more protestors

[DOGS THAT BARK]

gmroz22 per your--
"In your warped world, thousands of citizens marching on New York in order to protest a war is not newsworthy"

Maybe up to the 3rd or 4th time--but CA NY and DC have been protestors havens for decades.How many protest for how any causes yearly in these areas. To show their utter ignorance--the gay day with their pickets Stop Aids and holding them up to cameras to view --like normal viewing America is the cause or can stop it. If they want to be effective they will turn their signs toward their own protestors who are the only ones that can stop it.

Question Tell me last time conservatives came out in thousands to protest anything---other than abortion I can't think of anything conservatives ever protested about--Why

Most don't have to ask someone else to take care of their problems.

Only protest I would be up for is if they let vets have about 1 hour without interference from police on one of these code pink /moveon outfits. I'd fly anywhere to have my 1 hours worth

 

[ImFeklhr]

If they want to be effective they will turn their signs toward their own protestors who are the only ones that can stop it.

If Americans want to stop the war, who can they turn their signs on?

Honestly, if 99% of the country wanted the war to end, would they have the means to do so?

 

[smurphy]

Have you even been to NYC, CA or DC, Dogs?

Having grown up in CA, I never once even saw a political rally of any kind in that "protestor haven".

Fact is, very few people attend rallies - period. The only protestors I've ever known have been anti-abortion evangelists.

 

[Chadman]

First two pages of Google Search on Conservatives and protests:

Campus Conservatives Protest Clinton ...

"Conservatives Protest Kosovo Bombs"

Young Conservatives Protest the War on Christmas

Black Conservatives Protest Senator Byrd Portraying Confederate

Young Conservatives protest Coming Out Week

Conservatives protest gay bishop

Religious Conservatives Protest Removal of 'So Help Me God' From

Catholics, conservatives protest disputed Vatican cartoon ...

FDA approves HPV vaccine, despite conservative protest

Conservative Christians Protest Movie on Kinsey
-----------------

I realize that there may not be enough conservatives that feel compelled enough of their time or to get out of their comfort zone to number in the thousands all that often, clearly, protest is a part of the American way of life. Of course there have been conservatives out in force to protest (ironically enough) the liberal anti-war protestors, or abortion protestors, which shows a lack of originality in coming up with anything on their own...

I'd offer that by nature, a conservative is just that - conservative. Liberals do tend to think outside the box and are more comfortable challenging conventional conservative theories and norms. A subject as serious as war is as motivational as it gets as far as having strong feelings to the point of action. And when something already happens...of course it requires action opposite of it to have any impact.

Democracy calls for an equal exchange, more or less. A strong action calls for a strong balance on the other side to establish a fair middle, IMO. Letting one side roll over the other just weakens the country overall, at least if you believe in Democracy.

For me personally, active personal resistance is not my thing. It's not in my personality. But for others, non-violent protesting is something that shouldn't be disallowed, at least in my interpretation of a democracy.

 

[gardenweasel]

you forgot 'veterans'.

Arlington National Cemetery

"One huge disappointment - when I asked at the lady at the information desk where I could go to find the burials from Afghanistan, I was told that information was not being given out publicly, since there were some people going there and "misbehaving". [she did ask if she could direct me to someone I knew or such] I was shocked - people would come to Arlington and protest on the graves. If there is one place that protesters should leave alone, it is someone's final resting place.".....

that`s why the veterans were there...to protect the memorial from "your" heros...

 

[smurphy]

So you are on record as saying there were no veterans participating in the protest against the war? That makes you incorrect. But I understand you wanting to gloss over that element.

Anyone that dessecrates a memorial or grave should obviously be prosecuted for vandalism.

 

[Chadman]

On a related note, one that is much more funny...in the words of my favorite comedian Mitch Hedberg (since passed away)...

"I am against picketing...but I don't know how to show it."

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

1st on Reagan Saddam--if I'm not mistaken we were also in alliance with UBL agaist Russians in Afgan--another era another circumstance--the greater of evils at that time.

Seriously Chad on your list of Conserve protestors--who the fck has ever heard of any you have up there--and why haven't we?

Smurph on the vets--believe everyone knows which side the bulk of vets are on--Look and see who your liberal vet orgs are backed by--very few vets actually belong--Do you really think there were many vets that fought in iraq standing next to Attorney General Clark and his crew who defended Saddam--and orchestrated groups like ANSWER--I know your smarter than that--and odd independent groups of vets show up against them.

and since you thought I'd avoid answering questions let me give liberals a few they went silent on in past.

