Everybody Loves Raymond wrote:
utocoman wrote:
Name the attempted ones sissy.

The shoe bomber for one and I am sure there are many the govt has not announced that they stopped. And won't talk about for national security. But since you hate America and its government you'd never believe them anyway, so why bother.

The shoe bomber??????

hahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaha

Oh that wa good one!!

I thought his demise was faulty matches and you want to give Bush credit!!!


hahahahahahahahahahahaahhha

Maybe Bush had the CIA replace all the matches at the airport store with faulty ones?
Maybe Bush had the CIA replace Raymond's brain with sawdust?

Everybody Loves Raymond wrote:
utocoman wrote:
Hey Ray,
We are all waiting for the great knowledge of attacks Bush has thwarted?

Name on attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, fella?

How short sighted you are. Name one attack on British or Spanish soil since they pulled out of Iraq. Why were the British and Spanish attacked but not the Germans or Italians? So that they leave the "coalition of the willing" and make the U.S. bear the entire financial burden.

You are too blind to see that you are aiding Al Qaeda's goal.

FLASHBACK: Ten Years Ago, Bin Laden Demanded Barrel Of Oil Should Cost $144

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/05/bin-laden-144-oil/

In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden � the terrorist organizer of 9/11 who still roams free � listed as one of his many grievances against the U.S. that Americans �have stolen $36 trillion from Muslims� by purchasing oil from Persian Gulf countries at low prices. The real price of a barrel of oil should be $144, bin Laden demanded.

Ten years ago today, the price of a barrel of oil was just $11. Heading into this holiday weekend, the price of a barrel of oil rested at $144 � a thirteen-fold increase.




The terorist has already won with the help of the Liar and Thief and Dead Eye Dick.

Now let's see.....who has gained due to the wars........hmm........I can only think of the oil companies and private firms like Haliburton..........hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

RogerWilco wrote:

How short sighted you are. Name one attack on British or Spanish soil since they pulled out of Iraq. Why were the British and Spanish attacked but not the Germans or Italians? So that they leave the "coalition of the willing" and make the U.S. bear the entire financial burden.

You are too blind to see that you are aiding Al Qaeda's goal.

The British are still very much involved in Iraq AND Afghanistan. So are the Germans, French, Canada, Australia,..... Your logic doesn't take this into consideration. Why does Obama think that pulling out of Iraq is going to change anything about Al Qaeda? NATO is involved in Afghanistan. Obama pulling out of Iraq and sending to Afghanistan would put every nation in NATO at risk, according to you. As if they already are not.

And what about the report that just came out that Iraq has just met 15 of 18 political goals? You are always claiming the sky is falling and you ignore any progress. Why is that?

I never was a fan of going into Iraq, but I'm even less of a fan of cut and run. I'm not impressed with his leadership on these issues.

ThomasK wrote:
I never was a fan of going into Iraq, but I'm even less of a fan of cut and run. I'm not impressed with his leadership on these issues.
Hmmm. Were never personally a fan of the Iraq invasion in the first place, and not impressed with Bush's leadership on it huh? But you defend our being there as though it was the correct decision. Seems to me I also remember you saying you were personally in favor of the bi-partisan SCHIP bill that Bush vetoed as well, but you defended that veto as well.

So, in other words, you personally disagree with various Republican positions and then vigorously defend those positions anyway.

You are just the kind they like. Just follow, baby, just follow.