So Bush has killed 2,000 of our American soldiers with his war in Iraq . . . the war he is finishing because his daddy couldn't finish . . . the war that he founded on lies to the American public . . . his war (Bush's).
But I wonder how many of those young men who have lost their lives in Iraq in the past few months have been killed as the result of indirect actions by the Democrats on our shores, 6,000 miles away from the combat zone? The Democrats have endlessly repeated their rhetoric about this war being founded on lies and mistruths until they have managed to swing American sentiment in regards to the war. They have convinced the American public that this is Bush's war, and not America's war.
As a result, the insurgents in Iraq "” who might have otherwise given up by now "” are emboldened. They believe that if they hold out just a little bit longer, the American sentiment will continue to shift until it reaches a point where the Bush administration is forced to withdraw troops from Iraq. And so they fight with new hope and new vigor. The Democrats, even if unintentionally, give this hope to the insurgents. And American G.I.'s continue to die.
Give the Democrats credit where credit is due: They have achieved what they want to achieve. They may well win back the Senate this fall. The problem, however, is that they don't give a damn about America. They simply want to regain power. To hell with American interests for now; get back in power at any and all costs, and then worry about patching things up later. Their cutthroat tactics are unlike any I've observed in American politics in my lifetime. I'm no fan of the political games waged by either side of the aisle, but I can honestly say I've never seen anything like this.
We're winning the war in Iraq. Our combat fatalities have steadily dropped over the past five months. But you wouldn't get that impression from listening to the Democrats, would you? The number of U.S. casualties in Iraq in March was the lowest of any single month since February 2004. But you wouldn't get that impression from listening to the liberal-minded mainstream media, would you? Top Iraqi officials have said that weapons of mass destruction were shipped to Syria prior to the start of the war. But you wouldn't get that impression from listening to the Democrats or the liberal-minded mainstream media, would you? In fact, if you listen to either of those groups, you'd believe that it's already concluded that the WMDs are non-existent.
That's because Americans aren't getting the full truth from the mainstream media. And they're getting outright lies from the Democrats. And Iraqi insurgents are emboldened and American troops continue to die.
"This is Bush's war," the Democrats say. Yet how quickly they've forgotten that nearly every notable Democrat in the Capital prior to the start of the war was making or had made comments within the past three years that Saddam Houssein was a menace that equated a threat to America.
"Yeah, but that's because Bush lied to us," they counter, forgetting that many of their comments were made before Bush even took office in 1999.
"But that still doesn't excuse the fact that Bush founded this war on lies," they say, ignoring the fact that they had access to the same intelligence reports that Bush had access to; that the CIA believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; that the Clinton administration believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; that Iraq claimed to have weapons of mass destruction.
They were for leading America to war when it appeared that weapons of mass destruction were in every warehouse in Baghdad. Then they were against it when we didn't find WMDs in six months. This was America's war when it suited them, and Bush's war when it didn't.
They told their constituents that Saddam Houssein boasted weapons of mass destruction when the intelligence said that he did. Then pointed the finger at Bush when it became convenient for them to change their stance.
The only thing consistent about the Democrats, it appears, is their inconsistency.
And in the meantime, they continue to sound the rhetoric against the war. And American sentiment continues to change. And Iraqi insurgents continue to be emboldened and American troops continue to die.
So did Bush kill all 2,000 of those troops himself? Or did the Democrats aid him along?
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
So Bush has killed 2,000 of our American soldiers with his war in Iraq . . . the war he is finishing because his daddy couldn't finish . . . the war that he founded on lies to the American public . . . his war (Bush's).
But I wonder how many of those young men who have lost their lives in Iraq in the past few months have been killed as the result of indirect actions by the Democrats on our shores, 6,000 miles away from the combat zone? The Democrats have endlessly repeated their rhetoric about this war being founded on lies and mistruths until they have managed to swing American sentiment in regards to the war. They have convinced the American public that this is Bush's war, and not America's war.
As a result, the insurgents in Iraq "” who might have otherwise given up by now "” are emboldened. They believe that if they hold out just a little bit longer, the American sentiment will continue to shift until it reaches a point where the Bush administration is forced to withdraw troops from Iraq. And so they fight with new hope and new vigor. The Democrats, even if unintentionally, give this hope to the insurgents. And American G.I.'s continue to die.