1st of all for those that think as Roger that Iraq will provide breeding ground for terrorist --let me ask why they were bombing our cities twice before Iraq--as well as our embassies and ships--who are you going to blame for that?--and odd we haven't had any since?

--and for breeding ground--would you rather have them training openly as before--or in hiding as now.

UBL Did you prefer him training and recruiting carte blanc-- accumulating frequent flyer miles with a get out of jail free card from Billy--or do you like him confined to cave fearul to stick his head out or use any type of communication other than courier.

What about Saudi-Yemen-Lybia-Pahistan ect
Where terrorist trained opening they are now being killed by those countries in record #'s--so you think these circumstances enhancr recruitment--or do the deaths/capure of the big boys lessen their effectiveness.

Who do you think captured more terrorist--the once hot bed for terrorist (tiny yemen) in past 3 years or our Clinton admin in 8 years?

By thec way I am still waiting for the list of terrorist capured or killed by Clinton admin--as I said before--should take but a line or 2.

back to iraq since it is central issue--While some say it has nothing to do with war on terror lets look at it from the terrorist perspective--

in there own words--

Osama Bin Laden: Baghdad Is "The Capital Of The Caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)

Bin Laden: "The Most Important And Serious Issue Today For The Whole World Is This Third World War ? Raging In [Iraq]." BIN LADEN: "I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "This Is A War Of Destiny Between Infidelity And Islam." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "The Whole World Is Watching This War And The Two Adversaries; The Islamic Nation, On The One Hand, And The United States And Its Allies On The Other. It Is Either Victory And Glory Or Misery And Humiliation." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Ayman al-Zawahiri: We Must "Establish An Islamic Authority ? Over As Much Territory As You Can To Spread Its Power In Iraq ? [And] Extend The Jihad Wave To The Secular Countries Neighboring Iraq." ZAWAHIRI: "So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate ? over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq ? The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity." (Complete Text Of Al-Zawahiri Letter To Al-Zarqawi, 7/9/05, Available At: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20051011_release.htm, Accessed 9/5/06)

Bin Laden: "The War Is For You Or For Us To Win. If We Win It, It Means Your Defeat And Disgrace Forever." BIN LADEN: "Finally, I would like to tell you that the war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever as the wind blows in this direction with God's help." (Bin Laden Threatens New Operations, Offers 'Long-Term Truce,' Posted On Al-Jazirah Net, 1/19/06)

Now lets look at there approach to winning and while reading remember the liberals stance--on media propaganda--the weak part of America--then consider if the terrorist are scared or :00hour on liberals issue fight on terror eg not embarrasing prisonors--prisoners rights to attoreys and U.S. courts--media, using quotes from U.S. media for their own propaganda--exit Iraq, or any part of middle east--restrict survailence on methods of detection of terrorist--hands off interrogations of terrorist ect ect which liberal stances aren't the terrorist :00hour about--and why is that and is it good?

Here a few more quotes from the bad guys --wonder who they are referring to--

The Terrorists On Their Belief That America Is Weak

Osama Bin Laden: America's "Combat Strategy Is Heavily Dependent On The Psychological Aspect Of War ? Which Hides The Cowardice And Lack Of Fighting Spirit Of The American Soldier." BIN LADEN: "It has been made clear during our defending and fighting against the American enemy that this enemy's combat strategy is heavily dependent on the psychological aspect of war due to its large and efficient media apparatus and of course its indiscriminate aerial bombing which hides the cowardice and lack of fighting spirit of the American soldier. ? Likewise, let me remind you of the defeat of the American forces in Beirut in 1982, soon after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, when the Lebanese resistance was personified by the truck laden with explosives that struck the main military base of the US Marines in Beirut, killing 242 soldiers ? towards Hell was their destination and what an evil destination that is." (Translation Of Purported Bin Laden Audio Message, Posted On Islamist Site, 2/14/03)

