• commentary
  • WEDNESDAY AUGUST 9 2006 11:00 PM

Chalk One Up For Al Qaeda

Submitted by FearTheReaper

Edited by FearTheReaper

Tags: Lieberman, Democrats, Cheney, Tony Snow, Al Qaeda

Why didn’t the Democrats just throw a party for Al Qaeda? That is the pertinent question today after Connecticut Democrats tossed one of the most important tools against terrorism out of their party: Joe Lieberman. The liberal, tree hugging pussies of New England should have just invited Al Qaeda to stick a bomb up the arses.

Republicans have already begun an effort to use patriot Joe’s defeat to portray Democrats as weak on national defense, and rightfully so. It was the theme that led to defeats in the past two major elections and it still holds true today.

In this video White House Spokesman Tony Snow asks an important question for Democrats: Do you take the war on terrorism seriously? The answer is obviously no because they voted out a Senator from a small state in New England. What more proof do you need that the Democrats want terrorists to attack and kill babies in America?

And Dick Cheney launched a volley with one of the most truthful statements ever uttered by man:


“It’s an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy.’’


Showing what a classy guy he is, Cheney gave warm praise for Lieberman, who was his opponent for vice president in 2000. He rightfully said Lieberman’s loss would hearten American’s terrorist enemies, most of whom subscribe to the Hartford Courant. Cheney went on to break it down for the pussy Democrats.


“Terrorists are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. And when we see the Democratic Party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today.”


Damn straight. A state called pussydom.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
m0unds

m0unds

Rio Rancho, NM
April 2003

AUG 09, 2006 11:06 PM

bwahaha, good riddance, asswipe.

s5

s5

San Francisco, CA
OLD SKOOL

AUG 09, 2006 11:13 PM

heh.

It's pretty funny to read this article side by side with Uptight's take on it.

meggle

meggle

Berkeley, CA
November 2002

AUG 09, 2006 11:18 PM

Logic at it's finest...

"Why didn’t the Democrats just throw a party for Al Qaeda?"

Is Hannity, Oh, Really, Savage, and the rest of the loony toon circus on break? Yikes.

Major premise-- Lamont=the evildoers; peace mongers lose war they didn't start.

Comedy meets tragedy yet again on the politics page.

Lamont may not be the solution to all woes...but he's no Joe Blow. This does send a clear message, but not to Islamofascists...rather, to our own corporatists right here at home...so, bye bye DLC. Take your war and shove cuz we ain't fightin' here no more! And not to mention--as if AQ had anything to do with pre invasion Iraq...Rover dover, confuse the issues (static) not losing is a good as winning, except for kissy face Joe W. Oops.

BTW...How many fallicies can you commit in one piece? Nevermind...I'm afraid to count that high...

puke

UpTight

UpTight

I'm lost
December 2003

AUG 09, 2006 11:23 PM

s5 said:
heh.

It's pretty funny to read this article side by side with Uptight's take on it.



we should have our own show

"Hannity and Vanity"

meggle

meggle

Berkeley, CA
November 2002

AUG 09, 2006 11:35 PM

h and v...is that a show about schizophrenia?

wink

I

I

San Bruno, CA
March 2003

AUG 09, 2006 11:44 PM

um

attn_ho

attn_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

AUG 09, 2006 11:51 PM

that smug little asshole? i never want to see him on tv again.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

vanity, that is. Worst Smurf Ever.

MrCrisp

MrCrisp

I'm lost
August 2004

AUG 09, 2006 11:52 PM

here's the skinny truth: to say that democrats are responsible for our nation's security, to say that they are hurting the war on terror and we are in more danger from terrorists today because they question the war, to say all of that is to ignore the fact that the bush administration and the republican congress are in control of the country right now. any security issues are in their hands, not in the democrats'.

still, what's with this huge republican outcry over a democratically ousted liberal senator? wink

attn_ho

attn_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

AUG 10, 2006 12:01 AM

the real reason lieberman lost?

Limbaugh: One of the factors in his defeat was the fact that he?s just Jewish?


audio link

desidia

desidia

Reunion
September 2002

AUG 10, 2006 12:01 AM

umm... oh nevermind. I just won't bother looking in the current events for another six months. I get more unbiased news from Fox.

MrCrisp

MrCrisp

I'm lost
August 2004

AUG 10, 2006 12:06 AM

attn_ho said:
the real reason lieberman lost?

Limbaugh: One of the factors in his defeat was the fact that he?s just Jewish?


audio link



oy vey shocked

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

AUG 10, 2006 12:07 AM

Arael said:
umm... oh nevermind. I just won't bother looking in the current events for another six months. I get more unbiased news from Fox.



At least here nobody will deny it, 'Fair and Balanced' my ass!

This is such a stupid editorial it's not even worth responding to. To make the assertion that a democratic primary has any affect on the makeup of a terrorist group is simply asinine and not even worth discussion. Next topic!

miguelstars

miguelstars

Burbank, CA
June 2004

AUG 10, 2006 12:23 AM

I love it when fascists whine.

MrCrisp

MrCrisp

I'm lost
August 2004

AUG 10, 2006 12:29 AM

emotedcreations said:

Arael said:
umm... oh nevermind. I just won't bother looking in the current events for another six months. I get more unbiased news from Fox.



At least here nobody will deny it, 'Fair and Balanced' my ass!

This is such a stupid editorial it's not even worth responding to. To make the assertion that a democratic primary has any affect on the makeup of a terrorist group is simply asinine and not even worth discussion. Next topic!



it's satire, baby! oh yeah!

TheDuke

TheDuke

United Kingdom
April 2003

AUG 10, 2006 12:30 AM

Fantastic example of a Republican reactionary rant. Never once do you approach the subject of why this man was voted out or what he actually does to defeat terrorism. As someone not from the USA (yes we do exist, we have electricity, running water and an ability to process thought) I can only assume that the man in question was voted out in a democratic way and they found someone more suitable for the job in hand.

But what am I thinking? It's America! Obvious;y democracy only works when it agrees with you, right?

Carry on destroying yourselves guys, I'm off to get some popcorn.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

featured interviews