Harry Reid: weak and showing it
Weakness in certain people is to be expected – they lack either the will or the moral strength to make tough decisions and stick with them. This is natural and to be expected out of some. But in a political leader- one at the head of his party in the Senate, this weakness can be projected onto our very nation itself. That is exactly what Harry Reid is doing to our country.
There is no single nation on this planet that the United States cannot defeat militarily- and I doubt there are any two combined we could not handle. But that doesn’t matter to Reid, who is again pushing for as quick an American defeat as possible- since it won’t happen on the battlefield Reid has to make it happen in the halls of Congress. Despite the evidence that the surge is beginning to work, to Reid we have to proclaim defeat now. No delay! Surrender must happen now- the surge cannot be allowed to make any further progress. What a sad little dream to have to see your country humiliated by poorly equipped, backwards, and fanatical nut jobs.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:06 am
Thank God for Harry Reid and the Democrats for their leadership on this issue! Thanks also for Republican senators Lugar, Domenici, Voinovich, Snowe and the others who have joined the chorus of outrage at a failed Iraq policy and its wicked foreign occupation which is making our world less safe from terrorism, is sapping our country’s resources to the tune of $12,000,000,000 a month, and is destroying countless human lives.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
“wicked”? thats what i would call saddam.
“occupation”? they asked us to leave? really? documentation, please.
“less safe from terrorism?” i can’t recalling being hit since 9/11, can you?
plenty of bluster - no understanding.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Mr Bristow:
Saddam hardly exhausts the meaning of the word “wicked.”
Regarding the Iraq occupation: My trusty Random House Dictionary says that an occupation is ” the seizure and control of an area, esp. a foreign territory, by military forces.” That does accurately describe the invasion and continued presence of coalition forces in Iraq. As recently as November past, President Bush assured Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that “our goal in Iraq is to strengthen his government and to support his efforts to build a free Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.” If that does not speak to the issue of who is in control of Iraq, what does?
As for my claim that the world is less safe: There is a U.S. State Department report detailing a sharp increase of over 25% percent in global terrorism in 2006, and you can read about it here:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/30/terror.report/index.html