Bin Laden: "In Somalia ? The United States [Pulled] Out, Trailing Disappointment, Defeat, And Failure Behind It." BIN LADEN: "We found that out from our brothers who fought the Americans in Somalia. They did not see it as a power worthy of any mention. It was the big propaganda that the United State used to terrify people before fighting them. Our brothers, who were here in Afghanistan, also tried the Americans. God gave them and the mujahidin success in Somalia and the United States pull out, trailing disappointment, defeat, and failure behind it. It achieved nothing. It left quicker than people had imagined." (Full Text Of Interview With Al-Qaeda Leader Osama Bin Laden, 10/21/01)
Ayman al-Zawahiri: "There Is No Hope In Victory." ZAWAHIRI: "This is the fumbling that precedes the defeat. Bush and Blair are hiding the true disaster they are facing in Iraq and Afghanistan. They know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet." (Al-Qaeda's Al-Zawahiri Predicts Failure of US 'Crusade' Against Muslim States, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/7/05)


The Terrorists On Their Propaganda Strategy

Osama Bin Laden: Al-Qaeda Intends To Launch "A Media Campaign ... To Create A Wedge Between The American People And Their Government." (Letter From Osama Bin Laden To Mullah Omar, Released By The White House Press Office, 9/5/06)

Bin Laden: This Media Campaign Will Stress "That [The American] Government Would Bring Them More Losses, In Finances And In Casualties." (Letter From Osama Bin Laden To Mullah Omar, Released By The White House Press Office, 9/5/06)
Bin Laden: "[The American People] Are Being Sacrificed To Serve The Big Investors, Especially The Jews." (Letter From Osama Bin Laden To Mullah Omar, Released By The White House Press Office, 9/5/06)
Bin Laden: The Media Campaign "Aims At Creating Pressure From The American People On The American Government To Stop Their Campaign Against Afghanistan." (Letter From Osama Bin Laden To Mullah Omar, Released By The White House Press Office, 9/5/06)

Now on your issue of 99% of people not wanting war--I doubt if that was case there would be one

However only people I actually see are as in this thread those whose protest is orchestrated by fantics--the media-hoolywood--and the liberals arm of Dem party.

--and when you have these bombarding blogs and media everyday and poll 1000 people from (wonder what area) and think they got nations pulse--I have to wonder how the hell GW won in 04 with all the "overwhelming" supposed anti war sentiment
--logic would tell me something is amiss--and what would it tell you?

 

[StevieD]

1st on Reagan Saddam--if I'm not mistaken we were also in alliance with UBL agaist Russians in Afgan--another era another circumstance--the greater of evils at that time.

That should tell you all you need to know to answer the rest of your post. The exact reason why the terrorists want to keep us in Iraq. We are going broke over there fighting a war their way. Look what happened to the Russians.

 

[kosar]

That should tell you all you need to know to answer the rest of your post. The exact reason why the terrorists want to keep us in Iraq. We are going broke over there fighting a war their way. Look what happened to the Russians.

Yup-they(USSR) were there for, I believe, 8 years or so.

Pretty close to tracking the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

We supplied the gas/intelligence to Saddam and the arms to Bin Laden and his rag tag bunch.

Do the math, Wayne.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

We supplied arms to Afgan to fight Russians---UBL one was one of many fighting for afgan==

therefore --- "we supplied weapons to UBL"

True but misleading--welcome to the world of "fair and balanced" liberal journalism.
=======================

On Saddam and weapons--a lot is speculation however an investigation by the Senate Banking Committee did turn up quite a bit of evidence to to give credit to your assertion.

I don't know what age most here were in 1980 or if any remember Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini--the scenerio was Iran wanted to take over entire gulf and began with Irag invasion in 1980--The U.S. basically sayed out of it thinking of it more as skirmish that would never go anywhere. By 1982 the pic looked entirely diff--as Iran progressed into borders of Iraq--if left to continue our ally's of Jorden-Saudi- Kuwait ecy were next in line with very distinct possibilty Iran and the Ayatollah controling all middle east resources. It was at this time the U.S. and Britain and others stepped in--had they not--use your imagination.


"Opinions differ among Middle East experts and former government officials about the pre-Iraqi tilt, and whether Washington could have done more to stop the flow to Baghdad of technology for building weapons of mass destruction.

"It was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now," says Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA military analyst and author of "The Threatening Storm," which makes the case for war with Iraq. "My fellow [CIA] analysts and I were warning at the time that Hussein was a very nasty character. We were constantly fighting the State Department."

"Fundamentally, the policy was justified," argues David Newton, a former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, who runs an anti-Hussein radio station in Prague. "We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible."

