Why do liberals think the War on Terror is just a bumpersticker?

Question

the government has foiled 2 terrorist plots (JFK and Fort Dix) in the past couple weeks. In spite of this, liberals still think that the War on Terror is nothing more than a slogan....or a bumper sticker, as liberal God John Edwards says. The next plot might not be foiled ahead of time, yet taking precautions is considered GOP fear mongering I guess. What will make liberals finally realize that the US is under attack and we are all coming closer and closer to being victims of radical Islam?

Sangria, are you serious? No attacks from muslims? who was responsible for the first WTC attack? or the USS Cole attack? or the Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia, or the 2 African embassy bombings? I can go on and on forever. Who did those things under Clinton's watch? You are a typical liberal historical revisionist

Answer 1

Because apparently saving the spotted owl is more important than saving your way of life... Some people have different priorities I guess...

Answer 2

First of all, I don't believe a word for anything that is being said anymore. So them saying "We have foiled a terror attack, blah... blah... blah..." probably means they arrested two guys in the airport cafe talking in Arabic. Then they invented a bunch of stuff like they always do. When people have been lying so consistently as that bunch has done, what they claim doesn't matter anymore. At all. The fact suspects are not allowed media or lawyer communications probably means they know they wouldn't look good under transparency.
On average, 45 000 people in the United States die in traffic accidents. That's over 10 times 9/11. For other years, terrorism doesn't even compare to traffic accidents. So terrorism is a doddle, an itch on your bum, a nuisance. If anything, the Bush administration gave the terrorists more publicity than they could ever hope for. They are jubilating. Nobody is more happy to have Bush in office than the terrorists. Osama bin Laden appeared in election time because he wanted BUSH back in office. BUSH was great for terrorist recruitment and financing. As long as BUSH was in office, terrorism would continue to be a big issue and everything else would be on the back-burner.
As far as the Bush administration is concerned, terrorism (like God) has been nothing but a cynical buzzword to call upon whenever they needed it for political purposes. This administration is corrupt, cynical, ad lies like it breathes. So it doesn't matter what they claim they have done in the war on terror, because all they do is lie, lie, lie, lie, lie,lie and lie some more.

Answer 3

I'm glad that "the Breck girl" had the stones to say what he said. He's 100% right. How do you win a war on a tactic? If you kill every terrorist in the world, do you win then? What if the next week, some other idiot with a small mind and a big gun uses it on civilians? I guess the war is back on!

It's like declaring war on murder. It's inane, but people like to say it because it makes the small minded feel like the idiots that they elected are actually DOING somethng to prevent the next 9/11 (no, not 5 guys who try to take on an Army base with a Pizza truck, I mean actual terrorists). Guess what, kids? With our army "broken," (Colin Powell's words, not mine) and stuck in Iraq, who is "protecting th homeland" from anything?

So, yes, it's a bumper sticker. Like "support the troops" or "I'm an idiot and I vote" ('W' for short). You put it on your car and feel good about yourself, go home, watch Fox Noise and beat your wife while reading the bible.

Answer 4

Matt, it's impossible for a few hundred terrorists to conquer our country. Or even a few thousand, or even a few million. Small terrorist cells will continue to attempt acts of terror until we're out of the Middle East. These acts of terror have been happening for 40 years. The FBI and CIA thwarted over 600 terrorist plots from the 60's thru the 80's. This was according to the journalist Jack Anderson, who has been warning us about terrorism since the 60's. Remember Sirhan Sirhan? A Palestinian who killed Robert Kennedy for supporting Israel. The FBI and CIA took a nap on 9/11, but they're wide awake now. Don't sweat it too much.

Answer 5

Dang Matt, you got some comments kickin here, didn't ya? This whole situation goes waaaaaay beyond what can be discussed here, but in a nutshell... the US has a history of pissing off other countries/people (after all, we're AMERICANS, dammit). Through the years some of those countries/people have decided to take pot-shots at us. In the past, Castro aimed missiles at us, the Soviet Union pointed missiles at our bases in Europe, China and North Korea tried too. But Vietnam changed the way 3rd world countries wage war. To beat the big guy, you hitt'em and run. Demoralize the big guy. Make his support at home erode. Bin Laden's no idiot. He's got the US running all over the middle east looking for him and spending $$$ to do it. He's sitting back waiting for another spineless Democrat (in the mold of Bill Clinton) to get elected, so he can bring his style of war (terrorism) over here. While Dem's of the past fought and won conventional wars, which of the current crop of candidates looks like they will stand-up to a terrorists war? Show me a candidate from either party that will keep me, my kids, and my grandkids safe on US soil, and they've got my vote. All the other issues (taxes, budget deficit, etc.) will be meaningless if some knucklehead drops airplane into my office.

Answer 6

If Bush would have truly waged war on terror, we would never have invaded Iraq.
Instead we did, and have created a breeding ground for terrorists.
Also, I resent it when Republicans say(more or less), "if you vote for a Democrat, you are going to die".
The Republicans are running on this platform. Is this not a slogan?
I am a Democrat, and I am 100% behind the war on terror. Yet I believe our current policy is misguided.
I also believe we should not sacrifice our liberties guaranteed by the constitution.

Answer 7

Maybe because the Bush administration are complete liars. They commit public corruption and if the war on terror was real,than why does the USA still rely on OIL from the middle east so much. Their are radical people out there. But they are about the size of a gang in los angeles. It doesnt take a military to keep them under control.
The best thing for oil companies has been the War in Iraq.

Answer 8

Foiled attacks from those incabale of actually executing them, wow how freaking dramatic, the freaking clowns couldn't create anything tougher than a stink bomb, terrorism is a tactic not an enemy, and this administration is approaching the problem in a way guarenteed to make matters worse LIberals get it a lot better than you Bucko, 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 roachs 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

You think these terror plots (if they really existed) wouldn't have been foiled without the loss of our civil rights? Remember that for the first 75 years of commercial air travel, there weren't any 9-11 type attacks, either.

It's as much a war as the War on Poverty, the War on Illiteracy, the War on Drugs -- and just as irrelevant. War is declared only by an act of Congress (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11), and Congress does not have the authority to transfer its power to a different branch of government. But that's just the Constitution, and nobody gives a damn about that any more.

Answer 10

Because it is, it's a slogan, a sales campaign with Bin Laden as the spokes model. It is the CIA's job to foil terror plots and they have been doing it long before Bush's "war on terror".

Answer 11

every time they catch some half-arsed bunch of sad wackos who (by the FBI's own reckoning) were nowhere near capable of actually doing any damage, it's a Victory For The War On Terror!

when will you realize that 99% of the threat you feel is just plain imaginary? I'm not denying that the threat is there - but it is WAY smaller than you make it out to be. and making it seem bigger is just politically convenient for the party in charge.