Will bells finally go off knowing Terrorists are praying for democrat victory?

Question

The left won't wake up - they will all blidly go to the voting booth even though terrorists our enemy is praying the democrats win - why because they know democrats cut and run plans.

Answer 1

no. they've convinced themselves that the terrorists hate Bush and once he's gone, they'll leave us alone.

they ignore history all the way back to '79. that's a lot of denial. like they say: there is none so blind, as he who will not see.

Answer 2

Is this a question, or a statement? It seems to me like the same old conservative propaganda. "If you vote for my opponent, you're helping the terrorists."

At lest you didn't say that they were helping the terrorists by criticizing the President. (As if not badmouthing the president will make terrorists feel demoralized or change their minds and go home.)

I'll assume that you're referring to the fact that democrats don't support further occupation in Iraq. Let me point out a couple of things. First of all, it isn't clear what effect leaving Iraq at this point will do.

Second of all, and far more important, the question is not "What bad things will happen if we leave." The question is "Is it possible to avoid the consequences of failure, (ie is it winnable) and if so, is the likelihood of success large enough to outweigh the further damage to our military and economy that will result in continuing."

Think about it. Don't just assume that we are going to win. The possibility of failure must be taken into consideration, even if it conflicts with national pride.

Answer 3

A lot of Democrats (including both Clintons) made a political gamble that after 9/11 they had to support the invasion because if it was successful they would have been tagged as soft. They were fighting the last war, Gulf War I, in which many Democrats looked foolish for having objected to such a painless, inexpensive, glorious victory. I'm afraid that many of the Democratic leadership bet on the wrong horse ---- again. It is, sadly, a testament to how badly they deal with foreign policy that they got it wrong both times.

A lot of us out here in Real Murika didn't because we weren't playing politics --- just assessing the situation and deciding whether it made sense.

Still, it was undoubtedly difficult. 9/11 had cast a spell on our country, abetted by a media that turned the "war on terror" into an epic pageant of national pride and patriotism to such an extent that to question, much less oppose, was an act of political courage. There are very few politicans of either party with much of that: Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Chafee (R-RI), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Jeffords (I-VT), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR).

Those were the Senators who voted against the resolution. How good, smart and prescient they appear today. The ones who didn't showed lousy instincts. When the president is an idiot, it should be easy to conclude that he is not going to make good decisions about the need for war --- or anything else. Millions of us knew the constant blathering about Bush's great "leadership" after 9/11 was hype. They should have too.

But still, even the most craven Democratic opportunist cannot be held responsible for the administration's repeated assertion's that Saddam was a "grave and gathering danger" or that the Bush Doctrine was dutifully printed out from the PNAC web-site and distributed after 9/11 without any serious consideration of its ramifications. Bush was pushing a line that had many people wondering if he didn't know something that the rest of us didn't. It was incomprehensible to a lot of Americans that an American president would be so reckless as to launch a war on unverified information.

There was no good reason to stage an invasion based upon the threat assessment we had. 9/11 actually made that proposition more dangerous and short sighted than it would have been before. They knew this, which is why they hyped the threat with visions of mushroom clouds and nefarious drone planes disguised a crop dusters. They knew that if we relied solely upon the threat assessment that the Clinton administration relied upon, the country would not back their war. So they lied. The true irony is that it now appears that Clinton managed to accomplish what Bush said needed to be done, with a heavy bombing campaign during his own impeachment. (Talk about multi-tasking.) Bush came along and spent billions of dollars, stretched our military beyond its capabilities, destroyed our international credibility and got tens of thousands killed to accomplish something that had already been done in 1998.

Answer 4

I hate say this, but you don't know crap about Islamic terrorism, terrorism is sponsored anti-American feelings. Terrorist leaders such as Osama prefer having presidents like Bush, who invade unrelated countries in the Middle East (Iraq), because it only helps them portray America as the enemy of Islam and keeps them powerful.

Watch your analysis, when saying things like this, you have approach this in the terrorists' perspective.

Answer 5

You mean terrorists like bin Laden?

I'm sure he's wishing Bush could be elected again. Who else woulda stopped looking for him and started a war in some other country for the hell of it...

Answer 6

The bells are ringing in the insane asylum - time for you to go to lunch.

Answer 7

This was bullsh!t 5 months ago when Bush was saying it and it's bullsh!t now.