The difference between R's and D's regarding terrorism

[jmowreader]

Republican response to terrorism: When the Republicans become aware of the location of a terrorist, they send half the army halfway around the world to try to find him. The army spends eight years and $1.5 trillion running around the desert like they were hunting the Soviets. The terrorist in question remains at large, but five thousand American soldiers and about a million civilians lie dead because of the war the Republicans started.

Democratic response to terrorism: When the Democrats become aware of the location of a terrorist, they send one platoon of snake-eaters to the place they know he is. The snake-eaters shoot the terrorist and come home.

[Ian David]

1. You mean we didn't destroy the entire infrastructure of Pakistan to get him?

I mean... how would we have captured Saddam Husein if even ONE city in Iraq had working plumbing?

[Lasher]

2. That is an inaccurate characterization.

When al Qaida attacked us in 2001, Junior halfheartedly sent troops into Afghanistan where our actual enemies were at the time. While farting around in a lackadaisical campaign where bin Laden and his senior al Qaida members were allowed to escape from Tora Bora, Junior and Lord Vader betrayed our nation by indulging themselves in a predisposed hardon against Saddam Hussein - who had nothing to do with the 2001 attacks against our nation.

[obxhead]

3. How exactly do you explain Obama's ME war policy then.

It's identical to the Bush admins approach.

Massive escalation of troop levels in Afghanistan.

Continued rendition and torture of the "enemy."

Massive increase of unmanned drone attacks.


Yes a small crack team went in for OBL. The Bush admin used small crack teams all the time as well. However, the rest of the Bush play book is still being used as well. There is no difference in the overall policy on the war on terror between the two admins.

[HopeHoops]

4. Simple: The Democrats go after the RIGHT FUCKING TARGET!