War Widow To Bush, You Are Not Serving The People

Psychoblues

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
2,701
Reaction score
142
Points
48
Location
North Missisippi
Don’t this kick butt!!!!!!!! Sadly, Americans are not about “kicking butt” but they are about justice and truth. Too sad the prez doesn’t share this truism, don’t you think?


“I just got off the phone with Hildi Halley, a woman from Maine whose husband is a fallen soldier. Yesterday President Bush met with her privately, and news of their meeting was reported in a local Maine paper, the Kennebec Journal. The paper shared few details of the meeting, saying simply that Halley objected to Bush's policies and that she said Bush responded that there was no point in them having a "philosophical discussion about the pros and cons of the war."

But Halley has just given me a much more detailed account of her meeting with Bush. She told me that she went much farther in her criticism of the President, telling him directly that he was "responsible" for the deaths of American soldiers and that as a "Christian man," he should recognize that he's "made a mistake" and that it was his "responsibility to end this." She recounted to me that she was "very direct," telling Bush: "As President, you're here to serve the people. And the people are not being served with this war."

I reached Halley at her home in Falmouth, Maine. She told me that her husband, Patrick Damon, who's long been active in Democratic politics, had been in Afghanistan as an engineer building roads when he died in June. She said she was first told that it was of a heart attack, but that subsequently she was told there was no sign that a heart attack had killed him. An invesigation into his death is continuing.

Halley, who's also been politically active for Democrats, said she told GOP Senator Olympia Snowe that she'd like a phone call from Bush. Subsequently Halley got a call from White House staffers looking to set up a private meeting. Bush came yesterday.
Halley tells me that she told the President that she's been opposed since "day one" to both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I talked to him about how important this person was to me," Halley recounted, speaking of her husband. "It's not just a soldier who died. Lives are changed forever...I said, `This doesn't make sense to me.'"

"He said, `Terrorists killed three thousand people, we had to go to war.'" Halley continued to me. "I said, `Well, who put the Taliban into power? The United States did.' He said, `I'm not going to have a philosphical debate over politics.' The whole conversation was very gentle."

Halley says that while Bush was personable and receptive to her, she was very direct and critical of Bush's policies and insisted that the right thing to do was to end the war.
"We literally sat knee to knee...I looked deep into his eyes and talked to him about love and losing people and that he was responsible for this. I said, `I didn't vote for you, but you are my President. And you're not serving me.'"
"I said I believed it was time to put an end to this. His job is to find solutions. I said, `You yourself have said you had erroneous information going into this.'"
She continued: "I said, `As a Christian man, you realize that when you've made a mistake it's your responsibility to end this. And it's time to end the bleeding and it's time to end the war.'"
"I said, `what would truly bring healing is to start working on changing your policy towards the Middle East...as President, you're here to serve the people. And the people are not being served with this war.'"
She added: "I told him, `It's time as a Christian to put our pride behind us."
Halley said that the President appeared moved by what she'd said, but that she doubted it would bring about any real change. "He cried with me," she recounted. "I feel he responded to me emotionally. I don't know if that's going to change policy. It probably won't. But I hope it makes him think a little bit further."

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeeh...the_people_are_not_being_served_with_this_war

I'll admit, serving the people is a tough nut to crack. But the actions and antics of GWB are quite frankly ridiculous.


Psychoblues
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
President Bush is trying to end the war, the only way it can be ended: With victory.

He didn't start the war. He doesnt take pleasure in good Americans dying to protect our freedom. Why would he?

I can't figure out why you guys have such a difficult time understanding this: We are at war because a bunch of evil men want to kill us! And those of us they don't kill they want to rule over. They don't want us to be a free people.

The enemy is real whether you want to acknowledge it or not. So we either fight to survive, or we let them continue to wage war against us, let them murrder our friends, our family, our children, and grandchildren. The war isnt going to stop just because we stop fighting it. Its just going to get bloodier because evil wins when good men do nothing.
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
President Bush is trying to end the war, the only way it can be ended: With victory.

He didn't start the war. He doesnt take pleasure in good Americans dying to protect our freedom. Why would he?

I can't figure out why you guys have such a difficult time understanding this: We are at war because a bunch of evil men want to kill us! And those of us they don't kill they want to rule over. They don't want us to be a free people.

The enemy is real whether you want to acknowledge it or not. So we either fight to survive, or we let them continue to wage war against us, let them murder our friends, our family, our children, and grandchildren. The war is going to stop just because we stop fighting it. Its just going to get bloodier because evil wins when good men do nothing.

