I have come to the conclusion that the liberals persistent hostility toward those who are fighting this war shows whose side they are really on.
Brilliant observation, Watson. The entire world is describable in such binary terms, you know. Or, at least, people with a complete lack of maturity or intellectual fortitude think so.
I may not like what Saudi stands for on one side but they like Pakistan are doing something to help us in this fight and this in itself shows me they are better then most liberals.
Would it interest you to learn that the head of the ISI (Pakistani Intelligence Service--who incidentally has to be approved by the USDCI by treaty), Mahmoud Ahmad, wired Mohammed Atta $100,000 in August of 2001? Would it interest you to learn that the same man was partially in charge when we pulled back from Tora Bora and let the Pakistanis go in, where they subsequently "lost" him, even though he was "surrounded?"
The way I see it liberals don't fully understand the importance this War on Terror
What war on terror? The way I see it, you're talking about a war for GOD--that is, Gold, Oil, and Drugs. I guarantee you that I didn't reach that conclusion lightly.
sometimes you have to use those you do not agree with, such as Saudi to help win. And they are helping America where liberals are hurting.
If "America" could be substituted for "Goodness and Right" without issue, you'd have a case. My position is that America has been guided by some very evil politicians for a long time, and that the American people have been fed a highly selective and manufactured view of the world. If people really knew what has been done in our name, things wouldn't be as they are. 9-11 would never have happened.
The Democrats have been waffling in this war
You know, I've always wondered what it is about changing one's mind that's so bad. It seems like a mark of wisdom to me to change one's mind in the face of new evidence or superior argumentation. Only dumbasses don't change their minds.
Look, let's try this analogy:
Suppose your child comes home from school one day and complains that another child beat him up and stole his lunch money. You ask if he told a teacher, and he says that the teacher told him that he'd just have to live with it. So you go to the school the next day and ask the teacher about it. The teacher tells you that in fact she received your child's lunch money and that he has been trying to get this other child in trouble for some time by making false accusations, and that in fact your child is the one who may have been beating the other child up, though so far there are only suspicions of this. Do you maintain the same beliefs you did before--i.e. that your child was victimized and the school didn't do anything about it? Is it a case of "staying the course" and proclaiming that if you're not with your child, you're against him? Or is it more reasonable, in the face of new evidence (i.e. that the lunch money isn't missing) to punish your child for such behavior?
Similarly, when it was asserted that Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction and ties to Al Qaeda, and all the evidence available to the average American was in support of this case, it made sense to support the war. But when it turns out that there were no WMD's, that there were no ties to Al Qaeda (in fact, they were enemies), that Saddam was not the genocidal maniac he was made out to be, why is it reasonable to continue to defend the Iraq war?
When we discover that our own government probably knew considerably more about the impending attacks than was previously thought, when we discover that as early as May of 2001 we had plans to go to war with Afganistan in October 2001, is it reasonable to think that we're on some noble crusade against terrorism?
Code for "raising legitimate concerns."
They have been creating doubt and confusion
If there weren't a reason for having doubts and confusion, we'd have hardly gotten very far.
therefore weakening our position in international relations
Our position
ought to be weakened.
and as Bush said; “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists“. Liberal Dems show that they are for the latter.
First of all, I'm not a democrat. I am a liberal, but I'm not for terrorism any more than I'm for the war we're waging. I'm for what's right and just. Whereas we have wrought so much death and destruction in the world, we deserve whatever fighting back we encounter.