Ho-hum. Standard liberal panic-wongering. They said that before the first Gulf War too, over 15 years ago.

trrll, speaking from beneath the tin-foil hat, wonders: Is it really such a radical notion to imagine that Al Qaeda is conspiring against us? Or to think that it is foolish to trust your enemy to tell you the truth?

I’m applying Occam’s Razor here. The Islamofascists have a track record of telling us exactly what they intend to do, and then attempting to carry it out.
Therefore, when they broadcast what amount to Democrat campaign ads, I do think that’s their goal, and not some elaborate reverse-psychology scheme you dream up while taking a break from your customary fantasy about Bushitler rounding up all libs and sending them off to concentration camps.

For some reason, the fact that AQ has been remarkably open about its goals and plans eludes the sparkling intellects on the left, who always assume that AQ says the opposite of what they mean.

I think it was Ray Nagin from New Orleans…….

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Oh wait, that was Nancy Pelosi in 1998….

Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There’s no question about that.”

Oh wait, that was Nancy Pelosi in 2002….

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

Oh, wait that was Bill Clinton in 1998….

People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”

Oh, wait that was Bill Clinton in 2002…

No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer — and Iraq is better — because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars.

Oh, wait that was John Kerry in 2003…

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…

Oh, wait that was Hillary Clinton in 2003….

Ho, hum………

Interesting how gung ho all these democrats were when the war was going well and we were rolling through Iraq with little to no resistence and the people were cheering our troops.

Oh how times change.

“I’ve gone along with the president on this, and I’ve bought into his dream. At this stage of the game, I don’t think it’s going to happen.”

“If we don’t see more specifics and a time frame” for progress in Iraq, “then Congress is probably going to step into the void and set a time frame.”

The president has “set in motion” a “very, very dangerous” series of events. “I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”

Oh wait…iot was Republicans who said all that.

Is it really such a radical notion to imagine that Al Qaeda is conspiring against us? Or to think that it is foolish to trust your enemy to tell you the truth?

- Bang

(brought to you by Laika, the space doggie, beaming truthiness to moonbat communes since 1957)

- Bang

- So let Me get this straight. When people, and its the majority no matter how hard you try to abuse the truth of things, say you’re wrong, then its simply because they’re misguided. Whereas when the enemy makes embarrassing public declarations, openly stating they like your “hate Buah” polotics, then it must be some nefarious scheme, writ large, just to manipulate public opinion against you.

- Tell you what. If instead of all the polemic yammering, you just came right out and said you’re afraid to fight for your family, country, and beliefs, I think you’d find people would still recognize your obvious cowardness, but at least you’d stop lying to yourself and everyone else, and that, if you had a shred of character as a group, would be important to you. Obviously, a group who runs from personal responsibility like their hair is on fire, every time they hear that word, lack any of said character. The “end justifies the means”, so lying on a regular basis, is a piece of cake.

- Bang

An your trust that al Qaeda is being honest and telling the truth about who and what they support is based upon what? Your personal conviction that they are all-around good guys who would never intentionally try to mislead us?

But leftists in this thread have said the war in Iraq is “unwinnable”. Their only conclusion moving forward is that we accept defeat and remove troops causing a humanitarian crisis.

How would you address their concern? We do not “feel” as they do and in fact think that they are aiding and comforting the enemy with their rhetoric.

Irony called, wanting you to buy his new book.

Would love to know what war was prosecuted without “mistakes”…. especially.

Now, none of you would come out and SAY this…but I know what you’re thinking. And really you’re not fooling anyone. “

What a stupid analogy. Reasonable conclusions can be drawn from how people act and what and how they say things.

I think your conclusion that the left wants us to lose is more a refusal on your part to address their concerns in a manner that would validate them. I suppose the same could be said for the left.

If I say the right wants to kill as many US troops as possible, would that offend you? Would you feel it’s accurate? I don’t but I could demonstrate it by your words and actions. I don’t think framing your conclusion in the way that you did really accomplishes anything.