What makes present-day Hussein different from the Hussein of the 1980s, say Middle East experts, is the mellowing of the Iranian revolution and the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait that transformed the Iraqi dictator, almost overnight, from awkward ally into mortal enemy. In addition, the United States itself has changed. As a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, U.S. policymakers take a much more alarmist view of the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

 

[djv]

Saddam was a nasty man. He was just plan bad. But what did he know that we don't. That you have to be nasty to stop even more killing that a civil war brings. He did even being nasty keep oil flowing schools open and folks working. Built to many palaces. But people busy working to tired to kill each other. So he killed many. But last year in Iraq they estimate 135000 died. And we were there to protect them?? Time to find another Saddam and we can come home??

 

[bryanz]

Hmm the liberals have united again--and the press is there to give them plenty of coverage as usual.
--Lets take a look at this liberal element for what they realy are--we have former US attorney general Ramsey Clark (Billy'sBoy) who was Saddam defence attorney--Cindy Sheehan (the liberals poster gal) and ANSWER heading up the Dems cause.--and just who is this official looking outfit (ANSWER) who is arm of the Dem party.

from Wikipedia

Act Now to Stop War and End Racism?also known as International ANSWER and the ANSWER Coalition?is a American protest organization involved in the post-9/11 anti-war movement.

Formed within three days of the September 11th attacks, and officially founded on September 14, 2001 by Ramsey Clark and members of the International Action Center, ANSWER was one of the first organizations formed to protest the policies of the Bush administration in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Its first major action was a September 29, 2001 "Anti-War, Anti-Racist" political rally and march in Washington, D.C., primarily in protest of the then-impending U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Subsequently the organization has organized rallies drawing crowds in the hundreds of thousands, including several with record-setting numbers of people. ANSWER characterizes itself as anti-imperialist, and its steering committee consists of socialists, Marxists, civil rights advocates, and left-wing progressive organizations from the Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, Filipino, Haitian, and Latin American communities. Many of ANSWER's leaders were members of Workers World Party (WWP) at the time of ANSWER's founding, and are current members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), a Marxist-Leninist organization that formed in 2004.

-------------------------------------

--and whats more amazing is some here will argue when confronted that liberals and or enemies have same motive--

--only question unanswered is which is more radical the terrorist or liberal?

Welcome folks to the controling arm of the Dem party--

War protests to move to NY after march on Pentagon Sun Mar 18, 4:19 AM ET

NEW YORK (AFP) - Thousands of protesters were expected to take to the streets here Sunday to demand an immediate end to the war in Iraq as New York takes the relay from other US cities that have held massive anti-war marches.

United for Peace and Justice, which describes itself as the largest anti-war coalition in the United States, said it expected the protesters to turn up here en masse to mark the fourth anniversary of the US-led Iraq invasion.

"The national anti-war movement is planning a unified surge of protest actions calling on Congress to end the occupation and for the immediate withdrawal of US troops," the group said in a statement.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of demonstrators marched to the Pentagon's doorstep Saturday demanding "US out of Iraq Now," ahead of the fourth anniversary of the US invasion.

People from across the United States gathered on a cold winter day to descend on the US Defense Department offices and decry the conflict that has killed more than 3,200 US soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Former US attorney general Ramsey Clark called for President George W. Bush's impeachment, while Cindy Sheehan, who lost a son in Iraq, demanded a US withdrawal.

"I marched in 1967 here," Maureen Dooley, 59, said outside the Pentagon, site of Vietnam war protests, but results were not immediate: "It took seven years to end the war."

War opponents trickled into Washington for the rally organized by the peace group ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) as Vietnam war veterans wearing black leather jackets gathered nearby for a counter-demonstration.

Some war supporters confronted the peace activists, tearing up and spitting on anti-war signs while chanting: "USA! USA!"

Washington police do not give crowd estimates, but an AFP correspondent said tens of thousands of people could be seen at the march.

War opponents have organized a series of protests against the conflict that started March 20, 2003.

In Los Angeles, several thousand demonstrators took to the streets. Organizers of the rally in Hollywood estimated its size at "tens of thousands," while the Los Angeles Police Department said the figure was in the 5,000-6,000 range.

Protesters blew whistles and carried placards bearing slogans critical of Bush, such as "Worst President Ever" and "It's time for regime change in Washington."

A smattering of celebrities were also marching in the crowd, organizers said, including veteran actor and peace activist Martin Sheen and actress Maria Bello, the star of "Thank you for Smoking" and "A History of Violence."
Ian Thompson, of ANSWER, said the protest was the biggest in Los Angeles since 2005. "People have had enough and this is their way of showing it," Thompson told AFP.

