ABC Slanders Troops - What Else Is New?

[Superlative]

Doesn't really matter who it's from as long as they presents the facts as they are, not as they wish them to be.

Ha, if you ask anyone here, its either FoxNews or Liberal Media crap.

 

[maineman]

Ya free speech , well unless it is from Fox news or the right, then it is just wrong, right?

I would NEVER try to silence Fox News or Rush or Savage or Hannity or Ingraham or any of them......

and hey...why don't you show some balls and answer my question:

If shutting down the free press and muzzling free speech throughout the land - if turning us into a repressive police state where no opinions counter to the leader's were allowed - if that would somehow HURT our enemies, would those on the right be advocating for that?

Would gaining some perceived tactical advantage over our enemy be worth cutting out our soul - be worth silencing the very vibrant and raucous voices that make us great?

 

[Gunny]

What the editorial failed to mention is that it was the Bush administration's failure to finish the job in Afghanistan when Bush decided to go haring off into Iraq under the most dubious of rationales that has allowed al Qaeda to re-establish itself on the Afghan/Pakistan border regions.

The notion that debate on ending the war in Iraq is somehow aiding al Qaeda is as asinine as it is unfounded. But then, the asinine and unfounded are your stock-in-trade.

The notion that Bush going into Iraq in any way affected Afghanistan is BS. We pushed the Taliban/AQ across the Pakistan border where we have not been allowed to pursue. They have reconstitued THERE, and infiltrated back into Afghanistan.

Point is, that's the best we ever were going to be able to do. As you lefties like to say when it suits your purpose to bash Bush ... you can't destroy terrorism ... it's an ideal, not an entity.

 

[Gunny]

Doesn't really matter who it's from as long as they presents the facts as they are, not as they wish them to be.

Which would amount to just about NOBODY.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Doesn't really matter who it's from as long as they presents the facts as they are, not as they wish them to be.

That pretty much leaves out ANYTHING the liberals or the Mainstream Press have to say.... even when they aren't outright lying they have so twisted what they are saying as to make it untrue.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The notion that Bush going into Iraq in any way affected Afghanistan is BS. We pushed the Taliban/AQ across the Pakistan border where we have not been allowed to pursue. They have reconstitued THERE, and infiltrated back into Afghanistan.

Point is, that's the best we ever were going to be able to do. As you lefties like to say when it suits your purpose to bash Bush ... you can't destroy terrorism ... it's an ideal, not an entity.

The battle at Tora Bora ended with an air corridor opened from Afghanistan to Pakistan which allowed many high level Taliban and al Qaeda operatives to flee into Pakistan. They were not so much pushed and the door held open for them.

Had special operations, and other assets, not been diverted by the Bush adminstration to the build-up for the invasion of Iraq the outcome would likely have been different, and adequate forces would be on hand to deal with further Taliban and al Qaeda incursions. In addition resources would have been available to stabilize Afghanistan and have it moving towards a stable government and economy. Instead, the countryside is run by warlords with feudal mindsets and Hamid Kharzai is less the President of Afghanistan than the Mayor of Kabul.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wait I am confused.... Pelosi and Ried announced that the war in Afghanistan was over long ago. Which is it? We don't need to send troops cause the war is won, or we don't have enough troops cause of Iraq?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Furthermore as I recall one of the screams from the left has been we should be making our "allies" do more. How come we need to send troops to Afghanistan when it is a NATO show now?

Which is it? We need our allies to do more or we need to do it all?

 

[red states rule]

What the editorial failed to mention is that it was the Bush administration's failure to finish the job in Afghanistan when Bush decided to go haring off into Iraq under the most dubious of rationales that has allowed al Qaeda to re-establish itself on the Afghan/Pakistan border regions.

The notion that debate on ending the war in Iraq is somehow aiding al Qaeda is as asinine as it is unfounded. But then, the asinine and unfounded are your stock-in-trade.

It seems the terrorists are supporting the Dems surrender bill

BP, Dems are now kown by the company they keep

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Read the portion of David Kay's report that isn't classified. Do a Google for the few reports from the press where documents were cited from Saddam's Iraq that say just what I have told you.

Those pesky little facts, damn they get in the way every time.