Imagine what wingnuts would have said if a Democrat said this. Wingnut bloggers would take out their best cans of semi-literate indignation & probably put up an image of the offending Democrat along with a graphic of a dog urinating on the Dem.
But when Glamour Grandpa, Fred Thompson, the 2nd coming of Ronald Raygun and the great White hope of Hollyweird-worshipping wingnuts everywhere says it, it's collectively ignored.
I thought Wingnuts wouldn't be happy with anything less than sticking high explosives into every orifice of bin Laden's body and summarily executing him, conveniently before bin Laden had a chance to talk about receiving American money back when he was fighting the Soviets in Afganistan.
Go figure!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
We did not make a stink because here is what he said:
said Monday that while Osama bin Laden needs to be caught and killed, the terrorist mastermind would get the due process of law.
Caught and killed. But, before we do that we need to try him which is what we did to Hussein.
It would be better to kill him on the battlefield but if we capture him we have to give him a trial or the libs will scream. Look at how they acted when Hussein was found guilty or in regard to those held at Gitmo. Howard Dean made a similar statement but he was asked what should befall bin Laden and said that he would have to wait until a jury rendered a verdict at the end of a criminal trial. This brought back memories as to how Clinton treated terrorist attacks as criminal acts rather than attacks on our country (acts of war). Dean said we should not prejudge but that is the duty of the people who press charges. It is for the jury to presume innocence. However, he should never get a criminal trial, he should get a military tribunal. Dean worded it in a manner that left him open to the same criticism that Clinton received. Thompson said due process and he will have to define what he means by due process. Might mean torture him to get info...
The US sent money to the Afghanis to fight the Soviets. We did not give money to him directly though there is no doubt he benefited from our helping the Afghanis.
If trials were good enough for the blind sheikh and the Nazis after WWII, why do you have so little faith that we could convict them and throw them in prison (or execute them) rather than pissing $500,000,000,000 away in a 'war' on terrorism?
Is there even a historical precedent where an actual ground war against 'terrorists' was won thru military force?
Post a Comment