They support the troops.

But they never said which troops.

Niko on October 28, 2006 at 12:42 PM

The WhollyWeird left knows that if they give an answer, that it will come back from one side or the other and in some way bite them in the ass. Same reason politicians avoid giving a definitive answer to questions whenever possible. It’s hard to “Clarify” a simple “Yes” or “No” answer in order to be more “nuanced”.

MOMinuteman on October 28, 2006 at 12:50 PM

I never met any broadcast TY employees. But knew a CNN employee.

If she is anything like your typical CNN type, then yes, CNN does indeed support the other side and does root for our defeat.

Even when you press Wolf Blitzer into saying “yes, we want America to win”, it doesn’t really matter. Because the CNN types behind the public face will ensure that terrorist propaganda will continue to be presented, under the cover of “news” and “propaganda”.

EFG on October 28, 2006 at 12:52 PM

When Dave said the Simpsons comment, I think he wanted Bill to say “FOX News” so he could come back with a quip in the “News” aspect, but O’Reilly saw it coming.

mikeyboss on October 28, 2006 at 12:56 PM

Totally agree with MOMinuteman….

If he says yes then all the Rosies in the green-room will bash his little brain in. He is a nutroot. All that talk about sending all the troops to Afghanistan is simply an attempt to hide their real feelings…….America is evil under George Bush….period.

Letterman is a nutroot. His face got so red last night I thought they were going to call out to the audience for a surgeon.

Limerick on October 28, 2006 at 1:02 PM

What’s missed is that O’Reilly, every time he goes on these shows, asks the same questions. Gets the same answer which exposes that these people don’t want America to win. Maybe this alone will wake a few people up.

lorien1973 on October 28, 2006 at 1:24 PM

Maybe Bill had to promise that he wouldn’t slap Letterman around like the last time he was on.
Of course Letterman was promised that he would win the editing war no matter what O’Reily happened on the show.

The fact that many liberals are willing to sacrifice ‘anything’ to force their indoctrination upon the world is well proven everytime Rosie, Letterman and any number of celeberity liberals opens their mouths.

Speakup on October 28, 2006 at 1:38 PM

It makes me sad that old Dave is from my home state of IN as well. I don’t generally watch him anymore but stayed up to see Bill stomp his butt. I believe LoneStar is correct that until a Dem is in the office, they won’t support the action in Iraq.
Well, off for a few weeks because my husband should be home sometime tomorrow. I hope you all have a great Halloween if you celebrate & have fun picking through your kids candy for the best treats for yourself (like my folks used to do) my kids will be going with my husband but they always stay in the neighborhood and get Teddy Grahms or Play-doh. I would also like to wish all the Veterans a Happy & Blessed Veteran’s Day and thank you all for your sacrifices and that of your families as well. When shopping at the great sales over that weekend, take a minute and say a little prayer for the troops currently serving and another to thank all of those who have come before.
Have a great 15 days!
Aloha!
Catie

Catie96706 on October 28, 2006 at 1:43 PM

Outside his comedy program, Letterman is suprisingly humorless and irritable.
In other words - a typical liberal.

As always the liberals focus their vitriol on Fox News. With all the news alternatives, Fox News Channel should rightly wear this as a badge of honor. To only criticize Fox is to clearly state - all other mass consumption new outlets tow the liberal, PC line to their approval. All others else must be silenced, or at least demonized.

Indy Mark on October 28, 2006 at 2:06 PM

…usually, the Lib/Dem answer to the “do you want America to win” goes into an endless maze of “nuance”, as when Clinton quibbled about the definition of the word “is”.

They support the troops but qualify that support, except for that LA Times columnist, who, though slimy, was at least honest.

What clearly rankles ‘em is that America takes any effort to defend it’s “institionally racist”, “unjust”, “internationally irresponsible” cowboy carcass at all. For many of them, the flag is a symbol of oppression, the national anthem is noise, and any president who has any less than their individually polled daily — or, at very least, whenever any decision is to be made — hasn’t got a REAL mandate. Without qualifications and allowances for speacial interests and grievances, America just isn’t worth defending.

For many within our borders, America has “cooties”, and they don’t want to catch ‘em.

