Dems Favorite Halloween Costume: Patriot

[Dakin]

Posted: 10/25/06 at 6:41pm

Ann hits the Nail Again! Way to Go Ann!

After some of us began to ask which part of the war on terrorism Democrats support, Larry Kudlow put the question directly to Rep. Barney Frank on CNBC's "Kudlow & Company." Frank said: "What part of the war on terrorism do I support? I voted for war in Afghanistan."

On "60 Minutes" last Sunday night, aspiring House speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced the war in Iraq as not "part of the war on terror." The war on terror, she said "is the war in Afghanistan."

So that's it. The one part of the war on terror — or "so-called war on terror," as New York Times so-called columnist Bob Herbert calls it — Democrats even pretend to support is the war in Afghanistan.
Ann is Driving them Crazy!

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 10/25/06 at 6:46pm

The war on terror is worldwide or should be

[cheezedoodle]

Posted: 10/25/06 at 6:49pm

Rest in peace Mark Manley.

Updated On: 10/25/06 at 06:49 PM

[Dakin]

Posted: 10/25/06 at 7:02pm

Another confusing, inappropriate response from the free speech crowd.

Posted: 10/25/06 at 7:09pm

Dakin I'll use small words: Af-ghan-i-stan. Went to fight Taliban, who supported Al Queda. (They attacked us on 9-11.) That will probably DECREASE terrorist attacks. Good thing.

Iraq: Went to fight some weird dictator. It INCREASED terrorist attacks. Bad thing.

But-- here's the weird part! You might support ONE and not THE OTHER! And-- You could still be a patriot no matter WHICH one you supported! It's called a DIFFERENCE OF OPINION which didn't used to be immediately considered treasonous.

Got that? I guess it could be confusing. Feel free to ask if you get confused again.
Updated On: 10/25/06 at 07:09 PM

[SueSnell]

Posted: 10/25/06 at 8:09pm

One year I ran out of candy so I put on a Linda Tripp mask. The Canadian kids did not know who she was but they rang screaming into the night at the sight of someone who did the original "Patriot" act....

[Raviolisun]

Posted: 10/25/06 at 8:14pm

You're my hero of the day, Joe.

[roquat]

Posted: 10/25/06 at 10:35pm

I love her description of reporters as "Democrats who don't have to appeal to voters." Two things:

1) Like the ones at Fox News?

2) I didn't see her hauling her underfed skeleton out to Afghanistan OR Iraq to comment firsthand on the war. It's easy to judge other people from a sleek "exclusive" apartment building.

[roquat]

Posted: 10/25/06 at 10:43pm

And while I think of it--

Regarding patriotism--Walter Cronkite, a conservative to the nines, commented on this same tactic (branding dissenters to a war as "unpatriotic") when it was used during the worst later years of the Vietnam war (and by the same kind of smug, power-mad Republicans.)

"How can patriotism be defined anyway? It may be there are those who grieved to see their country participating in such a war, who resented the blot that war would leave forever on their country's honor, and who were brave enough to speak up about it. That could be regarded as a greater act of patriotism than supporting an ill-advised and grievously prolonged war that was fast showing itself to be unwinnable."

Sound familiar?

[Dakin]

Posted: 10/25/06 at 10:54pm

Cronkite is one of the patron saints of modern liberalism.

If the Iraq War created more terrorists, explain why we were attcked on 9-11. What did we do to earn that one?

Please explain from the blame America first perspective.
Updated On: 10/25/06 at 10:54 PM

[DG]

Posted: 10/25/06 at 10:55pm

"What did we do to earn that one?"

Enjoy your bubble.

[Dakin]

Posted: 10/25/06 at 11:05pm

I'm certain it was Karl Rove and George Bush who are responsibile for 9-11, I was just asking for you to explain it from the treason/tolerance crowd perspective.

[MLE]

Posted: 10/25/06 at 11:34pm

Dakin-
Do you like theatre, any theatre in any way shape or form? Have you posted anything of relevance on the main board? I am really curious as to your answer.
Though it is not expressly stated in the guidelines that you have to enjoy Broadway, it helps on a Broadway message board.
You come here and post and then complain about all the liberals here. Well, duh. Big discovery, theatre people tend to be more liberal....wow.
You don't even discuss, all you do is throw around labels and a strictly one-sided view point. Now, if you want to have a mature discussion and have a different point of view, that's fine. But if all you do is exist here to annoy and instigate, then I'm going to use the ignore feature. I tolerate other POVs, not cheap shots.
Somehow, I feel I've completely wasted my time addressing you, but I invite you, no challenge you to prove me wrong. If you do, I will have no problem recognizing you for it. If not, well then I hit the button. I'm sooo close as it is.
Updated On: 10/25/06 at 11:34 PM

[Dakin]

Posted: 10/26/06 at 10:34am

Thanks for the lecture, MLE.

Are you trying like all of the other libs to control the board.

[roquat]

Posted: 10/26/06 at 11:10am

"Cronkite is the patron saint of modern liberalism"

By whose definition? This might come as a surprise to the anti-Communist, tough-on-crime Mr. Cronkite, who "got along just fine" with Nixon and Reagan. It's yet another pathetic example of the way you work. You don't address a single word Cronkite said about war and patriotism; you just call him a liberal, which is supposed to dismiss him as beneath contempt. Ann Coulter does the same thing ("It's easy to talk to a liberal. They're stupid!") and so did Bush in the Kerry debates with his "liberal Senator from Massachusetts" mantra. All of you understand nothing but mud-flinging and name calling.