"This government needs to start listening to what the people want. And most people don't want us to be fighting war in Iraq," Thompson added.

In European cities, protest turnout ranged from 400,000 in Madrid to thousands in Istanbul, Turkey and several hundred in Copenhagen, Prague, Athens and Thessaloniki in Greece.

Alan Pugh, 27, a computer student from Ohio, said he hoped the Washington protest would have the same impact as the mass demonstrations denouncing the Vietnam war decades ago.

"This is the 40th anniversary of the Vietnam protest that changed the direction and we hope we can do the same thing today," he said.

Late Friday, about 100 people were arrested in Washington as they held a vigil on a sidewalk in front of the White House and ignored police orders to disperse in a protest organized by Christian Peace Witness for Iraq.

The leftist group MoveOn.org was also organizing candlelight vigils for Monday in Washington and across the country, spokesman Steve Hoffman said.
The war has grown increasingly unpopular, with recent polls showing that a majority of Americans now say the invasion was a mistake and want the US government to set a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

Peace activists want the US Congress, secured by the Democrats in November elections that were marked by voter anger at the war, to push hard for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

But Democrats have so far failed to pass legislation that would compel Bush to change course in Iraq.

The actions of a few and their thoughts and ideas have been used to discredit protesters of all kinds. Some of the so called leaders of a movement have cast a shadow on the masses that are for the same result but for different reasons. As a whole, protesting & protesters are some of the greatest things about Our Country. Protesting is what this Country was built on, many have given their lives , so that Americans can have a voice. Whats wrong with more protesters ???? It's the American way. To suggest anything else is anti American ! We live in a free society, I can't understand why some people what to squash the voice of freedom. Why is it that anti protesters, always point out the radicals and the people on the fringes, to discredit the whole movement ? NOTE : wikipedia has come under question from the right about its value as a source.

 

[smurphy]

If it were up to DTB, there never would have been a Boston Tea Party. ...Perhaps there never would have been a United States at all. He'd be running around criticising the critics of our British rulers.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Would not disagree with that--if one can distinguish diff between peoples protest and radical elements organized protest --

Read it again and see if anything jumps out at you

--Maybe you think code pink--moveon-ANSWER are mainstream :shrug:

IMO they are radical elements with same political agenda.

on Wikipedia--while I like it in general--there have been numerous errors on it simple because of process of how lots of info is added.

"Wikipedia, which describes itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," leaves it to a vast user community to catch factual errors and other problems. "

http://sports.myway.com/news/02222007/v3762.html

While I have heard of Neo Nazi's doing this frequently had not heard anything about liberal fanatics doing it--however it would go with their bloggers endeavor to regulate search engines--so it would not surprise me.

 

[The Judge]

I realize that there may not be enough conservatives that feel compelled enough of their time or to get out of their comfort zone to number in the thousands all that often, clearly, protest is a part of the American way of life. Of course there have been conservatives out in force to protest (ironically enough) the liberal anti-war protestors, or abortion protestors, which shows a lack of originality in coming up with anything on their own...

I'd offer that by nature, a conservative is just that - conservative. Liberals do tend to think outside the box and are more comfortable challenging conventional conservative theories and norms. A subject as serious as war is as motivational as it gets as far as having strong feelings to the point of action. And when something already happens...of course it requires action opposite of it to have any impact.

Democracy calls for an equal exchange, more or less. A strong action calls for a strong balance on the other side to establish a fair middle, IMO. Letting one side roll over the other just weakens the country overall, at least if you believe in Democracy.

For me personally, active personal resistance is not my thing. It's not in my personality. But for others, non-violent protesting is something that shouldn't be disallowed, at least in my interpretation of a democracy.

The actions of a few and their thoughts and ideas have been used to discredit protesters of all kinds. Some of the so called leaders of a movement have cast a shadow on the masses that are for the same result but for different reasons. As a whole, protesting & protesters are some of the greatest things about Our Country. Protesting is what this Country was built on, many have given their lives , so that Americans can have a voice. Whats wrong with more protesters ???? It's the American way. To suggest anything else is anti American ! We live in a free society, I can't understand why some people what to squash the voice of freedom. Why is it that anti protesters, always point out the radicals and the people on the fringes, to discredit the whole movement ? NOTE : wikipedia has come under question from the right about its value as a source.

Two very well thought out posts here.