Still, our Lib/Dem neighbors usually express themselves in one area very clearly:

Back when I was a kid, there were pretty clear lines of demarcation between folks. The adults I grew up with — my parents, their friends, business people, the police by and large — weren’t too troubled about the violence, drug sales, murders, or other mischief occuring “across the tracks”…you know, on “that side of town”. They actually expected it.

Folks from “that side of town”, when they deigned to branch out and cross the tracks, usually to paid cash. They avoided the police, anyway, knowing the reception they’d get. For their part, the police usually didn’t break any speed records getting to crime scenes in “that part of town”….

“Jus’ n*ggers killin’ n*ggers” and “you know how *THOSE* people are”, they’d say dismissively.

That’s what I got from Letterman’s blather about American troops over there, and his questioning attitude of whether there could ever be any stability in “that part of the world”. “Jus’ sand-n*ggers killin’ sand-n*ggers…you know how *THOSE* people are”, as they say.

Yep…usually, the Lib/Dems state that one pretty clearly. “We have no business in Vietnam/Somalia/Afganistan/Iraq…you know how *THOSE* people are….”

…and yet they claim to idolize “their” president who talked up Americans exporting democracy in the world, and asking not what your country could do for you. Maybe they only want to export democracy to other Democrats…not to “those people”…you know how *THOSE* people are….

Puritan1648 on October 28, 2006 at 2:21 PM

I quit watching Letterman years ago because he’s an asshole. Leno is as big a moonbat but at least he is polite enough to keep it to himself most of the time.

EF on October 28, 2006 at 2:32 PM

First Pete Hoekstra, then Lynn Cheney, now O’Reilly have asked the same question of our liberal friends. When will they catch on to the template and come up with a stock answer that doesn’t inculpate their patriotism?

Why does every “conservative” from Rush to O’Reilly go on the show and think Dave is their friend? With friends like this and the Saudis….

Letterman to Rush Limbaugh:

Do you ever wake up in the middle of the
night and just think to yourself, “I am just full of hot gas?”

(wild cheers and applause)

Valiant on October 28, 2006 at 2:52 PM

I like that this is becoming a meme on the right. I think every conservative who gets interviewed on TV or radio should ask the interviewer this question. And every pro-GWOT interviewer should ask this question of their leftist guests. Let’s get these people on record.

Farmer_Joe on October 28, 2006 at 3:10 PM

Liberals just don’t understand the definition of the word support, if they really supported our troops how can you not answer with “hell yes I want them to win”?

ekuspa40 on October 28, 2006 at 4:23 PM

It’s good when liberals admit they aren’t for American victories, because then at least they are being open and honest about their agenda: American defeat. We should encourage their honesty, not mock them for it. It’s easier to fight and defeat liberals when they aren’t blowing their usual smokescreens.

Halley on October 28, 2006 at 4:48 PM

Well, yes And no, yes ’cause I don’t want my head cut off by a jihadi and no because I don’t want anything to make Bush look good.

As soon as the dems win an election the libs will either all of a sudden support the war effort OR demand immediate surrender and dhimmitude.

Tony737 on October 28, 2006 at 5:05 PM

Vanya-

“Victory in Iraq“: The foreign Islamic jihadists (Syria/Jordan/Saudi Arabia/Iran/ Yemen ,etc. ) who are seeking an opportunity to kill “Crusaders” (non-Muslim coalition troops and advisers ), and keep Iraq in chaos, are crushed; and thereby the Iraqi people can continue to freely vote for their own leadership without being killed on the way to the polls, and thus develop their own government and security forces to the point where they are strong enough to work for a better for themselves future without constant Sunni-Shi’ite/Baathist death squads destabilizing the country. Then we can withdraw without the result being some Pol Pot in Mufti, and millions slaughtered in reprisal terror, by that kind of strongman rule, backed by Iran. etc.

We’re still in Korea 50 plus years after that “Police Action” because we needed to be an intimidating power against China/North K. If Iran goes the way North K., we will be in the Middle East for a long time.

That’s what remiaing free and a strong global power requires.

Too many in the West have forgotten the way history really works: you kill dangerous enemies until they are neutralized, and you station enough military forces inthe ‘neighborhood’ for as many years, or as many decades, as it takes to make sure the despotic zombies don’t dig back out of their graves.
This sruggle never ends. It only changes players.