Have you (or the pampered, overprivileged Ms. Coulter) ever lived in Soviet Russia on a meager state ration during the worst years of Communism? Or flown overseas to serve as a war correspondent in the thick of battle--not once, but many times? Or interviewed every major world leader of this century? Then forgive me if I regard Cronkite as more of an expert than either of you on world affairs. And I'm willing to bet his eloquence and gravity will have a longer shelf life than "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity", or "The 9/11 widows enjoyed their grief", or "Someone should poison Justice John Paul Stevens", or any of the other "great Ann Coulter quotes" you're so fond of.

Updated On: 10/28/06 at 11:10 AM

Posted: 10/26/06 at 11:13am

Dakin, MORE does not mean ALL. The Iraq war did not creat ALL terrorists, it created MORE of them.

And, if you read papers other than the Washington Times and NewsMax you'd see that Al Queda attacked the US on 9-11 because they hate our way of life, they hate our support of Isreal and they hate that we had troops in Saudi Arabia, their holy land. I don't think it's treasonous to speculate WHY they did it-- it certainly doesn't excuse their actions.

[Dakin]

Posted: 10/26/06 at 12:26pm

Yes, and Al Qaeda still hates us! You think that they hate us more? Only a lib could try to find shades of hatred?

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

[Ciaron McCarthy]

Posted: 10/26/06 at 12:52pm

Fact from the fact machine:

George W. Bush caused the Cubs to lose to the Marlins in Game 7 of the National League Championship Series so that white men, oil companies, gun owners, Republicans, and big corporations could oppress women.

These are facts people. Wake up!! Fight the real enemy!! WOMEN!!!!!

[Dakin]

Posted: 10/26/06 at 12:54pm

thanks for the bump.

[romantico]

Posted: 10/26/06 at 12:56pm

MLE, I have been asking this question for months! Thank You. Dakin changes his screen name because he keeps getting banned from the board. He doesn't come here for freidnly debate, he comes here to bully and mock those who don;t agree with him. For some reason, he is STILL allowed to post around here. Its just kind of annoying.

[Dakin]

Posted: 10/26/06 at 12:58pm

and you and your kind are "not annoying"

Wow. Your alternative reality gets more extreme each and every day.

[romantico]

Posted: 10/26/06 at 1:01pm

If we're so annoying Dakin, why post on a mostly liberal website? Its not that we're not willing to agree to disagree but you come here with the intent to disrupt only. You make claims you can't back up, make fun of those who's views aren't yours, and all your posts are political. ON A BROADWAY MESSAGE BOARD! HEL-LO???

[Ciaron McCarthy]

Posted: 10/26/06 at 1:02pm

George W. Bush lowered taxes so that gun owners, big corporations, SUV owners, the Christian Coalition, and white men could invade minorities.

[Dakin]

Posted: 10/26/06 at 4:49pm

Immediately after the attacks of 9/11, Democrats had no choice but to vote in favor of that war -- of any war. (Save one member of Congress -- guess which party? Answer: Rep. Barbara Lee, Democrat, of California.)

If Bush had gone to war with Iraq immediately after 9/11 and waited to attack Afghanistan, Democrats would now be pretending to support the Iraq war while pointlessly carping about Afghanistan. Afghanistan didn't attack us on 9/11! The Taliban didn't attack us! What's our exit strategy? How do you define "victory" in Afghanistan, anyway? It's a quagmire -- aahhhhh!

The beauty of Democrats' pretending to be hawks on Afghanistan is that most people can't remember what liberals said five minutes after they said it, much less five years later.

In fact, during the brief five weeks it took American forces to take Kabul and send the Taliban scurrying, liberals were not the flag-waving patriots they would have us believe.

In October 2001, Sen. Joe Biden gave a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations saying that America's air war in Afghanistan made the United States look like "this high-tech bully that thinks from the air we can do whatever we want to do."

Courtesy of Ann Coulter

[Dakin]

Posted: 10/26/06 at 4:55pm

Four weeks before U.S. troops completely vanquished the Taliban, Kim Jong Il's pal, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, said on CNN's "Capital Gang" that the Taliban would not soon be toppled. He cited his experience with the Taliban, saying: "I think they can hold on for a while. They were very resilient."

Howard Dean joined Michael Moore in arguing that Osama bin Laden was innocent until proved guilty.

Except for a few idiots like Biden, Richardson and Dean, most politicians -- who have to run for election -- duly voted in favor of the war in Afghanistan and let their mouthpieces in the media bash it for them. (Remember: A lot of them voted for war in Iraq, too.)

Democrats who would not have to face voters -- we call them "reporters" -- were calling Afghanistan a "quagmire" approximately six minutes after we invaded.

Thomas Ricks, the Washington Post reporter who currently has a book out saying the war in Iraq is not succeeding, also said the war in Afghanistan was not succeeding.

On Oct. 27, 2001, Ricks said this about Afghanistan -- not Iraq: "Although there is little evidence -- yet -- that the U.S. approach is succeeding, officials at the Pentagon and the White House said yesterday that they are sticking with their original strategy."

Our boys had taken Kabul before Ricks' article hit the recycling bin.