Baldimo wrote:Don't any of you think for a moment that if there was an attack in the US again that the Dems wouldn't seize it for political gain. They would say that Bush didn't do enough to fight terrorism and that all Reps should be thrown from office.
It works both ways people. It does stand to reason that the halted attack on more airplanes should be a reminder to all that we are still fighting a war on terrorism. While I don't think any one has forgotten that I think some would have us beleive that it isn't that important of an issue. Dems for the most part are weak on terror and want us to understand the enemy more and fight them less. There is no hug and a kiss to make it all better. They started it and we are going to do are best to end it or even make it a smaller threat to all.
The oversimplification from the wingnuts is truly stunning. I guess that explains why Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans right now in fighting terrorism. Must have something to do with invading a country that never attacked us.
Sounds like all those rightwing captains are gonna go down with their sinking ship screaming absurdities and the usual Ken Mehlman parrot points. So be it. It couldn't look worse for Bush and the Republican party right now, and so the latest terrorist threat was rolled out just in the nick of time.
Funny, though, how the intent and methods of the BRITISH terrorists (not Middle Eastern) was discussed months ago, and yet Bush never once uttered a word about it.
Must be that rightwing logic. When they say we're fighting in Iraq so we don't have to fight terrorists here, we still have terrorist threats on our soil and attacks in London, Spain and Aman. When they say we are fighting Islamic-fascists, we are only further dividing this country by alienating our Muslim population who we need in order to fight this ideology. When they yell and scream at the top of their lungs that Democrats are weak on terror, they only need to look at their own poll numbers to realize how full of **** they truly are. When they accuse those like Murtha of cutting and running, they completely miss the point that the anti-war movement is growing and includes a good deal of Republicans as well.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060811/ap_on_el_ge/republicans_ap_poll
If there was ever another attack on this country, then the argument that we're fighting them in Iraq so they don't come here becomes completely and utterly moot. Afterall, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and terrorism has only increased under Bush's watch. It's not that Bush isn't doing enough to fight terrorism. He has only created MORE terrorism by using America's military might in fighting a murderous ideology which is not state-sponsored and is very difficult to pin entirely on the Muslim community. But the compexities of this conflict we are currently engaged completely eludes the wingnuts out there, and Bush's cronies know it. They therefore must scare Americans into keeping them in power.
Know thy enemy. Every sane military leader will tell you that. To hear the wingnuts accuse Democrats of wanting to understand better what and who we're fighting rather than shoot first and ask questions later (the rightwing approach to everything, be it the Middle East or Florida) only exmplifies their unbelievable shallowness and intellectual dishonesty in this debate.