Spain rocked by 4 seperate bombs by Terrorist Group Etta

i never asserted that. sourdoughman did. my points are all about the current democrats. i am showing you that as of right now, democrats take a weaker, more "sensitive" more diplomatic, less aggressive stance on terror and national security. i never made any statements about what democrats "were". i am not saying that the democrats "were" weak on terror, past tense. i am saying they are weak on terror right now. that is why the democrats are terrible and dangerous and sourdoughman is usually right.

i am not a strong enough student of recent history to examine clinton's policies, and because i want to continue to be 100% right about every single word i say, i wont comment on that.

furthermore, most americans agree with this opinion, and that is why republicans are winning eletions (along with republican stupidity on moral issues.)

i am saying that right now, the democratic party is the party of appeasement and cowardice.

 

Here Goes,
Red, you say that Kerry is irrelevant because he never served as president.
Well, then we disagree because this is the 1 problem of the democratic party.
He has the same stance as the democratic party on the issue of military and soft
on defense.

You ask want incident I'm referring too,
Kerry said during the election that we needed to pass the global test, needed to get
terrorism back to a nuisance meaning what?
Treating it as a criminal action is the only thing left.
You say Kerry is irrelevant but I disagree because he was the democrats candidate
and stood up for their beliefs or he wouldn't have represented them.

Clinton administration is enough to prove that democrats are weak on terror, Jimmy
Carter is another example, military weakness and weak on terror.
Clinton's Administration sure could attack Americans like Waco, Elian Gonzalez situation
but they sure were cowards when it came to defending Americans from terrorists overseas.
The Sudanese tried to give Clinton OBL but Clinton was too busy playing golf or with
Monica or something to have any entrust in getting him.
I WILL then say Bill Clinton is partly responsible for 9/11 no matter if anyone likes it or not.

Jimmy Carter, Do you remember we Americans had NO confidence in these years?
Do you forget about just how good the military was during this time?
We couldn't run a rescue operation muchless a military campaign?

The Millenium Bombing plot was a stroke of luck, that is all.
An alert agent was responsible for this but they were looking for drugs not explosives.

I'll give you a teaser...
Clinton lobbing a few missiles in Afghanistan was worthless, it was for show.
If Clinton wanted OBL why didn't he take him when the Sudanese offered him to us?

You say GWBush did nothing but I will also say he wasn't in office for a year and if you
remember the 2000 election, this president got a late start because of this situation.
He had to keep on some Clintonites such as Richard Clark because he didn't have a lot
of time to get things rolling, he had a lot of positions to fill with not a lot of time.

I'm not all for defending GWB though, he's the best we have for now, better than ANY
democrat out there.
I did like what Zell Miller, Joe Liberman, Ed Koch had to say so I'm not total anti-democrat.

Evidence that Democrats are weak on defense and terror, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Evidence that Republicans are stronger than democrats on military and terror.

1) Ronald Reagan, you must have a short memory, remember what this country was like during the Carter years? I was for Carter as a kid before I knew better.
Ronald Reagan gave us confidence in ourselves and the military.
You remember Lebanon and their leader Kadolfi?
Remember what our military did to him for his support of terrorism?
You do know why the hostages in Iran were released? It wasn't because of Carter.

What did Carter ever do when terrorism came to roost, what did Reagan?

Reagan vs Russia, the democrats thought Reagan was crazy because the way he stood up to the Soviets, Star Wars, etc.
You name it, we've only had 1 democrat elected in how many years?
Time to wake up and smell the coffee, there must be something going on on that side
of the isle.

George Bush 41, I don't support everything GB 41 or 43 stands for however they both
were stronger in national defense and the military.
What did Clinton ever use the military for in 8 years?
A UN action in Bosnia that was it from what I remember.

I'm not suggesting every president should have to use the military to prove he is strong but it doesn't take a genius to look from Carter on and see the writing on the
wall, this is why democrats have lost control over congress and the presidency for so
long except for 1 person who was elected twice.
Gotta give Clinton credit because he had personality and all the right qualities to get
elected in the 1st place.

My computer has been down for a little while so I haven't been able to get back here.
Haven't been avoiding anyone or anything, also busy for the holidays lately.
SORRY to everyone for a long, long post.

 

1 more point.
The Democrats like Kerry, such as global test, there is no doubt that they want to run
everything through the UN.
I don't trust Democrats because I believe that they are more for the UN than keeping
America a soverign country.

How can anyone of any party trust todays UN or why would you want to go through them when they seem to be so anti-American today?
Its safe to say from the Oil for Food that the UN sponsers terrorism when they have
accepted pay offs from Saddam and also gave money in return for oil, weapons, etc.

Yes, this war in Iraq was about corruption, oil,weapons, money and food of the UN,
France, Russia, Germany, etc.
It was not about American corruption, just UN.

 

so red, you really believe the democratic party does not have the majority of peacenik liberals and the cowardice who want to sing kumbaya with the rest of the UN and world?

you don't have an opinion since there's no facts measuring this? democratic party is weak in america's eyes and america spoke with their votes. you can keep recounting all the ballots you want.


funny how bush was re-elected exactly for that reason yet that's the point you and others in denial want to pretend doesn't exist. Sourdough is correct in pointing out what the main problem of the demo party is even if its overly stated most times.

 

i agree with 100% of what sourdoughman is saying except i actually think clinton handled the elian gonzales thing correctly, as well as the waco thing. but those are non-issues compared to global terrorism. the democrats are weak, a huge segment of the party is blindly anti-violence to the extent that they would rather roll over and get blown up than fight a war. michael moore goes so far as to pull emotional strings about our dying "children" soldiers, rather than accept the reality of the world. and democrats are buying what he is selling.

that may not be true historically, i am too young to remember jimmy carter, and for all i know, LBJ was a hawk. but that doesnt matter. what is important is that now the democrats are weak, and that is dangerous.