Canceled.LTroll.29
Banned
Funny thing. Although fear-mongering lefties like to brandish dire warnings about the impending doom overtaking America since we invaded Iraq, nothing has happened.
I'm not suggesting that is the result of any intended US strategy, because we simply don't know.
The people who hate us - that includes you, Dems - are far more decentralized, disorganized and scattered that even the Clinton campaign. This makes it difficult to remove pins from a map.
But, for whatever reason, America has not been attacked since Saddam was deposed, although plenty of other nations have.
How does that fact square with the pillar of liberal wisdom which states "Bush hasn't made us safer; in fact, we're more at risk"?
The Democrats' talking point is that "Al Qaeda" is the enemy, and by diverting resourcs to Iraq and Afgahnistan, Bush has rendered us defenseless.
Really? Do the terrorists know this? Maybe they don't read the New York Times.
The Crats' would have you believe the President acted unilaterally (and criminally) to knowingly invade Iraq against their sage advice.
One glance at the Congressional Record will dispel that cozy myth. I'm willing to give credit where credit is due and acknowledge that the Dems who voted to do the right thing (and still haven't voted to cut off funds for the war) are entitled to their share of approbation for liberating Iraq and Afghanistan.
It doesn't matter what they say, only what they do. And what they do is to continue funding the war on terror.
Islamic extremism takes many forms and has many names. To view Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda as the only agents who can harm American interests is a vapid and provably wrong position.
Put simply, since 9/11, Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan have been removed as launch pads for large-scale terrorist attacks against our nation.
The sad thing is that someone reading this is thinking it would be a good thing for an attack on the US to occur so that thay can score a debating point.
I'm not suggesting that is the result of any intended US strategy, because we simply don't know.
The people who hate us - that includes you, Dems - are far more decentralized, disorganized and scattered that even the Clinton campaign. This makes it difficult to remove pins from a map.
But, for whatever reason, America has not been attacked since Saddam was deposed, although plenty of other nations have.
How does that fact square with the pillar of liberal wisdom which states "Bush hasn't made us safer; in fact, we're more at risk"?
The Democrats' talking point is that "Al Qaeda" is the enemy, and by diverting resourcs to Iraq and Afgahnistan, Bush has rendered us defenseless.
Really? Do the terrorists know this? Maybe they don't read the New York Times.
The Crats' would have you believe the President acted unilaterally (and criminally) to knowingly invade Iraq against their sage advice.
One glance at the Congressional Record will dispel that cozy myth. I'm willing to give credit where credit is due and acknowledge that the Dems who voted to do the right thing (and still haven't voted to cut off funds for the war) are entitled to their share of approbation for liberating Iraq and Afghanistan.
It doesn't matter what they say, only what they do. And what they do is to continue funding the war on terror.
Islamic extremism takes many forms and has many names. To view Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda as the only agents who can harm American interests is a vapid and provably wrong position.
Put simply, since 9/11, Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan have been removed as launch pads for large-scale terrorist attacks against our nation.
The sad thing is that someone reading this is thinking it would be a good thing for an attack on the US to occur so that thay can score a debating point.