Avatar...
I do believe we are talking to a bunch of people, who would LIKE FOR US TO LOSE, so it can advance their political agenda....

It's a sad and sick thought......
But I'm convinced of it...


It makes my heart ache to have to realize this.......:cry: :cry:
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Avatar...
I do believe we are talking to a bunch of people, who would LIKE FOR US TO LOSE, so it can advance their political agenda....

It's a sad and sick thought......
But I'm convinced of it...


It makes my heart ache to have to realize this.......:cry: :cry:
I think there are alot, too many, who do want us to lose. But i think there are also alot who just dont know any better.

And despite what happened I still have hope. Christ can change men, and changed men can change the world.
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
32,242
Reaction score
17,045
Points
1,905
Location
Arizona
Patrick Damon, who's long been active in Democratic politics, had been in Afghanistan as an engineer building roads when he died in June. She said she was first told that it was of a heart attack, but that subsequently she was told there was no sign that a heart attack had killed him. An invesigation into his death is continuing.

Halley, who's also been politically active for Democrats, said she told GOP Senator Olympia Snowe that she'd like a phone call from Bush. Subsequently Halley got a call from White House staffers looking to set up a private meeting. Bush came yesterday.
Halley tells me that she told the President that she's been opposed since "day one" to both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well that about sums up the lunacy of this nimrod. She claims she opposed the Afgan war from the start, just because the US put them in power. Its funny how liberals are all say when we make a mistake we should correct it with a policy change. Yea, it was a mistake if we had any helping hand with the Taliban and Saddam, but that sure as hell doesn't mean we shouldn't correct that policy. But apparently helping such regimes aren't big enough mistakes to reverse policy on in the minds of liberals, even if they threaten to attack or do attack our country. But I guess thats the essence of liberal logic for ya, its better to have a dictator/regime stay in power even after they attack your country, rather than go to war to stop them.

And if she was so against the war from the start, what the hell was her husband doing there? I smell bullshit.
 

William Joyce

Chemotherapy for PC
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
9,758
Reaction score
1,146
Points
190
Location
Caucasiastan
President Bush is trying to end the war, the only way it can be ended: With victory.
And what, exactly, would this entail?

Bush certainly did start the war in Iraq. With absolutely no connection whatsoever to "people who want to kill us," he launched an attack on it in order to do Israel's heavy lifting. The Jewish neocons for years had salivated for an attack on Iraq, and 9/11 was a fitting excuse.

The root of the problem we face is that the Muslim world is at war with Israel and vice versa. But through no advantage to us, and by pure controlling by Jews like Lieberman, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, etc., we find ourself dragged in on the side of Israel. This is costing us billions of dollars, thousands of lives and unending erosion of our civil liberties.

I could take all that. I could even take that we're doing it all to please the Jews. But don't you think it's pretty fucking weird that we're not even allowed to talk about it? Or question it? In all the coverage of this, you simply never hear the word "Jew," ever? You hear "Muslim," Islam, islamofascist, Muslim terrorist, etc. repeated ad nauseum. But you could watch a thousand hours of TV and read a million words in the NYT, and never ONCE hear or see the driving influence of the whole goddamn thing: the Jews.
 

Bonnie

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
9,476
Reaction score
669
Points
48
Location
Wherever
Hey psycho, why don't you post about those who have lost family members but still support what the president is doing, and are very proud of their fallen family members, knowing if we pull out with the job only being 85% finished the terrorists win, Iraq loses, and we lose, the civilized world loses, and most importantly that their family members will have died for nothing??????
 

William Joyce

Chemotherapy for PC
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
9,758
Reaction score
1,146
Points
190
Location
Caucasiastan
Hey psycho, why don't you post about those who have lost family members but still support what the president is doing, and are very proud of their fallen family members, knowing if we pull out with the job only being 85% finished the terrorists win, Iraq loses, and we lose, the civilized world loses, and most importantly that their family members will have died for nothing??????
I have no good answer for this (if I'm the psycho you're talking about).

The vast majority of those who have lost family members are white Christians who very rightly are loyal to the U.S. But this is a loyalty betrayed by Jews, who care NOTHING for us, only that we do their dying for them. But I would not deign to directly lecture someone who has lost a loved one over there about this. Still, it has to be said.
 

Bonnie

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
9,476
Reaction score
669
Points
48
Location
Wherever
And what, exactly, would this entail?

Bush certainly did start the war in Iraq. With absolutely no connection whatsoever to "people who want to kill us," he launched an attack on it in order to do Israel's heavy lifting. The Jewish neocons for years had salivated for an attack on Iraq, and 9/11 was a fitting excuse.

