Crush Liberalism

16 Comments »

1. Obamamama HUSAAIN islama Baraka momma

   had much better combacks for the old man.
   —————-

   Al Qaeda in Iraq? before the invasion = 0 enrollment, zip nadda they were in Afghanistan.

   Also – the REAL Al Qaeda / Taliban resurgence in Pakistan and Afghanistan is the threat we should be erasing.

   —————-

   I wonder.. wonder as I may… what you will say……..

   When some terrorists hops on a plane in Karachi, flys to Europe, gets some fake id’s, flys to Mexico City, hitches a ride, strolls across the Rio Grande – makes his way to Los Angelas, and with a dozen other cohorts from Pakistan / Afghanistan, blows up a truck bomb laced with radioactive materials…..

   —————-

   SEND MORE TROOPS TO IRAQ TO FIGHT THEM…. “OVER THERE”.

   Brilliant… Just F*king brilliant.

   Comment by underdog | February 28, 2008

2. Obamamama HUSAAIN islama Baraka momma

   had much better combacks (sic) for the old man

   Take it up with Ted Kennedrunk, assmunch. He’s the one who coined the phrase.

   Al Qaeda in Iraq? before the invasion = 0 enrollment, zip nadda they were in Afghanistan.

   Not quite, dipsh#t. Zarqoward was in Iraq before the invasion, and was treated and released from an Iraqi hospital. I’m sure he was just sightseeing, and was all by his lonesome. But hey, don’t let me get in the way of your talking points, moron.

   Besides, Obama said that he would fight al-Qaida IF they were in Iraq. By your own admission, they ARE in Iraq, regardless of whether you think they were there before the invasion. Obama makes no such qualification, either. He said IF they were in Iraq, and even a boob such as yourself admits that they are. Like you, Obama is a mental midget.

   And it’s nice to see you worry about terrorists coming in from Mexico. If only your side wasn’t working so damned hard to open the borders up, you concern just might be credible and sincere.

   Comment by crushliberalism | February 28, 2008

3. When some terrorist strolls across the unsecured US / Mexico border and cooks off a dirty bomb in LA, I will (1) blame the politicians, both Dem and GOP, who have surrendered national security in the name of economic expediency, and (2) fervently hope that at least one major movie studio was taken out in the blast.

   Comment by PabloD | February 28, 2008

4. Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear – kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor – with the cry of grave national emergency.

   ~General Douglas MacArthur

   Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it.

   ~General Douglas MacArthur

   Our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in…war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.

   ~General Douglas MacArthur

   Comment by underdog | February 28, 2008

5. –James Madison, from “Political Observations,” April 20, 1795 in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, Volume IV, page 491.

   ——————–

   In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.

   The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manner and of morals, engendered in both.

   No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

   Comment by underdog | February 28, 2008

6. The only Surrender Monkies….

   Are those who hand over their reasoning capacity and suckle upon the breasts of FEAR.

   Comment by underdog | February 28, 2008

7. Blah-blah-blah “fear mongering” blah-blah-blah “mongering of fear” blah-blah-blah “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” blah-blah-blah “WAR! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Sing it again, now…WAR! Good God y’all! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!”…

   Comment by crushliberalism | February 28, 2008

8. Al Qaeda is a threat that a special operations force of about 30,000 can clean up in the coming years.

   Crush that and smoke it.

   Comment by underdog | February 28, 2008

9. Let’s see: I can go by what those in the armed forces say, or I can go with what some dope-smoking moonbat says. Decisions, decisions.

   You bore me.

   Comment by crushliberalism | February 28, 2008

10. As far as military strategists go, underdog is an excellent taxidermist. Quoting MacArthur and Madison in relation to fighting Al-Qaeda qualifies for the three-“I” award:

    Inane
    Irrelevant
    Idiotic

    Bravo, you dolt.

    Comment by TheBad | February 28, 2008

11. 160,000 combat troops in Iraq are securing IRAQ….. against how many insurgents? Terrorists and such ?

    hmmmm.. then we have Afghanistan.. sorta getting a little blurry.. better send some more… How many Taliban, Al Qaeday and sympethisers in teh tribal regions along Pakistan? Probably worth the same number… say..
    Beef that up to 100,000.

