Terrorism: the ad
: Here’s the GOP commercial defending Bush on terrorism: “Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists….”
13 responses to “Terrorism: the ad”
-
moveon.org is already crying about this. why don’t they move on already?
-
Poor moveon, why must the world be so unfair? What gives the republicans the right to defend themselves? Like all liberals they can dish it out but can’t take it.
-
“defending” Bush, or attacking Democrats?
-
Attacking the terrorists? No, he attacked Iraq. But most Americans seem to be too unsophisticated to tell the difference.
-
Because, of course, there is no connection at all between Iraq and any terrorist organization. Absolutely none. Zip, zero, nada.
[/sarcasm] -
No most Americans are smart enough to see the big picture. Iraq IS a key part of the fight against terror. Snooty elitists like you of course know everthing already though.
-
“Saddam Hussein has demonstrated repeatedly that he will resort to terrorism or aggression if left unchecked.”–Then-President Bill Clinton.
-
Hey, Big Dog, you know something the rest of us don’t. Because according to all the evidence, there has been absolutely no connection between Iraq and international terrorism. Absolutely none. Zip, zero, nada.
If you’ve got the evidence, we’d love to hear it.
That’s right. We’re waiting.
Until you present some evidence — and not some neo-con bullshit that we’ll eventually find terrorist links or weapons of mass destruction at some date in the future (presumably after November 2004) — then all you’ve done is bought into the GOP’s Big Lie Machine about the non-existent terrorism-Iraq link. -
Letting Abu Zarqawi establish headquarters in Iraq, and paying families of Palestinian homicide bombers $25,000 each isn’t evidence that Saddam supported terrorism?
How about the Salman Pak terrorist training center, complete with the hull of a commercial airliner, used for Hijacking 101?
JD, you have to ignore a lot more than any Neocon could make up to pretend Saddam Hussein never had any links to terrorism. -
JD – go back to sleep.
-
There’s an enormous difference between “attacking the President” and “attacking terrorists”, and I’m disappointed that the GOP would use the same word for both, suggesting a similarity that just isn’t there.
-
Hey, JD, read the Weekly Standard? Did you miss the big article on the myriad of connections between Iraq and al Qaeda?
Didn’t think so. -
JD, please stop with the “neo-con” labeling agenda. We didn’t create the term, your pals did. Conservatives, like myself are proud to be so and have nothing to hide about our beliefs. On the other hand, liberals like yourself would rather be called “progressive” these days because the word is out about what the true liberal agenda is. Neo-con is a made up name that actually doesn’t define anyone. You just like it because it sounds insulting. Use your own brain.