The root of the problem we face is that the Muslim world is at war with Israel and vice versa. But through no advantage to us, and by pure controlling by Jews like Lieberman, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, etc., we find ourself dragged in on the side of Israel. This is costing us billions of dollars, thousands of lives and unending erosion of our civil liberties.

I could take all that. I could even take that we're doing it all to please the Jews. But don't you think it's pretty fucking weird that we're not even allowed to talk about it? Or question it? In all the coverage of this, you simply never hear the word "Jew," ever? You hear "Muslim," Islam, islamofascist, Muslim terrorist, etc. repeated ad nauseum. But you could watch a thousand hours of TV and read a million words in the NYT, and never ONCE hear or see the driving influence of the whole goddamn thing: the Jews.
There is a really good book I'm reading that you may want to as well, it's entitled "Neoconservatism " Why We Need It" by Douglas Murray which explains in very eloquent terms the price we pay if we sit back and do nothing about terrorism. Not a lot about Jews in it, but much about how the anti-war contingency will, if allowed, here, and in Europe will be the doom of freedom and Democracy.

One of the most salient points he makes has to do with Europe's "melting pot" and how it is becoming the demise of European sovereignty.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
There is a really good book I'm reading that you may want to as well, it's entitled "Neoconservatism " Why We Need It" by Douglas Murray which explains in very eloquent terms the price we pay if we sit back and do nothing about terrorism. Not a lot about Jews in it, but much about how the anti-war contingency will, if allowed, here, and in Europe will be the doom of freedom and Democracy.

One of the most salient points he makes has to do with Europe's "melting pot" and how it is becoming the demise of European sovereignty.
I'll check that out. Europe does not have, never really has had a 'melting pot'. There have been 'colonists', now people of former colonial nations, that come to the former ruling empire home bases and practice their culture within a culture. That is multi-nationalism, sort of parallel playing amongst toddlers. Europe is the home of the Balkans and Balkinization. We know how well they dealt with the fallout of that.
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
Psycho posted:

I reached Halley at her home in Falmouth, Maine. She told me that her husband, Patrick Damon, who's long been active in Democratic politics, had been in Afghanistan as an engineer building roads when he died in June. She said she was first told that it was of a heart attack, but that subsequently she was told there was no sign that a heart attack had killed him. An invesigation into his death is continuing.
Well gee, lets see if I've got this right. Patrick Damon has been ACTIVE in Democratic politics for a LONG time, wonder if there was any carry over to the wife?

Wonder why Mr. Damon didn't get "the hell out of Dodge" by using some of that "juice", that he surly must of had, you know, with being politically active, and all? Or maybe Mrs. Damon, who has always been against these wars, didn't recruit her husband to speak out? Don't suppose its for the same reason that "others" have had for not speaking out, THEY AREN'T opposed, and are there of THEIR OWN FREE WILL.

Some people, and it seems of late, the surviving spouse, of soldiers will do most ANYTHING to get a little attention, their "15 minutes of fame" out weights their moral obligations to their family and country.

Know what I think, turn em off, tune em out, they'll crawl back into their drug induced state, and never be heard from again.
 

Gem

Rookie
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
2,080
Reaction score
783
Points
0
So basically the far-left has found yet another far-left activist who is willing to let their personal tragedy be packaged and marketed to the far-left loons for amunition against Bush...maybe she and Cindy Sheehan can be roommates at the next Code Pink conference.

They probabably will get box seats at the next DNC next to Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter.

Moderate liberals...aren't you bothered by this?
 

Semper Fi

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2003
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
131
Points
83
Location
Wisconsin
Well that about sums up the lunacy of this nimrod. She claims she opposed the Afgan war from the start, just because the US put them in power. Its funny how liberals are all say when we make a mistake we should correct it with a policy change. Yea, it was a mistake if we had any helping hand with the Taliban and Saddam, but that sure as hell doesn't mean we shouldn't correct that policy. But apparently helping such regimes aren't big enough mistakes to reverse policy on in the minds of liberals, even if they threaten to attack or do attack our country. But I guess thats the essence of liberal logic for ya, its better to have a dictator/regime stay in power even after they attack your country, rather than go to war to stop them.

And if she was so against the war from the start, what the hell was her husband doing there? I smell bullshit.
Not exactly. The Taliban was an organization fighting the USSR whilst they were invading, therefore they were fighting our enemies at the time. Then over the years they turned into an anti-US group.

I doubt she was against the war from the start. After 9/11 the vast majority of Americans were rattling sabres, eager for justice through Afghanistan. She could have been one of the select few, I suppose. By the way, I oppose the democrat party's support for gay marriage, where is my news article?

