[bigred875]

For six years, the Bush administration has kept America safe from another terrorist attack, allowing the Democrats to claim that the war on terrorism is a fraud, a "bumper sticker," a sneaky ploy by a power-mad president to create an apocryphal enemy so he could spy on innocent librarians in Wisconsin. And that's the view of the moderate Democrats. The rest of them think Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.

But now with the U.S. government — as well as the British and German governments — warning of major terrorist attacks this summer, the Treason Lobby is facing the possibility that the "bumper sticker" could blow up in their faces.

The Democrats' entire national security calculus is based on the premise that "we have no important enemies," as stated by former senator Mike Gravel. He's one of the Democratic presidential candidates who doesn't know he's supposed to lie when speaking to the American people.

Ironically, the Democrats' ability to sneer at President Bush hinges on Bush's successful prosecution of the war on terrorism, despite the Democrats. It's going to be harder to persuade Americans that the "war on terrorism" is George Bush's imaginary enemy — the Reichstag fire, to quote our first openly Muslim congressman Keith Ellison — if there is another terrorist attack.

So naturally, they are blaming any future terrorist attacks on the war in Iraq.

The Democrats blame everything on Iraq, but their insane argument that we are merely annoying the enemy by fighting back has been neurotically repeated since the failed terrorist bombing in London a few weeks ago. The venue of the terrorists' latest attempt, a hot London nightclub, might even shake up the young progressive crowd. Apparently their soirees are not off-limits, notwithstanding their dutiful anti-imperialism.

In anticipation of their surrender strategy becoming substantially less popular in the wake of another terrorist attack, the Democrats are all claiming that the threat of terrorism was nonexistent — notwithstanding 9/11, the Cole bombing, the bombing of our embassies, the bombing of the World Trade Center, the Achille Lauro, etc. etc. — until George Bush invaded Iraq.

In the past week, B. Hussein Obama said the war in Iraq has made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Americans are "more at risk," he said, "and less safe than we should have been at this point." We would be safer with "better polices" — such as, presumably, Bill Clinton's policy of pretending Islamic terrorists don't exist and leaving the problem for the next president.

Hillary Clinton said we need to start "reversing our priorities. Let's stop sending troops to Iraq and let's start insuring every single child." Yes, that should put a good healthy scare into the insurgents. "Run for your life, Ahmed! All American children are getting regular checkups!"

Sen. Chris Dodd miraculously straddled both arguments — that the threat of terrorism is a fraud and that the Iraq war had increased its danger. He said "al-Qaida is insurgent again" because we've "turned Iraq into an incubator" for jihadists. But simultaneously with warning of a terrorist attack, Dodd also said he was "more skeptical than I'd like to be" of the Bush administration's warning of a terrorist attack. Damn that Bush! He's inflamed an imaginary enemy!

As with the Democrats' claim that the greatest military in the world is "losing" a war with camel-riding nomads, the claim that the war in Iraq is what created our terrorist problem — a terrorist problem that began about 30 years ago — has entered the media and is now stated as fact by the entire Treason Lobby.

CNN correspondent Suzanne Malveaux matter-of-factly reported this week: "President Bush says the central front in the war on terror is Iraq. But when the U.S. first invaded the country almost five years ago, al-Qaida had very little presence. But the intelligence report says that has changed. Al-Qaida not only has become a dangerous threat, the intelligence community expects the terrorist group will use its contacts and capabilities there to mount an attack on U.S. soil."

Say, wasn't the attack of 9/11 an "attack on U.S. soil"? How could that have happened since we hadn't invaded Iraq yet? What a weird aberration. How about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? How about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? The taking of our embassy in Tehran?

Another CNN correspondent, Ed Henry, followed up Malveaux's report with the somber news that "the president was warned before the war in Iraq that if you go in and invade Iraq, you're going to give al-Qaida more opportunities to expand its influence."

Similarly, Hitler and Goebbels never had much to say about the United States — not, that is, until we started fighting them!

But as soon as we entered the war — taking the bait of Hitler's declaration of war against us, which Democrats are urging us to avoid falling for in the case of al-Qaida — Hitler began portraying FDR as a pawn of the Jews. Soon posters started appearing in Germany showing the United States as a country run by Jews and Negroes. Fake dollar bills with the Star of David were air-dropped over Paris.

According to the Democrats' logic, FDR's policies made the United States less safe. Had Germany attacked us at Pearl Harbor? No. Was Hitler able to use America entering the war as a recruiting tool? Yes. Fighting the enemy always seems to make them mad. It's as plain as the nose on your face.