The Nazis were replaced by the Commies and, since 1991, their failed tyrannical impulse has been taken over by terrorizing Imperialistic Islamicists.

We either fight to remain free, or you can buy a burkah and bend over.

profitsbeard on October 28, 2006 at 5:28 PM

Letterman should consider his patriotism officially questioned.

(P.S. I hope Limbaugh trashes him on Monday).

CP on October 28, 2006 at 5:55 PM

As a matter of fact… Dave is not that sure about anything. It’s all about being non-committal.

It’s this simple… America wins Dave. Or expect the insanity that rules in the middle east to become as common on our streets as the stupid look on you face when one of your jokes bomb.

RalphyBoy on October 28, 2006 at 6:23 PM

The Left does not like Fox News because they don’t really believe in the freedom of speech. They believe only the Left should be free to speak, that they should have a monopoly on speech.

…the word that dare not speak its name: T-O-T-A-L-I-T-A-R-I-A-N.

“My way or the highway!” It’s as old as human nature itself.

That’s why we have constitutions guarenteeing that the state can’t trump the citizen.

It’s not the citizen who’s limited in our Constitution…it’s government. We have to live in hope that the inexact instrument of legal precedent and the diminishing tool of culture to protect citizens from other citizens or groups of citizens.

Puritan1648 on October 28, 2006 at 6:39 PM

Define “win” in Iraq.

(profitsbeard answered this question splendidly, but I feel the need to hear the sound of my own voice, so I’ll weigh in)

WIN IN IRAQ=
1) The forces currently confronting Iraqi government, US and coalition forces are either too frightened, too depleted, too broke, too broke-dick, or too disorganized to exist as a viable force for disorder in Iraq. People can once again line up to get a job, go to markets, go out visiting or to a public venue, or to the mosque without fear of being shot, blow to shreds, kidnapped and beheaded or impressed into serving those who would do these things.
2) The government can perpetuate itself without reference to or permission from either tribal leaders or outside forces such as Iran.
3) Thus, terrorists like Abu Nidal have no safe haven in Iraq, get no funding from official Iraqi sources (including religious bodies).
4) Those who spent decades despoiling Iraq’s resources, sending Iraq’s sons out to die against Iran, and filled mass graves with Kurds, Marsh Arabs, Shiites and dissenters are brought to justice, without jurists being assasinated.

…now, an end to war in Syria would look much the same, but include a fifth provision that it has stopped supporting murder and terror on its neighbor’s turf.

On to Damascus!

Puritan1648 on October 28, 2006 at 6:54 PM

Athena, you are so right. I have many liberal friends and I clearly remember one of them saying, when Saddam was captured, and I quote: “Oh that’s just great, now Bush is gonna get reelected!” Meaning, she’d rather have Saddam on the loose, leading the insurgents who’re trying to kill American Soldiers, then to have him behind bars BEFORE the ‘04 election. UnFRIGGINbelievable, these people.

They put their party before their country, they have no clue about the history of islam or how it spread and they scoff at the idea of terrorism here at home. Uh, 9-11 anyone?

Fight ‘em THERE, or fight ‘em HERE … Pick one.

Tony737 on October 28, 2006 at 7:29 PM

Libs don’t get it and they never will. I always try to use pop culture to explain things to them, ’cause that’s all they understand. For example, they think we can negotiate with terrorists, I tell to think of the terrorists as the aliens in “ID4″. When President Bill Pullman (HA!) tries to talk to one that was captured, he said to it: “What do you want us to do?” The alien said “Die!” It must’ve been a muslim.

Tony737 on October 28, 2006 at 8:02 PM

Muslim aliens…what a concept….

Puritan1648 on October 28, 2006 at 8:06 PM

Uh, that was sarcasm. What a concept.

Vanya, if you bring home our Troops now, Iraq becomes another alQaeda stronghold. Yes it sucks that we’re there, it sucks when a Soldier dies, but it’s either fight terrorists over there today with Soldiers and Airmen, Saliors and Marines or fight them here tomorrow with cops and firemen, EMT’s and SWAT teams. This war will last many more years, long after the Battle of Iraq is over, the next battle might be Iran, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, maybe even N. Korea.

