Bad Week For Bush Haters
The Special Prosecutor’s entire investigation into who allegedly leaked Valerie Plame’s allegedly covert status has “sand thrown in its eyes” by one of the liberal media’s darlings. (Woodward Was Told Of Plame More Than Two Years Ago – WaPo.)
The 9/11 Commission is shown to be the fraud that it always was.
Maybe next week, some Democrats will actually put forward a plan to win the global war on terror? But don’t hold your breath.
After all it is has been 1,528 days since our nation was attacked by al-Qaeda (for the umpteenth time since 1992) on September 11th.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
20 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’d say every week’s been a bad one for the Bush-Haters since, oh, ’round about December of 2000.
You know, for all their attempts to make headway during that whole time, the only thing they actually accomplished was to get Jeff Gannon’s press pass revoked. Oh, and electing Governors in NJ and VA. WOW-WEE! Color me impressed.
New Democrat Party slogan: “Taking Failure to a New Level”
Comment by glisteny — November 17, 2005 @ 10:24 pm - November 17, 2005
“After all it is has been 1,528 days since our nation was attacked by al-Qaeda (for the umpteenth time since 1992) on September 11th.”
I’m guessing you’re counting international attacks on American military and interests and none on American soil between 93 and 2001? How about attacks by Al-Queda on our troops abroad since then? Or how about the American chain hotels attacked just last week?
And by the way…my take on that quote is “1,528 days since our nation was attacked by al-Qaeda on September 11th and Mr. Bush & Company still have yet to catch a 6’7″ guy on dialysis” Of course that’s probably a daily crawl we’d see on Fox if a Democrat was president, now wouldn’t it?
Comment by Kevin — November 17, 2005 @ 11:06 pm - November 17, 2005
I still don’t understand how electing a Democrat for governor in VA, who is against both gay marriage and civil unions, is a win for the liberals here.
Comment by John — November 17, 2005 @ 11:09 pm - November 17, 2005
You guys are delusional.
Comment by David — November 18, 2005 @ 12:08 am - November 18, 2005
Comment 2 -
Yes Kevin – he was obviously talking about no attacks on American territory, including the mainland, embassies abroad, or naval vessels and bases.
And Kevin, you still need to answer this.
But to keep things current, let’s have you do it here. So I’ll paste the key grafs:
————————————————-
(1) You made a comment looking down upon the name-calling you’re supposedly subjected to here (doubtless some is real, and some imagined). I agreed name-calling is bad, and I asked if you could perhaps boost your credibility on the matter by separating yourself from (i.e., by briefly denouncing) the Left’s constant, endless name-calling on conservative figures.
(2) You stressed the importance of constructive listening. I agreed implicitly, and I asked if, having listened in these forums for awhile now, you could perhaps separate yourself from your October comment (quoted accurately by VK) that conservatives “would be perfectly happy to see us exterminated” – or in its most precise form, that the Gay Patriots “want to support a group of people who would be perfectly happy to see us exterminated”.
I am still waiting on both requests.
Comment by Calarato — November 18, 2005 @ 2:15 am - November 18, 2005
“Maybe next week, some Democrats will actually put forward a plan to win the global war on terror? But don’t hold your breath. ”
So describe exactly what Bush’s plan is and what concrete progress he has made toward the goal of …. What is his goal again? Was it to liberate Iraq? Protect America from Terrorism? Get rid of Saddam’s nuclear arsenal? Spread democracy in the middle east? Pass a constitutional amendment that enshrines ignorance, prejudice and fear as an American virtue? Oops, guess that just slipped in there. Oh yeah, and what ever happened to that Osama guy? You know, the one actually behind 9-11?
The only plan he has carried out effectively was his plan for re-election. And I see Michelle Malkin is starting the swift-boating of another Vietnam veteran today. Get ready for the big noise machine to get into high gear. They will tear down the reputation of veteran marine with 37 years in the military and who served in two wars. A man that yesterday was widely respected and praised by both sides of the aisle. And today the Bush white house is comparing him to Michael Moore. But what do you expect from a man that wants to torture people and disappear them into secret prisons across the globe?
Don’t blame not winning the war against terrorism on the Democrats. The GOP are equal partners in crime. And destroying American values in the name of stopping the next terrorist attack isn’t worth the cost.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 18, 2005 @ 3:21 am - November 18, 2005
Maybe next week, some Democrats will actually put forward a plan to win the global war on terror?
We already know what their plan is: Surrender to al Qaeda. (i.e. Pull the troops out of Iraq.)
Comment by V the K — November 18, 2005 @ 5:51 am - November 18, 2005
#2 — Kev, check your facts. The urban legend about OBL being on dialysis is a Michael Moore lie. (“While there have been a lot of rumors about the status of his health, we do not have evidence to support that he has had kidney failure or is on dialysis.” – New York Times, January 19, 2002) And why is it lefties like you and Gryph act like OBL is the only terrorist in the world, and if we just capture him we will end all terrorism for ever? Do you guys really believe that, or is the OBL canard just another way to bash Bush over something essentially marginal to the war against Islamo-Fascism? Was World War II a failure because we never captured Yamamoto, the architect of the Pearl Harbor attacks? By your definition, it was.
