Why do many liberals deny the reality of the War on Terror? And what other aspects of reality do they deny?

Answer 1

I'd be interested to hear any quotes from a liberal denying the reality of terrorism.

Answer 2

They do not deny the "WAR" , they { I } don't think there can be a war on an idea like terror. We are fighting an idea with bullets. ??? Maybe the "war " is just another scheme cooked up by corporations as a way to sell more weapons , or McDonalds , or water purification plants, or SUVs, or gas, or Starbucks, or...... If you only get your "news" from one source { 95 % of all MEDIA in the USA is controlled by about 5 people [all Republicans] }, how can you know what is really going on ? You only know the 'reality' they want you to know. Seek other sources

Answer 3

And what reality is that? That we've increased terrorism attacks worldwide by 600% in the last couple of years? Or the fact that we haven't made a serious dent in overall terrorism? Or the fact that we've become more of a threat to world peace than a couple of extremist groups could ever be?

Yeah...

I really *hate* that reality! Much better if I went back to the fantasy world shared by most Bushbots and this administration: The one where we are actually winning this war and the world loves us so.

Answer 4

I do think that most of the liberals are realistic but wrong on many political ideologies but the extreme left wing, which is run by George Soros and his ilk, is NOT realistic and completely radical.They deny the reality of the war on terror and any other political belief that leans to the right FROM WHERE THEY STAND. I wish that the reasonable liberals would grow some gonads and publicly denounce these obviously ridiculous political stances. Maybe old George already has so much clout that they are all intimidated. If that is the case, then these reasonable liberals should think about changing parties or becoming independent.

Answer 5

The reality of the war on Terror is that Bush is losing it, and that Iraq had nothing to do with it before we invaded.

It's not the liberals that have a problem accepting this reality.

Answer 6

Here's the reality of the war on terror. No matter how long we stay in Iraq, we are not going to defeat terrorism. We would be much better off securing our borders instead of running around Iraq senselessly.

Answer 7

If you really support the war on terror you would be against the fiasco in Iraq.Bush has taken a stable country and made it the most unstable in the middle east.Thanks to Bush terrorism is thriving.

Answer 8

God another generalized lack of facts question, I'm getting tired of these, we don't deny it we just think it's being managed by IDIOTS, we're the only ones who understand that a large military assault isn't feasible against a widespread ill defined enemy, I think there's a helluva lot smarter way to fight this thing but the current administration is a bunch of clueless wonders, the money we've spent in Iraq could have increased our intelligence gathering ability 4 fold, more training for elite special forces for surgical strikes against identified targets, hearts and minds campaigns including but not limited to medical aid, infrastructure construction aid,educational aid, humanitarian aid, if everything you touch that benefits you is stamped U.S.A. eventually you're going to change your perception, support for human rights including sanctioning countries that have poor human rights records like Saudi Arabia, our supposed friend, Pakistan, again a "Supposed"ally, of course this is just a the basic concept, there are many other things in line with this that would reduce terrorism, the biggest way isn't killing them, they're like rochs and we're actually helping them recruit with our current actions, they would be able to recruit far far fewer members if we did this smarter

Answer 9

That the war was greatly worsened by our presence in Iraq- who had nothing to do with terrorism until we brought it there. Oh, wait. That isn't the liberals, is it?

Answer 10

What is Rush Limbaugh's reality of the War on Terror? Neo-cons only parrot whatever Limbaugh's take is on life and the universe that sustains it. Is there one neo-con with a braincell of his or her own? Inquiring minds would like to know.

If Bush declared that the war on terror has now ended and was a smashing success, neo-cons would throw a party regardless of what was really occurring.