Dems Favorite Halloween Costume: Patriot

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!

Rest in peace Mark Manley.

---

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

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

You're my hero of the day, Joe.

---

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?

---

"What did we do to earn that one?"

Enjoy your bubble.

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

"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

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

thanks for the bump.

and you and your kind are "not annoying"

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

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

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.