P2P-Zone - View Single Post

Ramona_A_Stone · 18-11-05, 10:43 AM

Scott McClellan: "Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America, so it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled--nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer."

I guess the liberal media left in the irrational parts of McClellan's statement. Michael Moore for chrissake? Surrender to the terrorists? It's not surprising their approval ratings are plummeting when they use logic that wouldn't work on a ten year old.

This administration pretends that the only considerations about policy in Iraq that matter are the right vs. left political climate at home and continue to inflame the debate with the allusion that we're fighting some mythical amalgamation of the insurgency which targets us there and a small unrelated group that attacked us four years ago--"The Terrorists." Meanwhile Saddam is gone, and elections are being held, which was their stated goal, woohoo, and they've still never adequately explained how this is supposed to make the US a safer place even though it's strengthening and focusing an apparently endlessly renewable indigenous source of hatred for Americans on foreign soil.

Meanwhile these tactics seem to ensure that the question remains unanswered and completely avoided by the 'false guts and balls crowd': how does staying in Iraq make the US safer? It's easy to see how it made a few of us richer, and about 2000 of us deader, but anyone who feels safer is either deluded or simply lying.

Hardly surprising that no one seems to have any real concrete viable answer, since they never adequately answered the question of how going to Iraq in the first place made us safer, we were simply branded as cowards for asking--and now we're called spineless for wishing to complete the mission, come home and get on with actually protecting ourselves.

18-11-05, 10:43 AM	#5
Ramona_A_Stone Formal Ball Proof Join Date: May 2000 Posts: 2,948	Scott McClellan: "Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America, so it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled--nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer." I guess the liberal media left in the irrational parts of McClellan's statement. Michael Moore for chrissake? Surrender to the terrorists? It's not surprising their approval ratings are plummeting when they use logic that wouldn't work on a ten year old. This administration pretends that the only considerations about policy in Iraq that matter are the right vs. left political climate at home and continue to inflame the debate with the allusion that we're fighting some mythical amalgamation of the insurgency which targets us there and a small unrelated group that attacked us four years ago--"The Terrorists." Meanwhile Saddam is gone, and elections are being held, which was their stated goal, woohoo, and they've still never adequately explained how this is supposed to make the US a safer place even though it's strengthening and focusing an apparently endlessly renewable indigenous source of hatred for Americans on foreign soil. Meanwhile these tactics seem to ensure that the question remains unanswered and completely avoided by the 'false guts and balls crowd': how does staying in Iraq make the US safer? It's easy to see how it made a few of us richer, and about 2000 of us deader, but anyone who feels safer is either deluded or simply lying. Hardly surprising that no one seems to have any real concrete viable answer, since they never adequately answered the question of how going to Iraq in the first place made us safer, we were simply branded as cowards for asking--and now we're called spineless for wishing to complete the mission, come home and get on with actually protecting ourselves.