My dad's always told me, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." Pay her no mind, same with Sheeman.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
President Bush is trying to end the war, the only way it can be ended: With victory.
Well, Chimpy did say we'd be there "until the mission was complete". But wait! Wasn't it "Mission Accomplished" on 05/03/2003? Someone should really get him a thesaurus.

He didn't start the war. He doesnt take pleasure in good Americans dying to protect our freedom. Why would he?
Yes, he did start the war in Iraq. Contrary to nore than 200 years of US history, he led America into a war of aggression based upon a tissue of lies.

I can't figure out why you guys have such a difficult time understanding this: We are at war because a bunch of evil men want to kill us! And those of us they don't kill they want to rule over. They don't want us to be a free people.
I don't have any trouble at all with putting down anyone who is trying to kill me. But until Congress officially declares war on someone, we aren't at war. And, how do you wage war against an enemy that fades into the civilian populace? Intelligence and law enforcement.

The enemy is real whether you want to acknowledge it or not. So we either fight to survive, or we let them continue to wage war against us, let them murrder our friends, our family, our children, and grandchildren. The war isnt going to stop just because we stop fighting it. Its just going to get bloodier because evil wins when good men do nothing.
The enemy is real, but they must be fought within the four corners of the law. To abandon the principles this Republic was founded upon, to toss aside the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to fight this enemy is a victory for them, and a loss for the free world. What part of that don't you understand?

And in response to the title of the thread, Chimpy has NEVER served the people. Unless, of course, they can pony up the big bucks to the GOP campaign finance committee.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
So basically the far-left has found yet another far-left activist who is willing to let their personal tragedy be packaged and marketed to the far-left loons for amunition against Bush...maybe she and Cindy Sheehan can be roommates at the next Code Pink conference.

They probabably will get box seats at the next DNC next to Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter.

Moderate liberals...aren't you bothered by this?
And the the GOP and its right wing-nut base don't package the "war on terror" and its consequences for its own political ends? You are either naive or willfully ignorant if you think they don't dearie.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
And what, exactly, would this entail?

Bush certainly did start the war in Iraq. With absolutely no connection whatsoever to "people who want to kill us," he launched an attack on it in order to do Israel's heavy lifting. The Jewish neocons for years had salivated for an attack on Iraq, and 9/11 was a fitting excuse.

The root of the problem we face is that the Muslim world is at war with Israel and vice versa. But through no advantage to us, and by pure controlling by Jews like Lieberman, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, etc., we find ourself dragged in on the side of Israel. This is costing us billions of dollars, thousands of lives and unending erosion of our civil liberties.

I could take all that. I could even take that we're doing it all to please the Jews. But don't you think it's pretty fucking weird that we're not even allowed to talk about it? Or question it? In all the coverage of this, you simply never hear the word "Jew," ever? You hear "Muslim," Islam, islamofascist, Muslim terrorist, etc. repeated ad nauseum. But you could watch a thousand hours of TV and read a million words in the NYT, and never ONCE hear or see the driving influence of the whole goddamn thing: the Jews.
Let's think about this rationally:

Terrrorists attacked us, so we declared war on Terrorism and every government that sponsors terror.

Saddam sponsored terror.

Now why on earth would Iraq have anything to do with the war on terror.

Why on earth is this so difficult to understand? Is our educational system that bad that people dont understand common sense?
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Well, Chimpy did say we'd be there "until the mission was complete". But wait! Wasn't it "Mission Accomplished" on 05/03/2003? Someone should really get him a thesaurus.
Bully come on. The mission was accomplished. The troops on the aircraft carrier were going home. Major operations in Iraq were over. They've been over for years.

But completing one mission doesnt mean the war is over.


Yes, he did start the war in Iraq. Contrary to nore than 200 years of US history, he led America into a war of aggression based upon a tissue of lies.
Problem is you guys have been claiming its all lies since President Bush took office. Conveniently they werent lies during the Clinton administration. They just became "lies" because President Bush was actually going to take care of the problem rather than just rattle saber for political position.

But in order for their to be lies, he has to have lied about something. Simply repeating the mantra "Bush lied" doesn't prove it.

I don't have any trouble at all with putting down anyone who is trying to kill me. But until Congress officially declares war on someone, we aren't at war. And, how do you wage war against an enemy that fades into the civilian populace? Intelligence and law enforcement.
The Authorization for the Use of Military Force giving the President power to wage war against terror and any nation that supports terror isnt a declaration of war? The Iraq resolution authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam's regime for their support of terror isnt a declaration of war?

