Comments Posted By Salty Party Snax
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 33 Comments
ONE LITTLE, TWO LITTLE, THREE LITTLE TERRORISTS...
B. Poster - So they're not 'deadenders,' yes?
Comment Posted By Salty Party Snax On 27.09.2006 @ 12:53
All your hysteria aside Dale, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt conducted the Second World War, he did so with a plan to win it. He mobilized the country, put everyone eligible in uniform, turned our industries into a mighty war machine, and kicked some Nazi ass.
The Bushies, on the other hand, ran this on the cheap operation in Iraq and Afghanistan that has only led to quarmire and the very real possibility of eventual defeat if we don't change the foucs. Think of it, George W. Bush, through his extraordinary incompetence, has put the United States military into a position where it can't win against a bunch of ragtag insurgents.
But I wouldn't worry about Jihadis actually winning this thing, Dale. The American people will soon replace the baffled Bushies with people who actually know what they're doing. And once Georgie, Rummie, Dick and the rest of these bumblers are thrown out on their fat pampered asses, things will improve markedly.
Democracy works, Dale. Go find another 'cowboy' to love.
Comment Posted By Salty Party Snax On 27.09.2006 @ 09:40
Excuse me, that would be half a trillion dollars spent to not catch Osama bin Laden.
Comment Posted By Salty Party Snax On 27.09.2006 @ 08:54
Sure, Dale. Whatever you say, dog.
Bush has blown half a billion dollars (much of it borrowed from such bastions of freedom as Red China), lost 2,700 GIs in combat with another 19,000 wounded, started 2 Asian land wars that he has no plan for winning, and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are still at large and still killing Americans.
Please explain to me how that isn't failure on an historic scale.
Comment Posted By Salty Party Snax On 27.09.2006 @ 08:53
A new Gallup Poll shows that the American public blames Bush (53%) over Clinton (36%) for the failure to capture Osama bin Laden.
Looks like the recent fib offensive from Kenny Bunkport and his enablers hasn't worked as well as they'd hoped.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24733
Comment Posted By Salty Party Snax On 27.09.2006 @ 08:14
Speaking of conspiracy theories and a lack of anti-terrorist cooperation from the ding-a-ling Clinton hating right,check out this Free Republic "Wag the Dog" thread from 1998:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041011160250/http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a530320.htm
Comment Posted By Salty Party Snax On 25.09.2006 @ 09:08
THE DUMBEST "MILESTONE" IN JOURNALISTIC HISTORY
The only truly unbelievable thing here is that after 5 years of incredible sacrifice in American lives and national treasure, terrorism is no less widespread or destructive than it was on 9/11/01. If anything our enemies have grown stronger.
Milestones such as the one detailed by Time only serve to remind people of the military and leadership failures of this administration, which is why they are so unpopular with Bushbots.
If this country was truly serious about eliminating terrorism it would condemn the five years of failure that have typified the Bush regime in this regard and replace these incompetents with people who actually know what they're doing.
Comment Posted By Salty Party Snax On 23.09.2006 @ 14:01
IN DEFENSE OF FEMINISTS. . . OR AT LEAST THEIR BREASTS
I don't suppose the many pictures of George W. Bush surrounded by Condi Rice, Karen Hughes, Barbara Bush and First Lady Laura Bush can be seen quite in the same light.
The Playboy versus the Momma's Boy.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2005/11/bush-and-his-women.html
Comment Posted By Salty Party Snax On 17.09.2006 @ 11:51
COWARDLY DEMOCRATS REFUSE TO ENGAGE ON TERROR DEBATE
"If they must engage in impeachment hearings, I would respectfully request that they wait until the GWOT is won."
So you're proposing that Bush stay in the office of President for the rest of his life?
Just kidding. But what is it about Bush's leadership in the GWOT that makes you feel that he is the one essential man? Personally I can't see anything good about Bush's efforts in his so-called "war on terrorism."
The first step in defeating terrorism is getting some decent leadershiop in place. And in order to do that Bush has to be removed. 5 years of horribly managed and unrelenting disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan should be enough for anyone.
Comment Posted By Salty Party Snax On 16.09.2006 @ 21:21
".. it is overly simplistic to pin all the blame on Bush."
It comes with living in the White House, B. Poster. And trying to evade that part of the job description has only made him appear even more ridiculous.
I mean, have we ever had an administration who has spent so much time talking about who gets what blame? Kinda pussy if you think about it.
Comment Posted By Salty Party Snax On 16.09.2006 @ 18:26