Just curious, if we don’t fight them on their ground, where do you want us ti fight them? Because there IS NO ‘don’t fight them’ option. We don’t have enough Troops to guard every single potential target in this country.

Be patient, when the soldiers of our new allies, Iraq and Afghanistan are ready, they’ll replace our Troops who’ll then be in position to take out Ahamajihadist and his nuclear theocratic muslim extremist govt whose motto is “Death to America”. It’s not “Death to Republicans” or “Death to the Red States” it’s “Death to America” and that includes you and your loved ones.

Tony737 on October 28, 2006 at 8:24 PM

Sorry, Tony, Iraq is already an Al Qaeda stronghold.

As far as fight them here or there, I would rather fight them here. Nothing like the homefield advantage. They wouldn’t be able to blend in with civilians, and they certainly wouldn’t be allowed in the Army and the police, as they are now (in the Iraqi Army and police). They wouldn’t be able to set up IEDs anywhere, nor would they have an endless supply of explosives and arms, in in-country caches or carried over the border from Iran. Nor would they have an endless supply of recruits from pissed-off young Iraqis. And they would have to get here first.

If you think Iraq and Afghanistan will ever be our allies and attack Iran, you really are delusional.

Vanya on October 28, 2006 at 8:38 PM

Makes you wonder who really supports the troops, those who would bring them home tomorrow (like me)

…I’ve posted this on another thread already, but let me take the liberty to post it again. This isn’t the only relevant quote to use, but it’s the one which means the most to me.

From The Prince, by Old Nick:

…one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.

…in other words, once you open the can of whup-ass, you don’t withdraw…you only move the venue.

…and, you’ll note that said “crush”. That is in “crush ‘em until they’re either too crippled or too afraid to hit back”. Otherwise, as another translation puts it, be “indulgent”.

We withdraw and they’ll take the opportunity to catch their breath, use our withdrawl as a recruiting tool, and come back after you and your ilk have put us all to sleep with your monotone chanting of your own praises. As Old Nick notes above, if able to act, they’ll “avenge themselves of lighter injuries”.

Who supports the troops? Well, as someone old enough to remember blather about “all our troops in Vietnam are prisoners of war” and yet still young enough to have met Iraqis in person and in uniform, allow me point out that your sort of support is unwelcome, both by the troops and by any nation with a crumb of historical judgment. This sort of support is to support what rape is to love.

If you have trouble with national self-defense, get out of the way of those of us who not only don’t, but see the urgent need of a fair bit of it…now…over there…on their turf.

Puritan1648 on October 28, 2006 at 8:48 PM

Yeah, typing in all caps on the Internet, that’ll scare the terrorists.

…no…it’s called “shouting”…you do it to wake people up. Apparrently I need to bold the caps…in italacs….

Islamist Iran is the 1950s CIA’s creature, not Carter’s.

…the “Carter’s creature” began in 1979, when Carter’s relativist and amateurish administration sat by as Khomeini and his playmates came to power.

I remember someone asking G. Gordon Liddy a question as he was leaving prison. He was released while the hostages were still being held, I believe. He was asked how Mr. Nixon would’ve dealt with the “students” in Teheran. He answered that, were Mr. Nixon still in the White House, the Shah would still be in Teheran.

…considering that the Islamic Revolution killed in their first year more than the Shah’s SAVAK killed in their history (part of that pesky CIA period), that might’ve historically been the gentler option.

…back to sleep, junior.

…I SAID BACK TO SLEEP….

(see how that works?)

Puritan1648 on October 28, 2006 at 9:11 PM

Letterman can’t answer the question because, like most liberals, patriotism is personally offensive. The obvious truth is that he does not want the US to win. This, to him, is “Bush’s war”.

thedecider on October 28, 2006 at 9:33 PM

This war we are in is not of our choosing. It was forced upon us by a determined, foreign enemy. How is it that people can forget that?

This war won’t end with a ‘win’ in Iraq. It won’t end if America loses its resolve to fight in Iraq. It will end when we are dead or dhimmi, or when the enemy is vanquished. The result you prefer determines your path.

This war will probably, almost certainly, spill openly into other countries. It may well erupt in our country, but how any rational person could think that would be better is beyond me.

