganistan thing but they are very very few.

2007-01-28 09:33:00 · answer #8 · answered by ash 7 · 0 0

A better question is why is it that republicans feel the need to make things up. Of course there were dissenters but they were a small number and were in both parties.

2007-01-28 08:26:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

HeII most of these wimps can't remember 9/11 and you want them to remember something as inconvenient as a nearly unanimous congressional vote.

Oh, sorry, that's another issue.

2007-01-28 08:29:53 · answer #10 · answered by gimpalomg 7 · 0 1

I want to know why the media NEVER actually reports who is really behind the anti-war protests.

2007-01-28 08:25:42 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers