No Attacks?
Posted By: Gimme A Break on 2008-12-21
In Reply to: It may be hard to credit Bush with no attacks when there is...sm - good grief
Anthrax.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
need more attacks
More liberals need to start attacking back at the neocons. For too long we have remained quiet while the republicans have been in full attack mode, especially during last year's election, smearing a true Vietnam hero, Kerry, whereas Bush never even finished his National Guard duty and Cheney and Rumsfield never went into the military but they find it is quite alright to send our sons and daughters to war for nothing. We need more liberals to start screaming out about the terrible people in the WH.
No need for attacks
he got what he wanted which was the Iraq War and taking out Sudam. Show me bin Laden and maybe I'll be willing to give Bush some credit. Something mighty strange that we with the mightiest miliary in the world can't get him. But I guess Cheney would say, "SO??????" What a couple of crooks!
How many terrorists attacks have we had since 911
nm
Thx - the attacks are really getting out of hand
Reminds me of that line in the movie where the guy says "I'm mad as he!! and I'm not going to take it anymore". Really though, I've read back through all the posts and not one post about something positive about Obama's plans. Just attacks to the other side and other posters. I feel if I'm going to get this I might as well just turn on MSNBC, and now I get my MIL who has such hatred for Bush is coming out saying that today market failure (whatever you call it- that 300 or so point drop) she's saying that is McCain and Palin' fault. I don't even get into political arguments with her anymore. It's just mind numbing how closed their minds are. Glad you liked my post.
we don;t need personal attacks.
nm
personal attacks are
not allowed on this board. Stop immediately.
personal attacks are
not allowed on this board. Stop attacking me personally with your imagining what I have or don't have in my work area. Stick to the issues.
Why the personal attacks?
This has nothing to do with this conversation. What this person makes and why they make that is none of our business. The point was that she didn't live beyond her means and doesn't want a handout and that right there makes her a heck of a lot better than a lot of people.
Let's talk about attacks....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeVBaM2lQsg
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28656#continueA
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/09/12/conn-paper-tired-attacking-palin-attacks-angry-town-wasilla-inst
http://fredshelm.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/debunking-the-moonbat-attacks-against-palin-part-1/
There are plenty more, those are just a few.
It is called more attacks like the one we went through
Do you actually believe the govt is telling us about each and every plot they help dismantle to make the country safer. Oooh- can I be in your fantasy movie.
People may hate GW - You know our "President of the United States", but Americans (the patriotic ones that is) are grateful for the policies that have been put in place that enable them to find out when things are happening so we will not endure another 911. Sorry you don't like the fact, but that's what they are.
I for one am very grateful we have not been attacked again.
"And I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free. And I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me. And I'll gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today. Cos there ain't no doubt I love this land. God bless the USA!"
The attacks didn't happen here
they happened in London, England and you don't see people London whining and acting like the world is coming to the end. They got up and got on those darned buses and trains. These terrorists made very little headway at all yesterday.
You all don't get the point do you? You really don't. No matter where we are in the world you're going to find fault with it as long as it is done under conservative leadership.
I think I understood every word you said loud and clear. 
and the personal attacks continue
Occurs to me there's no basis in any of your attacks.
Name one thing I made up and we'll see what the truth is. Go ahead, poser - explain what you mean.
Foiled Terror Attacks...sm
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/britain-thwarts-plot-to-bomb-us-bound/20060810015209990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Fox Attacks Barack Obama..sm
(see link)
We were told by moderator -no more attacks on
nm
And now we revert to personal attacks
on posters when you can't them to agree with you. What a waste.
Stop the personal attacks. SM
Stop with personal attacks, the vile name-calling, grammar policing and foul language.
Debate the issues. Respect opinions.
I'm not moderating for niceness but there is some troll behavior going on and it has to go.
Moderator
Of course it's the fault of the terrorists for carrying out attacks.
And it's the fault of this president for obsessing about Saddam Hussein (since he's been doing since the early 1990s) and not doing enough to protect his own people from future attacks.
The terrorists have all the power here. They're holding all the cards. They once again managed to scare a large part of the world. They also know something that American soldiers DON'T know. The know what the outcome of their plan is going to be. They use the element of surprise, and when they wake up in the morning, they don't wonder if they're still going to be alive the next day. They already KNOW they won't be because they've planned it that way. They control their own fate, as well as the fate of everyone who gets in their way.
Our soldiers have to deal with that every single day. A car bomb here. A suicide bomber there. Every single day is 9/11 for them. It sounds real nice to pretend to respect and honor them when participating in a photo op on an aircraft carrier. Why doesn't he care enough about their lives to provide adequate body armor and Humvees for them? He has no problem giving big tax breaks to his rich base (and YES, they are his REAL base, not the Christian right; just wait till he betrays you all with his moderate Supreme Court nominees). He has no problem giving free healthcare to all Iraqis. Forget about the American people for a minute. Why can't he care about our troops -- our CHILDREN -- enough to supply them with adequate equipment? Of course, he personally would not know what constitutes adequate equipment because HE WAS TOO MUCH OF A COWARD TO EVER SERVE IN COMBAT.
As far as giving this President too much credit, you obviously didn't comprehend one word of my post.
 HELLO!
can we just debate and stop with the personal attacks?
I know, Democrat, I know, and if I come across as harsh sometimes, that is just me..however, the post below that I condone terrorism really cut me..I have never condoned terrorism..to protest, of course, that is part of America, long live protests, but to say I condone terrorism..OMG..I have tried to debate logically, of course, not what conservatives believe but that is what debating is all about..two different ideas..I have not attacked personally yet these neocons continue to post on the liberal board and attack the liberals for what they have posted and they have attacked me non stop..I thought a few weeks ago we made a deal that we would post respectfully but the minute I started posting once again, there has been nothing but attacks, not logical insightful debate..If a neocon does not agree with me that Chavez is a good man or that I agree with protesting in Argentina (not breaking the law, just protesting), well then lets debate it..dont attack me and call me a terrorist..which I take very seriously and it is an affront to me, it is like cursing at me..Oh geez..I do have to say, Democrat, you have always posted above and beyond board..I have always enjoyed reading your posts..
Reminder: Watch the personal attacks. sm
Debate opinions, argue conflicting viewpoints. Steer clear of personal attacks.
Thanks,
Moderator
It may be hard to credit Bush with no attacks when there is...sm
nothing tangible to show for it, right?
But then, that's the whole point.
No attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.
There's the proof.
I'll be a believer and give President Bush the credit for this one.
Draft Dodger Cheney attacks War Hero
The words President Murtha are sounding pretty good!
DERRICK Z. JACKSON
White House plays chicken with a war hero
By Derrick Z. Jackson | November 19, 2005
THE WHITE House is so deluded, it actually believes it can turn a soaring hawk into a scrounging chicken. Stung by the call by US Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania to pull out of Iraq, Scott McClellan, President Bush's press secretary, said this week, ''It is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party.
Talk about playing the chicken-hawk card. A White House where most of the architects of war avoided combat in their own lives dared to associate two people who are worlds apart in world views. Moore made the anti-Bush ''Fahrenheit 9/11, which infuriated the right wing by breaking box office records for a documentary film. Moore was booed at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
Murtha is the 73-year-old recipient of two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star for combat duty in Vietnam. He is a Democrat whose three decades in office are marked by support of President Reagan's policies in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Murtha was a top Democratic supporter of the 1991 Gulf War. He wants a constitutional ban on burning the American flag.
In a 2002 press briefing, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz termed the support of politicians like Murtha for the Pentagon as ''wonderful. In the 2004 vice presidential debate, incumbent Dick Cheney said, ''One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was secretary of defense was Jack Murtha.
For all those shows of patriotism, Murtha was skeptical about the rush to invade Iraq in 2003 of Iraq even though he voted to give President Bush the authorization to go to war. He publicly said Bush beat the war drums before building an international coalition. Murtha said he had not seen anything in intelligence reports that indicated an imminent threat. Murtha said Bush ''has put the country in such a box. He can say, 'You'll undercut me if you don't vote for this resolution.'
One month after the invasion, when no weapons of mass destruction had yet been found, Murtha warned that American credibility was at risk. By the September, the absence of weapons of mass destruction made him join the much more liberal House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, in calling for Bush to fire the planners of the invasion. Despite the proclamation that ''we achieved a marvelous military victory, Murtha became increasingly frustrated with the chaos of the occupation. This summer, Murtha said administration officials were ''not honest in their assessment that they were winning the ongoing battle.
Finally, this week, Murtha unleased a scathing attack on Bush's Iraq policy. He called it ''a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. He said he believed military officials when he visited Kuwait just before the war and they showed him where American forces would be attacked by weapons of mass destruction when they approach Baghdad. But now, with no end to the killing in sight, he said, ''The US cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It's time to bring the troops home. . .They have become the enemy.
Murtha talked about soldier after soldier he has visited in hospitals, wounded and maimed by the invasion. Yet, there's more terrorism now than there ever was and it's because of what? Is it because of our policy? I would say it's a big part.
In perhaps the most humble admission of his press conference, Murtha said, ''The American public is way ahead of the members of Congress.
This came the day after Cheney threw mud in the direction of critics who gave Bush his war authorization. Cheney accused them of making ''irresponsible comments. He accused them issuing ''cynical and pernicious falsehoods to make ''a play for political advantage.
He said, ''The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory -- or their backbone.
This was the same Cheney who gave us some of the greatest falsehoods of this generation with ''There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction . . . We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons, and that we would be ''welcomed as liberators.
Murtha clobbered Cheney's words the next day, saying, ''I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.
This hawk still soars, above the scrounging chicken hawks.
Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com. ![src=http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif]()
No, I didn't....it was in response to all the attacks about unwed mothers..
but i guess you feel that is okay, right?
Senior moments on the trail: Mc attacks O ties to
For the slur that was dead on arrival, go here:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/the-khalidi-gam.html
Missile attacks targeted Al Qaeda strongholds.
President Obama is targeting the terrorists who are responsible for 9/11 and who may be planning future terrorist attacks against the United States. That is what he said he would do before he was elected, and that is exactly what he has done during his first week in office. President Obama has already done more to keep our country safe in the past 4 days than Georgie Porgie did in the past 8 years.
Shocking personal attacks after you just called people empty headed?
the hypocrisy is mind boggling and humorous at the same time.
Evil constant attacks on Palin are about to bring the biggest backlash
I believe you may have cost yourselves the election with the horrendous extent this was taken to.
|