We may wish that we did not have this war, but wishing is not a course of action.

Regards,

cyrano on October 29, 2006 at 1:24 AM

A victory in Iraq would mean a victory for Bush which is a thought liberals despise.

That is indeed the fundamental point. It’s not (necessarily) that liberals want terrorists to win; they just want Bush to lose. If that means terrorists win - they don’t much care.

Here’s the positive spin: if (God forbid) a Democrat takes the White House in 2008 - you will suddenly see legions of Democrats supporting an American victory in Iraq. Guaranteed.

Why? Because no likely Democrat President - including Billary herself - honestly disagrees with the basic strategy of supporting democracy in the Middle East. Unless the liberals somehow get Ned Lamont the nomination, the next President of either party will continue to face the same challenges, in the Middle East - and in Iraq.

And here’s the key point - and why I voted straight ticket Republican this morning (despite my disgust for some of the Republican Kool-Aid guzzlers lately): in the end, conservatives will always put country above party; in the end, liberals will always put party above country.

So - with a Democrat in the White House, liberals will magically find themselves on the right side. And conservatives, because they are conservative, will support what is right … even if the liberal in charge gets the credit.

Shorter version: Letterman *WILL* want us to win in Iraq. As soon as George Bush isn’t in charge.

Pathetic, ain’t it?

Professor Blather on October 29, 2006 at 3:16 AM

The Powerful Left, the ones with the money, the ones with an audience, won’t stop until the US is simply “less than or equal to” Europe.

This level is guilt of all things American, this level of guilt for simply being born in the US, is at such a level as to be grossly unhealthy.

Sure, I can see disagreement with a statement such as “the US is always right and has never done anything wrong.” But actively wanting the US to become neutered is something I have no concept of. These people have real issues.

shamalama on October 29, 2006 at 10:28 AM

It’s not (necessarily) that liberals want terrorists to win; they just want Bush to lose. If that means terrorists win - they don’t much care.

…true…if aliens from the planet Quark showed up and melted the Statue of Liberty, filled in the Grand Canyon, flossed their teeth with the flag and vaporized Disneyland they’d all be rooting for the Quarkians (Quarkites? Quarkonians?)…so long as they remembered to nuke the White House, and that only after they got the Kyoto and International Criminal Court treaties signed.

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, as they say…and while, in this case, I tend to say “the friend of my enemy is my enemy”….

Puritan1648 on October 29, 2006 at 10:45 AM

Isn’t “Vanya” the Russian derivative for “vain”?

Just askin’…

The Machine on October 29, 2006 at 12:29 PM

Vanya-

Human nature being what it is, and the Koran being a breeding ground for perpetual war against the infidel, until the warlord playbook of Mohammad is either humanized or rendered obsolete as a book, we will need to fight its resulting terrorists.

If not in Iraq (the level of troops dying in this World War is less than the number of teens dying in car crashes daily, and I don’t see anyone saying “We must withdraw from automobiles, now!”) then we will have to fight them in the next spot where jihadists think there is a weakness in the West.

More soldiers die daily (”3 a day”)in unreported training exercises, etc., world-wide, than are killed in battle in Iraq. The casualties only seem unnerving and frightening because, unlike any war in history, they are instantly reported by a retreatist, anti-Western Press and each is treated as a “national tragedy”, immediately. We need to regain the perspective of history. Let thew families mourn, not the country. And look at the goals of the Islamic Imperialists versus those of a Freedom-Loving World.

That Bush, et al, cannot articulate it is not a reason to abandon this terribly-vital clash between despotic theocratic tyranny and basic human liberty.

It is how we are fighting it that is disturbing (with one & a half hands tied behind our soldiers’ backs and the government wimp-mouthed about the nature of the enemy and his medieval viciousness… just ask Danny Pearl and Nick Berg) not that we are fighting it.

I agree more with Patton who said: “God have mercy on them, because I sure as hell won’t.”

Jihad must be destroyed. Or we will be.

If Iraq requires troops for a long time to guarantee the crushing of this terrorist force, then we need to find leaders who can explain it better than the current crop of linguisitic simpletons. (The “flee now, pay later” group in opposition would be inviting a refreshed global jihad to gain better weapons, more recruits over their internet promo sites and undisturbed madrassas, and a FAR worse future and FAR harder War for all of us in the end.)

