1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 53:
Line 53: + + + + +
Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism? (view source)
Revision as of 20:20, August 28, 2007
, 20:20, August 28, 2007→DA!
==DA!==
==DA!==
They've always been capable. Question should be are Democrats willing? To put an end to terrorism? Nancy Pelosi showed us her willingness to appease those that sponsor it. If only she had waved a piece of paper upon her return and said "Peace in our time!" Or at least posed on an anti-aircraft gun overlooking the Golan Heights. But there are plenty of Democrats in the armed forces right now. The let down is the Democratic leadership at the State and Federal levels.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:02, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
They've always been capable. Question should be are Democrats willing? To put an end to terrorism? Nancy Pelosi showed us her willingness to appease those that sponsor it. If only she had waved a piece of paper upon her return and said "Peace in our time!" Or at least posed on an anti-aircraft gun overlooking the Golan Heights. But there are plenty of Democrats in the armed forces right now. The let down is the Democratic leadership at the State and Federal levels.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:02, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
As much as I hate to say this, FDR was a good enough president to stay out of the military's way in WW2. And yeah, I'm somewhat glad we had Jack Kennedy in the Oval Office instead of Nixon during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But I'm also glad we had GWB on 9-11 instead of Algore. I think when it comes to war, it's more about the man than the party. They may be flaccid and / or flat out wrong on alot of things, but they've been capable wartime presidents. Lets be fair on this point at least.
(not just because my wife is one either).
==Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism? ==
==Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism? ==