blueflame1 wrote:Brandon, well. You support the troops your way and I'll support them my way. Meanwhile this situation at Walter Reed deserves our attention. Funny how those who opposed the war have taken so much flack on the issue of who supports the troops and who dont. If Bushie had worked with Hans Blix Saddam would have been destroyed with no loss of life. Not only did Bushie send our troops into an unjust, unneeded war as Jimmy Carter calls it but he shortchanged them every which way he could. When people like me point out the big picture they are pounded with statements just like the one you gave me. Your inuendo that this story may be unreliable is amazing. You should be as outraged as I on this. Here's something else bad about America. It reminds me you.
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/10/vets-group-proves-gop-does-not-support.html
First of all, I didn't imply this story was unreliable. I was referring to the whole history of your posts. Obviously, the Washington Post can be counted on to get the facts right most of the time.
Secondly, American Presidents had been working with the inspectors for over a decade and still had no verifiable proof that the weapons and weapons programs were gone. Saddam Hussein had most certainly not been destroyed, which, incidentally, wasn't the purpose of the invasion anyway.
And finally, you ignore my actual point, which is that you can find both good and bad things, both reliable and unreliable, to say about any country. However, you seem only interested in the bad things about America, and don't appear to care much whether they are reliable or not.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace