Q: Did the Democrats go soft on terror? ( A: They always were )
Posted by Moonage on 04 Apr 2007 | Tagged as: National Security
A couple of years ago President Bush hinted the Democrats were soft on terror. They wigged out. We heard basically every Democrat there was whining about how incredulous they were that ANYONE would question their patriotism or question their resolve in the war on terror. So, today alone, we get this:
- Nancy Pelosi is in Syria chatting with the Syrians about getting along a little better. The reason Bush felt we weren’t getting along is because they are supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, who very routinely blow up innocent women and children in their quest to annihilate Israel because they aren’t Muslim enough. That’s not good enough for Nancy. If she’s not soft on terrorism, then she must not consider Syria a sponsor of terrorism even tho pretty any rational mind would, including the 911 Report she uses to justify the trip.
- The House Armed Services Committee sent out a memo that contained this highlited section:
You’re not even allowed to mention the "global war on terror" any more.
Now, someone define "soft" again for me.
This is unreal and surreal. I’m waiting for this expose on CBS.
1 Comment »
on 05 Apr 2007 at 6:02 am 1.Stormwarning's Counterterrorism said …
Double Speak and the Lunacy of Language
The language debates in the House Armed Services Committee represent a compromising of the mission this Nation set out on following the attacks of September 11th. We also seem to have followed the suit of the European Union in taking