Democrats think they have concocted a brilliant argument by saying that jihadists have been able to recruit based on the war in Iraq. Yes, I assume so. Everything the United States has done since 9/11 has galvanized the evil people of the world to fight the U.S. In World War II, some Frenchmen joined the Waffen SS, too. And the good people of the world have been galvanized to fight on the side of the U.S. The question is: Which side are the Democrats on?

[Honclfibr]

Originally Posted by bigred875

For six years, the Bush administration has kept America safe from another terrorist attack, allowing the Democrats to claim that the war on terrorism is a fraud, a "bumper sticker," a sneaky ploy by a power-mad president to create an apocryphal enemy so he could spy on innocent librarians in Wisconsin. And that's the view of the moderate Democrats. The rest of them think Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.

This is where I stopped reading. Couldn't he have just opened with "While it's well known that all Democrats hate America..."

[Onlypastrana199]

+1 Honclfibr

[KillBill]

Originally Posted by Onlypastrana199

+1 Honclfibr

+1

[richw]

To a towel headed terrorist we are all the same

Black, white, self hating lefties, and your Babies. Allah wants you dead and his loyal servant will do his bidding.

Democrats don't hate America but to win their primary they have to say all this crap. Once in office like all politicians (including neocons) they will do what is best for their ego and FU too.

This will go back and forth and eventually Israel will nuke Tehran. Then all of a sudden other Muslims will see that Curran is a book of peace. Let's just hope they get around to it before the Iranians have their own nuke that they could smuggle to Al Qaeda.

So if you are smart self hating lefties you will move more then 20 miles from a downtown major seaport.

10 million dead Americans will help global warming our real problem

[highsider]

I'm surprised at you bigred - much lower quality than your normal posts.

[tonyd]

So many rediculous statements it doesn't even warrant an argument but damn does it frost me when people bring up WWII in comparison to the current scenerio. The only thing worse then not knowing and learning from history is distorting it to advance your cause. Simply desparate.

By the way, where did that post come from?

[bigred875]

ignoring a problem never made one go away.

you can say what you want about Iraq but you cannot ignore the growing terrorism problem. The started in the 70's. As far as i know Carter didnt do anything to enrage them did they? But they still went after us, and have consitantly and more boldy each time.

You may not like how the current administration is dealing with the problem. But atleast they do not pretend there isn't one.

It will be very interesting to see what happens in this country leading up to, and after the election.

The democrats are really going to have to stop the political games and come up with some real solutions. I don't see it happening....which is why I think another republucan will be elected.

Deep down people do not believe democrats will keep them safe.

wake up people...terrorism is not a democratic or a republican problem....it is all of ours..

[Onlypastrana199]

Deep down I believe you're a fucking brainwashed moron...

[tonyd]

Originally Posted by bigred875

.

Deep down people do not believe democrats will keep them safe.

wake up people...terrorism is not a democratic or a republican problem....it is all of ours..

Red, your right it's not a party problem, so why bash the Dems again?

What ever america has been doing the last 6 years, it has not reduced the threat from terrorists so maybe it is time to try something else.

If someone brings forth a creditble way forward they have my vote in '08 no matter what side of the ballot they are on, but so far I don't see one.

[tonyd]

Originally Posted by Onlypastrana199

Deep down I believe you're a fucking brainwashed moron...

[highsider]

Regardless of who wins the next election, the country will be a better place. We could elect Freddy Krueger or Wendy the Retard and the country would be in better shape than it is with Bush in charge.

Why the fuck hasn't Colin Powell announced his intentions to run yet. Someone send him a memo.

[TheIglu]

He wants nothing to do with this shitstorm. I can't blame him.

And you are all right to a point. It isn't a repub/dem problem. It's a religion problem. I can't see it any other way.

[bigred875]

Originally Posted by Onlypastrana199

Deep down I believe you're a fucking brainwashed moron...

how am i brainwashed? Enlighten me.

Originally Posted by tonyd

Red, your right it's not a party problem, so why bash the Dems again?

Because they down play the threat and tell people it is a made up neocon scare tactic... The threat may not be as bad as this administration tells us but there the threat is still there. The democrats refuse to acknowledge that because it isn't the popular opinion. They bash the republicans and everything they stand for, so admitting anything give the reps credibility. We can't have that can we..

What ever america has been doing the last 6 years, it has not reduced the threat from terrorists so maybe it is time to try something else.

that is just not true. which side does the brainwashing again?

