Liberals, Terrorists and John Kerry
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
Not as funny as slammajamma's monthly P&L statement! Hahahahahahahahahahaha.
That's because you haven't seen his monthly P&L statement. Although your right, if I saw yours, it would probably be a bigger joke. LOL.
Quote from Maverick74:
That's because you haven't seen his monthly P&L statement. Although your right, if I saw yours, it would probably be a bigger joke. LOL.
See what I mean by an *overused* bore?
You can't expect different results when you continue to try the same thing again and again -- most people realize this.
JB
Then do me a favor and stop responding to it. I am trying to annoy you and apparently it's working. Go grab a beer kid and relax.
Why should he "admit" to doing something he did not do? When did the US abandon the search for bin Laden? The last time I checked we had thousands of troops in Afghanistan continuing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban, and were adding more.
What mistake in Iraq?
What is wrong with the President of these United States pronouncing that we will never give up on the fight to end terrorism? What would you prefer that he say?
Why should he "admit" to doing something he did not do?
If he allowed his personal desire to oust Saddam to rule his emotions and drag us into an unnecessary war, that was wrong.
If he knowlingly presented data that was shaky to draw us into war, that was wrong.
If he led us into a war that will cost billions of dollars that could have been spent on our own border patrol, fighting actual terrorism rather than "potential" terrorism, that was wrong.
When did the US abandon the search for bin Laden?
When exactly did we abandon the war on drugs?
If not for Iraq, we would have had the full force of our efforts on Bin Laden, and not nation building in Iraq.
The last time I checked we had thousands of troops in Afghanistan continuing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban, and were adding more.
We could have had the entire army that was diverted to Iraq, perhaps unnecessarily, looking for Bin Laden and Al Queda.
What mistake in Iraq?
If we fail to democratize Iraq, which I personally believe is destined to be a big failure, it will have been a huge mistake.
Time will tell.
What is wrong with the President of these United States pronouncing that we will never give up on the fight to end terrorism? What would you prefer that he say?
Speak softly and carry a big stick. What we say is meaningless, as evidence by LBJ's famous words concerning Vietnam:
"We will not be defeated.
We will not grow tired.
We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement. "
Lyndon B. Johnson
Why Americans Fight in Vietnam, 1965
If he allowed his personal desire to oust Saddam to rule his emotions and drag us into an unnecessary war, that was wrong.
If he knowlingly presented data that was shaky to draw us into war, that was wrong.
If he led us into a war that will cost billions of dollars that could have been spent on our own border patrol, fighting actual terrorism rather than "potential" terrorism, that was wrong.
When did the US abandon the search for bin Laden?
When exactly did we abandon the war on drugs?
If not for Iraq, we would have had the full force of our efforts on Bin Laden, and not nation building in Iraq.
The last time I checked we had thousands of troops in Afghanistan continuing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban, and were adding more.
We could have had the entire army that was diverted to Iraq, perhaps unnecessarily, looking for Bin Laden and Al Queda.
What mistake in Iraq?
If we fail to democratize Iraq, which I personally believe is destined to be a big failure, it will have been a huge mistake.
Time will tell.
What is wrong with the President of these United States pronouncing that we will never give up on the fight to end terrorism? What would you prefer that he say?
Speak softly and carry a big stick. What we say is meaningless, as evidence by LBJ's famous words concerning Vietnam:
"We will not be defeated.
We will not grow tired.
We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement. "
Lyndon B. Johnson
Why Americans Fight in Vietnam, 1965
That's a lot of "Ifs," and in themselves not enough to conclude that the President made a "mistake" he needs to admit to.
Exaggeration.
The search for bin Laden is not a matter of having divisions of tanks and troop carriers available. The mountainous terrain of Afghanistan is a far cry from the flat deserts of Iraq. It is not a question of sheer numbers of men and materiel. Just ask the Soviets.
Yes, what WE say is perhaps meaningless, but what the President says is not. Perhaps to you it is, but to millions of Americans not only WHAT the President says, but that he says it at all, is extremely important, especially in a time of war. By and large, the public needs to hear the President speak confidently and without hesitation in order to demonstrate his resolve - and that of our nation - to those who would destroy us.
Besides, what matters most is that our enemies hear him say - and believe him when he says it - that we will never yield to them.
That's a lot of "Ifs," and in themselves not enough to conclude that the President made a "mistake" he needs to admit to.
That is your opinion, not a fact. In my opinion, "if" any one of the "ifs" are true, he made a mistake.
Exaggeration.
Your opinion only.
The search for bin Laden is not a matter of having divisions of tanks and troop carriers available. The mountainous terrain of Afghanistan is a far cry from the flat deserts of Iraq. It is not a question of sheer numbers of men and materiel. Just ask the Soviets.
The search for Bin Laden is a matter of Bin Laden and the world knowing that he is enemy number 1, that Al Queda is enemy number 1 and our top priority, not nation building in Iraq.
Yes, what WE say is perhaps meaningless, but what the President says is not. Perhaps to you it is, but to millions of Americans not only WHAT the President says, but that he says it at all, is extremely important, especially in a time of war. By and large, the public needs to hear the President speak confidently and without hesitation in order to demonstrate his resolve - and that of our nation - to those who would destroy us.
Some people are stupid, what can I say? If they depend on a president's repeated verbal resolve, they themselves are just a bunch of sheep. Baaaa, baaaa, baaaa.
When Churchill gave a speech and talked about the resolve of the Brits, it had meaning, because he did not give the same damn speech each and every day.
The less you say, the more powerful the words are. Bush can't give a talk without using the same words over, and over, and over again in a moronic droning weak and ineffectual manner.
Besides, what matters most is that our enemies hear him say - and believe him when he says it - that we will never yield to them.
Ya, what Bush says really put the fear into the terrorists. Just ask the Spaniards.
That is your opinion, not a fact. In my opinion, "if" any one of the "ifs" are true, he made a mistake.
Exaggeration.
Your opinion only.
The search for bin Laden is not a matter of having divisions of tanks and troop carriers available. The mountainous terrain of Afghanistan is a far cry from the flat deserts of Iraq. It is not a question of sheer numbers of men and materiel. Just ask the Soviets.
The search for Bin Laden is a matter of Bin Laden and the world knowing that he is enemy number 1, that Al Queda is enemy number 1 and our top priority, not nation building in Iraq.
Yes, what WE say is perhaps meaningless, but what the President says is not. Perhaps to you it is, but to millions of Americans not only WHAT the President says, but that he says it at all, is extremely important, especially in a time of war. By and large, the public needs to hear the President speak confidently and without hesitation in order to demonstrate his resolve - and that of our nation - to those who would destroy us.
Some people are stupid, what can I say? If they depend on a president's repeated verbal resolve, they themselves are just a bunch of sheep. Baaaa, baaaa, baaaa.
When Churchill gave a speech and talked about the resolve of the Brits, it had meaning, because he did not give the same damn speech each and every day.
The less you say, the more powerful the words are. Bush can't give a talk without using the same words over, and over, and over again in a moronic droning weak and ineffectual manner.
Besides, what matters most is that our enemies hear him say - and believe him when he says it - that we will never yield to them.
Ya, what Bush says really put the fear into the terrorists. Just ask the Spaniards.