I'm not sure I agree with sending troops into Pakistan, but in the interest of actually catching Osama bin Ladin, the guy who actually was responsible for 9/11, that makes the most sense so far.
It is less radical than what Tom Tancredo suggested, which is to bomb Muslim holy sites. You don't hear anyone taking him to task on that. Of course, who cares about that nobody.
As far as the polls, their fake. The Republicans want to run against Hillary. We'll see what happens in the primaries.
O-man's suggestion of sending troops to Pakistan sure beats a Bush/Cheney plan of contracting the job to some Dubai outfit or Pashtan or Uzbekh warlords, or perhaps giving the assignment to Bandar Bush. When it comes to "homeland" (or should I say Fatherland) security, the Repugnicans suck. Then again, I'm not sure that the Democraps are any better.
4 comments:
I wish you were right (or should I say correct). Apparently Hillary has a 2:1 edge over Barack in the polls. Wake up, America!
Interesting note...O-man has suggested sending troops into Pakistan. I say, I say... Bawk! Bawk! Bawk!
I'm not sure I agree with sending troops into Pakistan, but in the interest of actually catching Osama bin Ladin, the guy who actually was responsible for 9/11, that makes the most sense so far.
It is less radical than what Tom Tancredo suggested, which is to bomb Muslim holy sites. You don't hear anyone taking him to task on that. Of course, who cares about that nobody.
As far as the polls, their fake. The Republicans want to run against Hillary. We'll see what happens in the primaries.
O-man's suggestion of sending troops to Pakistan sure beats a Bush/Cheney plan of contracting the job to some Dubai outfit or Pashtan or Uzbekh warlords, or perhaps giving the assignment to Bandar Bush. When it comes to "homeland" (or should I say Fatherland) security, the Repugnicans suck. Then again, I'm not sure that the Democraps are any better.
Post a Comment