'Today': Terrorists Attempting To Influence US Elections With Current Violence Wave

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

*ahem* please flip back a couple moe pages and read about WWII. Then tell me what Dems do during wars.

Daniel

:energetic:

That was then, this is now. The dems of 60 years ago bear no resemblance to the dems of today.

who cut and ran in viet?

when did a dem prez cut & run?

you insult every man and woman who has fought or is fighting for the freeedom of this country and happens to be a Dem. It is one thing to debate what is the best course of action in this situation, but to accuse half a nation of cowards(ie cut & run-ers) is downright insulting.

*waiting for the "Dems do that all the time too" reply*

Daniel

:energetic:

Edited October 20, 2006 by AnaAndDaniel

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

when did a dem prez cut & run?

With all due respect, many Dems today are encouraging our Republican President to do just that. Cut and run. Except they call it redeployment because their pollsters told them 'cut and run' don't sound too good to the folks back in Peoria (where the fukc is that anyway and why do the pundits on MSNBC keep bringing it up?).

[Jenn! 918]

when did a dem prez cut & run?

With all due respect, many Dems today are encouraging our Republican President to do just that. Cut and run. Except they call it redeployment because their pollsters told them 'cut and run' don't sound too good to the folks back in Peoria (where the fukc is that anyway and why do the pundits on MSNBC keep bringing it up?).

Peoria, IL.

"Peoria has become famous as a representation of the average American city, because of its demographics and its perceived mainstream Midwestern culture. "

-Wikipedia

[Alex+R 0]

when did a dem prez cut & run?

With all due respect, many Dems today are encouraging our Republican President to do just that. Cut and run. Except they call it redeployment because their pollsters told them 'cut and run' don't sound too good to the folks back in Peoria (where the fukc is that anyway and why do the pundits on MSNBC keep bringing it up?).

But doesn't "cutting" and "running" imply cowardice? Where is the cowardice in admitting a mistake, and realizing that the longer we stay, the more people die and the worse the situation becomes? If every day the situation improved, I would agree that we should stay, but it's not. It's only cutting and running when we could clearly help and we choose not to. That label is such BS.

[GaryC 7]

when did a dem prez cut & run?

With all due respect, many Dems today are encouraging our Republican President to do just that. Cut and run. Except they call it redeployment because their pollsters told them 'cut and run' don't sound too good to the folks back in Peoria (where the fukc is that anyway and why do the pundits on MSNBC keep bringing it up?).

Peoria, IL.

"Peoria has become famous as a representation of the average American city, because of its demographics and its perceived mainstream Midwestern culture. "

-Wikipedia

Hehe, I am living in Peoria.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

when did a dem prez cut & run?

With all due respect, many Dems today are encouraging our Republican President to do just that. Cut and run. Except they call it redeployment because their pollsters told them 'cut and run' don't sound too good to the folks back in Peoria (where the fukc is that anyway and why do the pundits on MSNBC keep bringing it up?).

two different things(actually more complex, but to keep it simple around here). 1) Dem pols are hacking away at the prez (ie "redeploy" = "you f'ed up prez, change the plan!"). 2) Dems in control actually cutting and running (has not happened. Reps have done that).

So, even if the terrist do want Bush (via Rep officeholders) beaten, that does not equate for them having an easier time of things. It is possible that the Dems once back in power will attempt to be smarter/tougher than the current admin on the terrist. Imagine that.

Daniel

:energetic:

[GaryC 7]

But doesn't "cutting" and "running" imply cowardice? Where is the cowardice in admitting a mistake, and realizing that the longer we stay, the more people die and the worse the situation becomes? If every day the situation improved, I would agree that we should stay, but it's not. It's only cutting and running when we could clearly help and we choose not to. That label is such BS.

Call it what you will. But the dems have made it clear that if they regain power they will set a date for pulling out. That does nothing but help the terrorists.

[Alex+R 0]

But doesn't "cutting" and "running" imply cowardice? Where is the cowardice in admitting a mistake, and realizing that the longer we stay, the more people die and the worse the situation becomes? If every day the situation improved, I would agree that we should stay, but it's not. It's only cutting and running when we could clearly help and we choose not to. That label is such BS.

Call it what you will. But the dems have made it clear that if they regain power they will set a date for pulling out. That does nothing but help the terrorists.

Why and how does that "help the terrorists," who seem to have multiplied since our occupation of Iraq?

Most Iraqis aren't terrorists or insurgents, so why do they want us to leave?

[GaryC 7]

when did a dem prez cut & run?

With all due respect, many Dems today are encouraging our Republican President to do just that. Cut and run. Except they call it redeployment because their pollsters told them 'cut and run' don't sound too good to the folks back in Peoria (where the fukc is that anyway and why do the pundits on MSNBC keep bringing it up?).

two different things(actually more complex, but to keep it simple around here). 1) Dem pols are hacking away at the prez (ie "redeploy" = "you f'ed up prez, change the plan!"). 2) Dems in control actually cutting and running (has not happened. Reps have done that).