Give the Democrats credit where credit is due: They have achieved what they want to achieve. They may well win back the Senate this fall. The problem, however, is that they don't give a damn about America. They simply want to regain power. To hell with American interests for now; get back in power at any and all costs, and then worry about patching things up later. Their cutthroat tactics are unlike any I've observed in American politics in my lifetime. I'm no fan of the political games waged by either side of the aisle, but I can honestly say I've never seen anything like this.
We're winning the war in Iraq. Our combat fatalities have steadily dropped over the past five months. But you wouldn't get that impression from listening to the Democrats, would you? The number of U.S. casualties in Iraq in March was the lowest of any single month since February 2004. But you wouldn't get that impression from listening to the liberal-minded mainstream media, would you? Top Iraqi officials have said that weapons of mass destruction were shipped to Syria prior to the start of the war. But you wouldn't get that impression from listening to the Democrats or the liberal-minded mainstream media, would you? In fact, if you listen to either of those groups, you'd believe that it's already concluded that the WMDs are non-existent.
That's because Americans aren't getting the full truth from the mainstream media. And they're getting outright lies from the Democrats. And Iraqi insurgents are emboldened and American troops continue to die.
"This is Bush's war," the Democrats say. Yet how quickly they've forgotten that nearly every notable Democrat in the Capital prior to the start of the war was making or had made comments within the past three years that Saddam Houssein was a menace that equated a threat to America.
"Yeah, but that's because Bush lied to us," they counter, forgetting that many of their comments were made before Bush even took office in 1999.
"But that still doesn't excuse the fact that Bush founded this war on lies," they say, ignoring the fact that they had access to the same intelligence reports that Bush had access to; that the CIA believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; that the Clinton administration believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; that Iraq claimed to have weapons of mass destruction.
They were for leading America to war when it appeared that weapons of mass destruction were in every warehouse in Baghdad. Then they were against it when we didn't find WMDs in six months. This was America's war when it suited them, and Bush's war when it didn't.
They told their constituents that Saddam Houssein boasted weapons of mass destruction when the intelligence said that he did. Then pointed the finger at Bush when it became convenient for them to change their stance.
The only thing consistent about the Democrats, it appears, is their inconsistency.
And in the meantime, they continue to sound the rhetoric against the war. And American sentiment continues to change. And Iraqi insurgents continue to be emboldened and American troops continue to die.
So did Bush kill all 2,000 of those troops himself? Or did the Democrats aid him along?
So which is more ridiculous: Suggesting that the Democrats are responsible for dead American soldiers, or suggesting that Bush is responsible for dead American soldiers?
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,185
RE: So Bush killed 2000 soldiers?
Ill tell you, my cousin who is an officer with many toops under him, does not appreciate the American bashing going on by Americans. It makes his job more and more dangerous.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
I never mentioned Hillary or Kennedy. Those are your words, not mine. But Hillary has contributed her share, as has Teddy. As for who is in power, that's immaterial. The topic at hand is whether American G.I.s are dying because insurgents are being emboldened by American opinion. And if the answer is "yes," then who is responsible for that: The Republicans who are in power, or the Democrats who want to be in power?
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
Ill tell you, my cousin who is an officer with many toops under him, does not appreciate the American bashing going on by Americans. It makes his job more and more dangerous.
...Deleted by CalHunter.....in this country we are allowed to talk..so far anyway...it's called freedom.
I'm sure it's Hillary's fault..or Kennedy's or the lib's did it.
Just one question..who's in power?
Who all voted for the war with the exact same intellegence as the present administration did?
Can't challenge it? This is easier than kindergarden.
I didn't vote for it..and that's who I'm dealing with my convictions, and truths. I knew this administration was lying all along and have been saying the same things on different forums since before the invasion.
The idiots who did vote for it did it for one reason because of false intellegence from this administration..another one because they thought it would help get them a vote down the line.
However..just like most everybody else in the world and in this country now days..except for the 30 something % of Bush Zombies..they are beginning to see the real truth.
I never mentioned Hillary or Kennedy. Those are your words, not mine. But Hillary has contributed her share, as has Teddy. As for who is in power, that's immaterial. The topic at hand is whether American G.I.s are dying because insurgents are being emboldened by American opinion. And if the answer is "yes," then who is responsible for that: The Republicans who are in power, or the Democrats who want to be in power?
You have the audacity to blame Bush's and the neocon'sinvasion on the democrats..it's a bad joke.
So Bush killed 2000 soldiers?
