|
Ditto....these blind liberals must have missed this portion of that "famous" Bush speech:
Little matter that the crew of USS Abe Lincoln placed that banner because THEIR tour was now over and they were going home. Liberals certainly never would be opportunists, would they? |
|
|
|
||
|
A declaration to the press by an nobama admin official that "the war on terror is over", is subjective and incidental? And you called yourself a teacher, BDI?
It was no different when Bush declared the -mission accomplished- in the most televised and revered photo op in his two term history. And-- in spite of the obvious and clear intent it wasn't, and no amount of spatting about it would ever change that, but to say as they did then-- well, that's a subjective view. We meant this we meant that.
I don't call myself a teacher, I was---a teacher and political science wasn't my forte but----math and sociology were. Potato po-totto is how we can relegate just about every argument anyone can try to make when comparing Bush to obama. I don't like either of em and that's that. But when we never seem to find ANY fault in one but EVERYTHING in the other, Yes I do get my panties in a bunch. Be brave tell the truth ---is what we learned from an age where the buck was to stop where it belonged. If obama is a usless inexperienced hack, so was Bush. Besides I'll never forgive what he did to our educational system with the brilliant maneuver to defund our schools and set us bacj educationally two decades. That's a painful truth that IS a serious problem still today and he never should have signed NCLB among many other bills. Or as you might re-wright this --------blah blah blah blah obama bad Bush good. I'll go with the previous not the latter.
Odd that a supposed educated woman, who admitted to being research-oriented (GPC), would be so inept that she would not factually know that Bush did not declare "mission accomplished", as she lied about here.
Inept, or just a lying liberal, does this remind anyone of somebody else here? |
|
|
"Inept, or just a lying liberal, does this remind anyone of somebody else here?"
Could be one or several. |
|
|
First there is BEN SHAPIRO, of Breitbart News who wrote:The National Journal reported that a senior State Department official has announced, “The war on terror is over.”
Again Breitbart quoting a nameless "senior State Department official". Why in hell should I believe that? Why should anybody?
“Now that we have killed most of al Qaida,” the source said, “now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.” "...the source said...". Give me a name! I think the name would be that of a Breitbart employee.
The article itself describes the Obama administration’s new vision of foreign policy, which admits no enemies. Everyone, in this view, is a friend. Islamism, says the Obama administration, is just fine, so long as it does not openly support terrorism.
Then there was Mike Adams of naturalnews.com whose article stated among other things:
"This is great news, isn’t it? If the “War on Terror” is over, then we can repeal and reverse all the ridiculous police state laws that were put in place to protect us from terrorism right?
So that means we can now fire the TSA? They were only put in place after the “terror” attacks on 9/11. If the war on terror is over, the TSA is no longer needed. assuming they were effective at all, which they weren’t. Can we nowrepeal the Patriot Actwhich was passed out of an urgency to defend America from terrorists? Will Obama nullify the NDAA that he recently signed, which uses the excuse of the “war on terror” to legalize secret arrests and the stripping of due process from all Americans? Can we now deconstruct the DHS and fire Janet Napolitano who has become the (nauseating) face of “fear your neighbor” campaigns? Gee, if the War on Terror is over, then can we stop with the DHS buying 450 million rounds of hollow point ammo and bulletproof roadside checkpoint booths?" "This, of course, is utter foolishness. Islamism is a religious ideological movement that brooks no real alternatives – so while the State Department proclaims “a legitimate Islamism,” it fails to acknowledge that Islamism, “legitimate” or not, is deeply intolerant of any other modes of expression religious or otherwise" wrote Ben Shapiro. He continued "Not only that, but Islamism works hand-in-glove with terror groups around the world. Simply because a regime does not openly house al Qaida does not mean that the regime doesn’t support al Qaida; just because a regime pretends at democracy doesn’t mean that it has real democratic values."Why do you boys insist on calling every person, every nation, every organization that is connected with Islam an enemy?
Why drive away those who are not our enemies by insisting that they are?
|
Promote Your Business or Product for $10/mo
For just $10/mo you can promote your business or product directly to nearby residents. Buy 12 months and save 50%!