    Next … Regime change in IRAN those damn persian bomb heads…
    say… 250,000 to start and then 160,000 for 100 years.

    Oooops. Things get a little dicey in Europe. Russia says NO to KOSOVO.
    hmmmmm??? do we let is slide???

    ——————–

    Look. all that I am trying to say with a bit of harsh sarcasm is something that the Army Cheif of Staff, The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the head of the Marine Corp, Sec of Def. Robert Gates and scores of other morons have been saying. Right now our conventional STRATEGIC land forces are stretched to the breaking point in terms of manpower. 2/3 either being in Iraq, just coming out of Iraq or training to deploy to Iraq – and at teh same time we are dealing with Pakistan and Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda resurgence.

    Dont call me a dumb ass unless you plan on calling your commanding officers and much wiser men than you dumb asses……

    And let us just clear one small tiney little thing up while we are at it. The SURGE is working only to the extent that it has displaced the insurgents and Al Qaeda spatially and in time. If you think it is achieving the political reconciliation breathing room, you only need to read the headlines on the backtracking by the Al Malaki government on key objectives in recent days. The restless natives among our new found Sunni Friends, and a oh so kind and benhevolent Muktada Al Sadre just barely extending a ciese fire.

    Ohhhh here is one for you… a tactical fact…. bet you never learned this one. LAy LOW, regroup, gather strenght, arm yourselves, attack another day. You mental midget. These KLINGONS have been doing this for thousands of years in that part of the world. 100 years with John McCain and the few the proud the marines is a cake walk…..

    ——————————————————–

    I would rather deploy the volunteer fireman from the National Guard along the Rio Grande to DEFEND THIS NATION than watch him loose his head to an IED defending IRAQ. Maybe it’s just me – but my guess this fall the landslide election victory for someone with a few more brain cells than groin cells will likely take the day.

    Comment by underdog | February 28, 2008

12. and just for the record…

    I would suggest a land force of about 40 to 60 thousand over the next 5 years in Kuwait and secure bases in Iraq for maintaining regional stability. Draw that down with success in regional diplomacy.

    Stand up the strategic land forces of the Army and Marines by adding another 120,000 to 200,000 over the next 5 years.

    Coordinate global security including anti-nuclear terror objectives with Russia, China and Europe.

    got a problem with that????

    Comment by underdog | February 28, 2008

13. Damn Underdog!.

    How can a person write so much and be so wrong on everything. Like most Moonbats, You Bore Me!

    Comment by Steve | February 28, 2008

14. well yes Steve I see you have a point…

    Please do explain your positions

    Comment by underdog | February 28, 2008

15. Your base of knowledge is underwhelming, underdog. With all of your incoherent rambling, you have done precisely squat to address the point of this article – al-Qaeda is in Iraq contrary to what B. Hussein Obama claimed during that debate. The only on-point claim you make is:

    “Al Qaeda in Iraq? before the invasion = 0 enrollment, zip nadda they were in Afghanistan.”

    Which, of course, is patently false. However, feel free to continue to parrot B. Hussein’s talking points on this since he is also patently wrong. From the Holy dem himself:

    “there was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.”

    That sounds nice and fine and dandy and all, but it’s just not correct. We know that AQI commander Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad in May of 2002 – before the war. We also know from documents recovered from Iraq that Hussein (former leader of Iraq, not current loser from Illinois) and bin-Laden were in contact with each other on a wide variety of targets to attack. This information has been confirmed by members of the 9/11 commission.

    However, you go right ahead and ramble on about whatever. Or, you can just go back to your spaceship.

    Comment by TheBad | February 29, 2008

16. Your base of knowledge is underwhelming, underdog.

    I knew once I read that, TB, that it was going to be a great comment!

    However, you go right ahead and ramble on about whatever. Or, you can just go back to your spaceship.

    And that closed the comment. Beginning, end, and everything in between was fun to read, sir!

    Comment by crushliberalism | February 29, 2008

« Previous | Next »

Site info

Crush Liberalism
Theme: Andreas04 by Andreas Viklund. Blog at WordPress.com.