If someone brings forth a creditble way forward they have my vote in '08 no matter what side of the ballot they are on, but so far I don't see one.

i'll drink to that

Originally Posted by highsider

Regardless of who wins the next election, the country will be a better place.

the country isnt in that bad of shape now

Originally Posted by TheIglu

And you are all right to a point. It isn't a repub/dem problem. It's a religion problem. I can't see it any other way.

[highsider]

I'm so not cutting and pasting all of that...

The country *is* in relatively bad shape. We're no in imminent danger of civil war, but we are funding a mostly ineffective "War on a Verb", which seems to be taking place mostly in Iraq, a country that has yet been proven to have been involved in any terrorism that affected this country. American soliders are dying while fighting an ineffective war, because it is being so mishandled.

Bush's politics have been more polarizing than any President since Nixon. Because of his inflammatory political tactics, our government has spent more time fighting against itself than any foreign enemy.

The amount of money and lives the war is costing, coupled with the political shit-storm Dubya has cooked up makes me think the future will definitely hold some very, very radical changes for the better.

[richw]

God bless the troops but

49000 Americans died last year in traffic accidents
4800 motorcyclists
17000 were killed in accidents where alcohol was involved.

Where is the bleeding heart hand wringing about that

The terrorist know they have to win in Iraq or just become some disorganized mob. If they chase you out of Iraq then they become a world wide political force.... and Muslims outnumber us 10 to 1

Guess what cosy liberals... who was the 1st noteworthy victim of Jihad
Robert Kennedy by Siran Siran

Lefty knee jerk anti military is a pathetic echo left over from your KGB founders. You don't care what happens to Army guys and there isn't a draft so just shut up and let them do their work and I wish all politicians would but out. Give them the mission and let go the dogs of war.

[bigred875]

nixon wasn't that bad of a president either

[TheIglu]

Soldiers doing their job isn't and never was the issue Rich. If you think that's the case then you are blind to the larger issue here.

[tonyd]

Originally Posted by bigred875

that is just not true. which side does the brainwashing again?

We are no safer now, as a matter of fact...

From Boston.com July 16, 2007 -

"A new US intelligence assessment being released to Congress this week is expected to say that Al Qaeda is stepping up its efforts to sneak terrorist operatives into the United States and has acquired most of the capabilities it needs to strike here.

The National Intelligence Estimate is expected to point in particular to Al Qaeda's growing ability to use its base along the Pakistan-Afghan border to launch and inspire attacks.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said last week he had a "gut feeling" that the nation faces a higher risk of attack this summer.

Without offering specifics, he has pointed to several factors: Al Qaeda's increased freedom to train in South Asia; a flurry of public statements from the network's leadership; a history of summertime attacks; and a broader range of attacks in North Africa and Europe, and homegrown terrorism increasing in Europe"



Sounds to me like we are going in the wrong direction.

[highsider]

Originally Posted by bigred875

nixon wasn't that bad of a president either

if'n you like thieves....

[bigred875]

Originally Posted by tonyd

We are no safer now, as a matter of fact...

From Boston.com July 16, 2007 -

"A new US intelligence assessment being released to Congress this week is expected to say that Al Qaeda is stepping up its efforts to sneak terrorist operatives into the United States and has acquired most of the capabilities it needs to strike here.

The National Intelligence Estimate is expected to point in particular to Al Qaeda's growing ability to use its base along the Pakistan-Afghan border to launch and inspire attacks.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said last week he had a "gut feeling" that the nation faces a higher risk of attack this summer.

Without offering specifics, he has pointed to several factors: Al Qaeda's increased freedom to train in South Asia; a flurry of public statements from the network's leadership; a history of summertime attacks; and a broader range of attacks in North Africa and Europe, and homegrown terrorism increasing in Europe"



Sounds to me like we are going in the wrong direction.

all that articles says is that the terrorists are preparing to fight back. that is usually what enemies do. That doesn't mean that we are not safer then we were on 9/11. A lot of work has gone into keeping the citizens of this country safe...and it is making a difference. Terror plots have been stopped.

There is no way we will ever be totally safe...we live in a free society...

I'm not going to argue about the direction...i think Iraq is a cluster fuck as well. But, atleast it is a direction.....what is teh direction of the democrats.

besides bashing W and republicans?

[bigred875]

Originally Posted by highsider

if'n you like thieves....

someone needs a history lesson

[highsider]

Originally Posted by bigred875

someone needs a history lesson

I know 2 things about Nixon. Watergate, and Vietnam. Do I need to know anything else?

[tonyd]

Red you continue to amaze me but at least your consistant.

Iraq was not mentioned in my last post.

[bigred875]

watergate aside, which he would have gotten out of if he ratted his people out and JFK was the first president to send troops into vietnam.