HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:13 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:03 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:01 -0500, John H. wrote:
You might want to consider, Republicans' were rather slow to come
around
to the threat. As I recall, a BJ had all their focus. Remember
"Wag
the Dog"?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...esstional.reac...

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/
So you believe that Clinton was actually trying to do something other
than divert attention?
Why didn't he finish the job?
Why hasn't GWB? bin Laden is *still* missing.
yukity, yukity, yuk, that's sooooo 2003...Get with it, the mission
changes, like any war...
Translation: Bush blew it, but we don't want to discuss that part of it
anymore.

You mean, because we did not win yet? You should do a little reading
on the history, and meaning of war before you come to the table
sounding so silly. First off, in war, there are usually two or more
sides. Each side tries to win, sometimes the other side moves, or
changes tactics. Niether side wants to lose, so they fight back...
Anyway, you should read up on it, facinating really...


Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the
Islamists, do you.

How do we settle this tiff? Do we do as your side, the "progressives",
advocates and roll over and let ourselves get walked on or do we stand
up to the tyranny that Islam is and fight it at ever turn?