Tell me what exactly do you call bills that authorize the President to wage war? Declarations of "Let's be friends with these people by sending are military in to destroy them?"

Call it whatever you want, Congress has authorized it.

The enemy is real, but they must be fought within the four corners of the law. To abandon the principles this Republic was founded upon, to toss aside the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to fight this enemy is a victory for them, and a loss for the free world. What part of that don't you understand?
Oh please, you have the audacity to lecture anyone on the principles of this republic when you oppose everything it stands for and actively support our enemies? The President isn't tossing aside the Constitution by exercising his inherent powers as commander-in-cheif. and I am sick and tired of holier than thou types such as yourself trying to actively rob the President of his constitutional powers and prevent him from fulfilling his responsibility to protect us just so you can blame him when something happens in an elaborate scheme for your own personal power.

And in response to the title of the thread, Chimpy has NEVER served the people. Unless, of course, they can pony up the big bucks to the GOP campaign finance committee.
President Bush has served alot more people than you ever will. Remember back to the first Presidential debate? The media declared John Kerry the winner despite a number incredibly naive and deadly campaign promises. Why? Because Senator Kerry spent all day sitting in a salon getting his nails down while President Bush was out working with the people of Florida to rebuild after a hurricane disaster.

So please, by all means keep supporting the candidates who care more about their personal image then helping out the people and doing what's right to protect and rebuild America. Because actions speak a heck of alot louder then empty rhetoric.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
And the the GOP and its right wing-nut base don't package the "war on terror" and its consequences for its own political ends? You are either naive or willfully ignorant if you think they don't dearie.
Yeah, funny how people might thing protecting the lives of people would be a smart political move. The fact is even if the GOP tried to completely politicize it, it wouldnt matter if the Democrats actually bothered supporting or doing anything that would protect the American people. If you guys both support protecting America, neither party can make it an issue.

It's only when people would rather commit suicide by refusing to fight that there is a contrast. It's the very fact that the Democrats take a position opposing everything in the war on terror that gives the GOP the power to eradicate them with it.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Yeah, funny how people might thing protecting the lives of people would be a smart political move. The fact is even if the GOP tried to completely politicize it, it wouldnt matter if the Democrats actually bothered supporting or doing anything that would protect the American people. If you guys both support protecting America, neither party can make it an issue.

It's only when people would rather commit suicide by refusing to fight that there is a contrast. It's the very fact that the Democrats take a position opposing everything in the war on terror that gives the GOP the power to eradicate them with it.
Unfortunately for America, a political move is all the protection of the American people has been since 9/12. Our ports remain vulnerable. Our nuclear, chemical and petroleum processing facilities remain as secure as a package of Oreos with a bunch of stoners with the munchies. Our borders contiue to leak like a seive.

Your assertion that opposition to Chimpy and Co's misguided and ill concieved policies in eradicating terrorists threats is laughable, and echoes back to Chimpy's assinine post-9/11 assertion, "You're either with us...Or you're with the terrorists...". That strategem harkens back to Herman Goering.

<blockquote>"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. <b>All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.</b>" - <i>emphasis mine</i>

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials - <i>emphasis mine</i> </blockquote>

While those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, those who choose to ignore it will attempt to manipulate it to their own ends. And this is just what Chimpy and Co are doing.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
Unfortunately for America, a political move is all the protection of the American people has been since 9/12. Our ports remain vulnerable. Our nuclear, chemical and petroleum processing facilities remain as secure as a package of Oreos with a bunch of stoners with the munchies. Our borders contiue to leak like a seive.

Your assertion that opposition to Chimpy and Co's misguided and ill concieved policies in eradicating terrorists threats is laughable, and echoes back to Chimpy's assinine post-9/11 assertion, "You're either with us...Or you're with the terrorists...". That strategem harkens back to Herman Goering.

<blockquote>"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. <b>All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.</b>" - <i>emphasis mine</i>

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials - <i>emphasis mine</i> </blockquote>

While those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, those who choose to ignore it will attempt to manipulate it to their own ends. And this is just what Chimpy and Co are doing.
Mornin' Bully.

I just HAVE to ask what the Dems (past or present) have done/will do to beef up security, and erradicate the terrorist threat? Please do not point to the BS white paper which says exactly nothing. I can honestly say that if the Dems can provide a DETAILED plan for the issues, I would certainly listen and consider...all I have seen from them so far is a bunch of criticism (a lot like yours!) with no solutions offered. I suspect the answer does not lie in merely denigrating the current President or administration.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top