This will not an easy or short-term battle because this enemy- the Islamic Imperialists- “Killing Infidels Since 622 A.D.!“- makes the Nazis and Commies look like small-time amateurs, since neither of those lunacies had a “God” backing up their depredations.

Name the enemy, unbind the military, and save Civilization.

Or face growing jihadist attacks with every seemingly “reasonable” retreat.

profitsbeard on October 29, 2006 at 1:08 PM

Whether or not we “win” the war in Iraq is irrelevant. We are a strong nation that can (and have) overcome world perceptions of Military inability. What matters most is that the Iraqi people win. It is important that they have a government of, by, and for the people. It is important that they have a country free of sectarian violence and foreign terrorists. It is important that they have a stable economy that promises a hopeful future for the next generation of Iraqis. What we seem to be doing now is ensuring that the US looks good, not that we do good. The Prime Minister has criticized our policies. Much of the Iraqi people have criticized our policies. And a majority of the American people, however small that majority may be, criticizes our policies. We need a new strategy, and no one, Republican or Democrat, has a trully selfless policy agenda that will ensure a stable and safe Iraq.

shackler on October 29, 2006 at 3:07 PM

Whether or not we “win” the war in Iraq is irrelevant. We are a strong nation that can (and have) overcome world perceptions of Military inability. What matters most is that the Iraqi people win.

…there ya go…nailed it.

What we seem to be doing now is ensuring that the US looks good, not that we do good. The Prime Minister has criticized our policies. Much of the Iraqi people have criticized our policies. And a majority of the American people, however small that majority may be, criticizes our policies.

…I don’t know about that…Saddam is a head of state who desparately needed to be a carwash attendant. He was and remains a waste of flesh who gave a safe haven and assistance to terrorism (and to the Chirac administration and Annan family, as it turns out). His regime had to go.

Now…he’d been in power for well over 20 years, ten of the first years in a horrible, destructive war with Iran, which we seem to forget today.

Rooting out Saddam meant that, had we left after toppling that poxy statue in Baghdad, we’d've been walking away from a vaccuum…and THEN you would have REALLY seen some violence, in the service of agenda advancing, score settling, and bed feathering. Saddam’s folks had filled mass graves by the dozen, some we may never find.

We just couldn’t walk away.

If you think that the “insurgency” is bad now, think of what would’ve been with an unhindered Tikriti hegemony, Iranizn backdoor maneuvering, and the Syrians involved!

That’s a lesson that the Left never learned after Vietnam: the war didn’t stop after we left. It got worse…about two million lives worse, to be exact. It’s a toss-up who’d've been the “Khmer Rouge of the Fertile Crescent”, but there’d've been hell to pay.

This isn’t about face-saving.

Imagine you’re the president and you have either choice A (go to war and risk leting all of the ’60’s relics and wannabees crawl like cockroaches out from under the fridge) or choice B (let it slide, continue self-doubtingly mulling options and occasionally catch a villain and put him in jail). Any smart politician, wishing to “look good” would choose option B.

Nope…again, unless you’re there, boots on the ground, you have little to no idea what’s actually happening in Iraq, so any and all talk of “quagmire” or “chaos” is moot, and is wishful thinking in the case of some execrable people.

Remember: it took 10 years or so for the American press to beat the American military in Vietnam. Chill out. Treason takes time.

Puritan1648 on October 29, 2006 at 3:47 PM

And who stopped the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? The Communist Vietnamese!

And the award in three combined categories - worst understanding of history, least logical poster ever, and best non-sequitur on record - all goes to Vanya, for that single line of drivel.

Congrats, kid.

You’ve got to admit - that level of idiocy does deserve some kind of recognition.

Professor Blather on October 29, 2006 at 5:07 PM

“What’s stopping them from coming here now?”

Hey Van, don’t bring a knife to a gun fight. What’s stopping them (if you knew anything about islam) is the fact that we have American (infidel) boots on the ground in an islamic nation (sacred land) and to the islamic fundies THAT is a sin against allah. They’d LOVE to come here and hit us on our soil (AGAIN) but they have priorities, gettin’ the infidels off of muslim land is more important than hitting us at home.