Wayne, freedom of speech is one of our most cherished rights as Americans and to suggest that any group should not be protesting circumstances that they feel stongly about is by definition, blatantly un-American. Our forefathers very wisely recognized the need for an open forum for all issues and simply because you do not agree with the idealogy of these protesters is certainly no excuse to demand their silence.

The opinon of an ever growing majority of our citizens is that this war has been a tremendous mistake and that the little good it has accomplished is vastly outweighed by the sacrifices of the lives of our sons and daughters. Of much smaller importance, the cost of this foolish chest beating by our current administration will eventually cost us trillions of dollars. Imagine if you will, the outcry from our conservative citizenry if, God forbid, this kind of money had been spent on ridiculous social programs such as health care or even worse, education.

 

[Amfan1]

Get Serious, man! You know, I supported going into Iraq. Didn't really care what the reason given at the time was. My belief being that we had a chance to help create something truly new and good for the people in the Middle East and eventually, by default, around the world.

My only question at the time was: If 500,000 troops were needed the first time around, why were only 250,000-280,000 needed this time. Either way, for the most part things seemed to go fairly well and relatively soon, we found ourselves taking out Saddam, helping to start a new government, and putting some things back together.
What changed my mind, you ask? That's simple. This administration has so bungled every single task since then. Yes, to the point of being criminally negligent.
Want examples. IRAQ...80% of the country is in such bad shape that nearly all people with the power and money to help turn it around have left the country. AFGHANISTAN... now into it's fifth year and we are again adding troops there because this too remains unfinished. OUR SOLDIERS... here we continue to send the same troops back again and again and again. Some have seen four tours in the middle east. WALTER REED... When our troops come home, it's turns out that there was no plan in place to deal with so many injured. Oh yea... lets not forget Katrina and that wonderful picture of Mr. Bush telling Mr. Brown what a fine job he was doing.
Their are many more examples MANY!!!!! I'll stop here, though. My point is that this administration has dropped the ball so many times that the believability of ANYTHING they say is gone. I have completely lost faith in GWB and his administration. What could have been a good thing has turned into a nightmare, and in fact is making this country less safe.

 

[Amfan1]

Also.. certain folks on here like to use the term "radical : when referring to anyone that doesn't toe the Republican party line on Iraq and all of those "critically important "social issues. I ask you... would you rather be radical or stupidly indifferent to a changing world. A world that obviously requires a new way of thinking.":mj01: :banghead

 

[gardenweasel]

Get Serious, man! You know, I supported going into Iraq. Didn't really care what the reason given at the time was. My belief being that we had a chance to help create something truly new and good for the people in the Middle East and eventually, by default, around the world.

My only question at the time was: If 500,000 troops were needed the first time around, why were only 250,000-280,000 needed this time. Either way, for the most part things seemed to go fairly well and relatively soon, we found ourselves taking out Saddam, helping to start a new government, and putting some things back together.
What changed my mind, you ask? That's simple. This administration has so bungled every single task since then. Yes, to the point of being criminally negligent.
Want examples. IRAQ...80% of the country is in such bad shape that nearly all people with the power and money to help turn it around have left the country. AFGHANISTAN... now into it's fifth year and we are again adding troops there because this too remains unfinished. OUR SOLDIERS... here we continue to send the same troops back again and again and again. Some have seen four tours in the middle east. WALTER REED... When our troops come home, it's turns out that there was no plan in place to deal with so many injured. Oh yea... lets not forget Katrina and that wonderful picture of Mr. Bush telling Mr. Brown what a fine job he was doing.
Their are many more examples MANY!!!!! I'll stop here, though. My point is that this administration has dropped the ball so many times that the believability of ANYTHING they say is gone. I have completely lost faith in GWB and his administration. What could have been a good thing has turned into a nightmare, and in fact is making this country less safe.

so,what`s the solution,gandhi?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Gregg As I said I believe in freedom of speech--I just draw the line at points--I believe some to be counter productive--The Klan-Neo Nazi's--the child porn ect--

One thing that bothers is me is when liberals get on rant about freedom of speech--but fail to practice what they preach---who are all those in back round trying to shout down those giving speeches at conventions :shrug:

Maybe a little refresher course on liberals real view of freedom of speech is in order--
--I give you our protectors of free speech--Columbia Journalism class on freedom of speech when they don't agree

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuNXmy0e5fc&eurl=

--in addition I not too fond of Portland protestors burning our troops in effigy either--what courage from the liberal fanny packers--