So, even if the terrist do want Bush (via Rep officeholders) beaten, that does not equate for them having an easier time of things. It is possible that the Dems once back in power will attempt to be smarter/tougher than the current admin on the terrist. Imagine that.

Daniel

:energetic:

The only thing they will attempt is to leave Iraq with their tail between their legs. Smarter/tougher, yeah right! That is the biggest load of bull ever!

[Marc and Olga 0]

*ahem* please flip back a couple moe pages and read about WWII. Then tell me what Dems do during wars.

Daniel

:energetic:

That was then, this is now. The dems of 60 years ago bear no resemblance to the dems of today.

Oh, but 30 years ago is exactly like they are today? Or did you miss the post being replied to there...

Here let me refresh your memory:

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots. Of course they have increased the violence to attempt to affect the elections as they see the democrats as the likely party to hand them a victory over time.

Why you ask? Because the democrats, time and again, have demonstrated their willingness to just bail out of Iraq and Afghanisitan. The insurgents seem to be learning from past history.

They know, having referred to our history in Vietnam, that we will eventually cut'n run..........Or so is the democratic strategy.

I do not believe either party has a good plan in Iraq, unfortunately the only plan I have involves going back in time and preventing a war based on fraudulent intelligence and lies to the American people from the President of the United States of America and HIS Secretary of Defense.

Short of that, perhaps placing qualified people in charge of the reconstruction of Iraq would be a great place to start, you know it is just possible that had we done that in the first place Iraq would be a stable and independant country with the democracy that we went in to give them and have failed in over 3 years.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If every day the situation improved, I would agree that we should stay, but it's not.

That is simply the wrong test to apply to any situation. Bear in mind I am not saying the situation is improving in Iraq... all I am saying that is the wrong test. It is not uncommon for things to get much worse before they turn for the better. WW2 is full of such examples.

Now, getting into Iraq... will us leaving Iraq leave it better off or worse off? And more importantly, and selfishly, will it leave us better off or worse off?

I have no idea how Iraq will end up if we leave, but I have no doubt at all that it will do more harm than good to US interests if we are even percieved as cutting and running by our enemies. The appearance of strength must be withheld, especially during times of weakness... times like now. (btw that last sentence is a mangling of a line from Gangs of New York).

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

If every day the situation improved, I would agree that we should stay, but it's not. It's only cutting and running when we could clearly help and we choose not to. That label is such BS.

"cut and run" does not mean we can help but chose not to.

[GaryC 7]

But doesn't "cutting" and "running" imply cowardice? Where is the cowardice in admitting a mistake, and realizing that the longer we stay, the more people die and the worse the situation becomes? If every day the situation improved, I would agree that we should stay, but it's not. It's only cutting and running when we could clearly help and we choose not to. That label is such BS.

Call it what you will. But the dems have made it clear that if they regain power they will set a date for pulling out. That does nothing but help the terrorists.

Why and how does that "help the terrorists," who seem to have multiplied since our occupation of Iraq?

Most Iraqis aren't terrorists or insurgents, so why do they want us to leave?

It has drawn the terrorists to Iraq instead of them being spread all over the ME. It's much easier to kill them there. If we leave then they are free to plot and plan to hit us again. The war in Iraq isn't making terrorists, only drawing them like flies to sh!t.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

when did a dem prez cut & run?

With all due respect, many Dems today are encouraging our Republican President to do just that. Cut and run. Except they call it redeployment because their pollsters told them 'cut and run' don't sound too good to the folks back in Peoria (where the fukc is that anyway and why do the pundits on MSNBC keep bringing it up?).

two different things(actually more complex, but to keep it simple around here). 1) Dem pols are hacking away at the prez (ie "redeploy" = "you f'ed up prez, change the plan!"). 2) Dems in control actually cutting and running (has not happened. Reps have done that).

So, even if the terrist do want Bush (via Rep officeholders) beaten, that does not equate for them having an easier time of things. It is possible that the Dems once back in power will attempt to be smarter/tougher than the current admin on the terrist. Imagine that.

Daniel

:energetic:

The only thing they will attempt is to leave Iraq with their tail between their legs. Smarter/tougher, yeah right! That is the biggest load of bull ever!

again, show us where the Dems have done this? We've seen the Reps do this (plz refer back to Viet).

I think the Reps are simply unwilling to admit that the trategy chosen by W has been proven wrong. That a change in strategy is called for. FYI, this does not mean cut & run. Many other options available. i am sure our military folks are plenty capable of figuring out the best course of action.

Daniel

:energtic:

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

It is possible that the Dems once back in power will attempt to be smarter/tougher than the current admin on the terrist. Imagine that.

Daniel

:energetic:

ya right