Van, if Al Gore were president and you were his national security advisor, what would you recommend he do after 9/11? Would you say “Station soldiers at every mall, church, apartment building, skyscraper, bridge, power plant, dam, airport, seaport, spaceport, every high school, middle school, grade school, college, every police station, fire station, hospital, every Walmart, Starbucks, movie theater, car dealership, every bank, dollar tree, kinkos, MacDonalds, Wendy’s, Burger King and Hardee’s IN THE ENTIRE NATION, arrest any suspicious looking characters and read them their Miranda rights.”??? You can’t defend EVERY conceivable target the terrorists can think of.

How do you do it, Einstein? How do do it without profiling? Without wiretapping? Without “violating anybody’s rights”? Without raiding mosques? Do we have enough Troops to guard BOTH boarders AND the entire coastline?

Van, I’m not beatin’ up on ya, I’m just curious, what would you tell Gore to do if you were his N.S.A.?

Tony737 on October 29, 2006 at 5:41 PM

No, Tony, you don’t understand Al Qaeda’s strategy. They want us in Iraq. They want us in Afghanistan. Because they know that will weaken us and strengthen them. Their strategy covers generations; ours is only till the next election. I have offered alternatives. Leave Iraq now. Strengthen homeland security without giving up the ideals this country was founded on. End the failed foreign policy of installing and supporting dictators who are friendly to us.

Vanya on October 29, 2006 at 6:45 PM

“installing and supporting dictators”

Karzai and Maliki were ELECTED. We’re bringing democracy to the oppressed, if you’re a “liberal”, you should applaud that.

This is a long term solution to a very long term problem. It may take a generation to do it but in the future there will be no radical islam just like there is no more radical bushito fanatics diving Zeros into our carriers in the Pacific. Nobody over the age of 60 today ever woulda believed we’d be best buddies with Japan, but it takes TIME. They were a shame society and now they’re a guikt society and our allies.

Look, this is not some Hollywood movie that wraps up the whole story in just 2 hours. We’re talkin’ decades here. We may hafta do Iran next. Or would you rather try to stop Iranian nukes at the border? At the seaports and airports … by then it’s too late. Better to destroy their ability to make the bomb in the first place then to sit at home and play PREvent defense. And Ahmahjihadist thinks it’s his destiny to bring back the “hidden imam” by starting WW3 because their koran teaches them that islam will win and thus rule the world. How do we talk to somebody who thinks that way? You can’t tell him “Hey look, we voted Democrat! Bush is gone, so don’t nuke us.” They PREY on weakness. Read some history of how mohamed spread his religeon, he did it by attacking the weakest first and worked his way up to the strongest. That means LIBS DIE FIRST! Plus, they hate you libs more then us cons ’cause you guys are spreading your pop culture all over the planet. They’d LOVE to sit down and “talk” to you about THAT. *Sliiiiiiice* *Thud*

Tony737 on October 29, 2006 at 8:05 PM

Vanya pretty much confirms by hypothesis that education and an understanding of history tend to negate liberalism.

Professor Blather on October 29, 2006 at 9:59 PM

Letterman’s audience is twice as large as Bill O’Reilly’s, according to Letterman?

Is there any reliable statistic to support that claim?

What significance would that have?

Letterman quipped that he is thoughtful and must think through his response. It was clear that he was full of BS, otherwise he would have answered yes or now. He hesitated, and breathed a sigh of tension and discomfort for he did not want to admit that he wanted our troops to win in Iraq, but he did not want to admit such a heinous, gutter snipe feeling on national television.

Dave, your arrogance, and dishonesty are showing.

I’ve already voted with my remote control. I have not watched Letterman for show long I did not really know that he is on the air any longer. It never crosses my mind.

William

William2006 on October 29, 2006 at 11:48 PM

x95 - Exactly! Dave’s a clown. His job is to entertain us. Hey Clown boy, make me laugh, hit yourself in the face with a pie and leave the foriegn policy stuff to our elected government. Why do libs take seriously anything a clown says? If I want entertainment for my kid’s birthday party, I’ll call ya., just make sure ya bring the big red nose, kids love that.

Tony737 on October 30, 2006 at 6:28 AM