And Gryph, I don’t believe that service in Vietnam entitles anyone to immunity from criticism when they encourage terrorists to attack our troops, which is exactly what Murtha did when he essentially said, “Kill enough of us and we’ll live. Osama was right, Americans have no stomach for war.”
Comment by V the K — November 18, 2005 @ 6:33 am - November 18, 2005
“kill enough of us and we’ll live” s/b “kill enough of us and we’ll leave”
Comment by V the K — November 18, 2005 @ 6:33 am - November 18, 2005
Or how about the American chain hotels attacked just last week?
Which American chain hotels would this be then?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 18, 2005 @ 10:21 am - November 18, 2005
I have never said that, I never implied that, so that makes you a liar. I believe Osama should be captured in the name of justice for his victims. Remember them? And after the fall of the Taliban, Al-Quaeda metastasized into a global franchise of terrorism. It was an unavoidable outcome, but that it happened is a fact. But are the majority of our resources focused on that? Nope, everything is in Iraq. Bush is a poor leader in the War on Terror, as I said, the only thing he is good at is winning campaigns.
He also never said that, and never implied that. You are again lying. And the GOP is now simply choosing to assassinate the character of anyone that disagrees with them. They don’t give crap about the troops. What they do, they do for their own petty partisan interests, not for the troops and certainly not for the good of the country as a whole.
And incidentally you Bozo-brain, I don’t think the troops should be withdrawn. I think that we should have a permanent military presence there. But Murtha makes valid points about us being a crutch for the Iraqi civil defense forces.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 18, 2005 @ 11:53 am - November 18, 2005
Gee Gryph, I am sorry for reading the sentence “Oh yeah, and what ever happened to that Osama guy? You know, the one actually behind 9-11?” and concluding that since you made that comment in the context of ripping on progress in the war on terror, that you believed not capturing OBL diminished the accomplishments of democratizing Iraq and Afghanistan, and deposing Saddam and the Taliban.
Also, please forgive me for reading your statement, “And I see Michelle Malkin is starting the swift-boating of another Vietnam veteran today… They will tear down the reputation of veteran marine with 37 years in the military and who served in two wars” and taking your rhetoric to mean that you were implying that past service in wartime ought to insulate one against criticism. It merely confused me that you would even bring up such prior service in the context of attacking the Bush administration’s rebuttal to his comments unless you, for some reason, believed it was relevant.
For my failure to discern your intent from the language you chose to you, I most humbly apologize.
Now, explain to me how Murtha’s exact statement “”The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home” does not equate with a call to withdraw the troops (i.e. surrender), and is merely a suggestion that our troops should stop acting as crutch for the Iraqi military. Obviously, you and Murtha are operating on a level of subtletly and nuance inaccessible to “bozo-brains” like myself.
Comment by V the K — November 18, 2005 @ 12:32 pm - November 18, 2005
“we want to assure you that………you are more beloved to us than ourselves” zarqawi addressing jordanians………..ahhhhhhhhh thats so sweet of him kinda sounds like the same crap that the anti war left says about our military
Comment by nuyorker — November 18, 2005 @ 12:52 pm - November 18, 2005
Al-Quaeda metastasized into a global franchise of terrorism. It was an unavoidable outcome
I’ve got news for you. al-Quaeda was a “global franchise of terrorism” before we went to Afghanistan. Therefore, you’re a liar.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 18, 2005 @ 1:05 pm - November 18, 2005
Interestingly, Murth did say this:
“And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically.
Wait a sec.
There were 150/week.
Now there’s been 700 in the last year. That means that there were 13.46 insurgent incidents. In short Mr. Murtha says:
Insurgent incidents have increased from 150 per week to 13.46 per week.
Or should I be using some of that liberal Million Man Math?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 18, 2005 @ 1:24 pm - November 18, 2005
#15
OH NO!!!
15 insurgents in the southern mountains were threatening to take over the entire country. Instead of blasting them, we should have tucked tail and run for home, right GayCowA$$?
Let’s see. 270 insurgents killed, 271 captured compared to 3 of us killed in combat. Sounds like pretty damn good odds to me. It’s a shame you see it as a disaster. But then that’s how liberals support the troops.
If there was ever any doubt before, it’s now clear that you suck a$$, GayCow.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 18, 2005 @ 2:25 pm - November 18, 2005
If attacks have increased lately, liberal math notwithstanding, is it possible that they have increased because of Democrat politicians sending the terrorists the message that if they kill a few more Americans, we will surrender?
Comment by V the K — November 18, 2005 @ 2:57 pm - November 18, 2005
Libs don’t want us to leave Iraq. I mean, if no soldiers are dying, they won’t have anything to party about. They’ll have one less thing causing them orgasm.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 18, 2005 @ 3:01 pm - November 18, 2005
LOL…..there’s two problems with that logic, Pussy.
1) As vote returns show, the US armed forces are overwhelmingly Republican; thus, Republicans ARE doing the bulk of the fighting.
2) You and your fellow Democrats aren’t running to enlist to fight in Afghanistan, which you allegedly support.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 19, 2005 @ 11:00 am - November 19, 2005
test
Comment by test — November 21, 2005 @ 7:52 pm - November 21, 2005