I did say "support" was a stretch. My original post was in fact a joke about the absurdity of his statements. But if he states (and he HAS stated) that dems "dont want to monitor terrorist communications" and that dems "dont want to question/detain/try terrorists", he's describing his political opponents as practicing a policy of appeasement.


>That's leaping Chris. Those quotes do not, nor do they imply, that Democrats are terrorists or people who vote the Democrat ticket are terrorists (other than the media's slant, interpretation, and editorials). Sheesh. We have gone from claiming that President Bush considers homosexuals terrorists (a joke by Claudio(?)) to President Bush considers Democrats and Democrat voters terrorists. A lot of twisting of the words going on here. If you do not support the death penalty does that mean that you support murderers or perhaps you are a murderer yourself???????
>
>
>
>
>>The word "support" may have been a stretch, i should have gone with "appeasers" :)
>>If the dems "dont want to monitor terrorist communications" and the dems "dont want to question/detain/try terrorists", it sounds like appeasement at a minimum. Its one thing to not honestly discuss his own policies, but using strawmen to malign your political opponents in this way is another.
>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103000530.html
>>http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx103106
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/09/27/BL2006092701022.html
>>http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/103006.html
>>
>>>Ok Chris, :o) Can you produce a quote?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Only if they vote the democrat ticket. Then they're terrorists or they support terrorists or something along those lines.
>>>>
>>>>>It doesn't read anywhere that he hates homosexuals or considers them terrorists.