Or he's just a weak, effeminate French man who doesn't have the balls to do what he believes is right and leaves it to others to do it for him.

The fact of the matter is, if I asked you to define what makes someone a "liberal" you would merely produce a list of attributes that are the polar opposite of all the attributes you would like to believe describe you (not that they do, just that you want to believe they do). This merely proves the fact that you hated liberals first, then you found reasons to justify that hate later. Since good people don't hate good people, your only options were to believe that you yourself were a bad person, or to believe that liberals were bad people. Naturally you chose the later.

Now I don't know why you first decided to hate liberals. Maybe your parents were liberals and you haven't outgrown the rebellion phase yet. Or maybe you think Rush is cool, and since you want to believe that you are also cool, you have to hate the same people Rush hates. Maybe you just got on the GOP bandwagon when they were the winning team so that you could convince yourself that you are a winner also. The reason doesn't matter though, your liberal bogeyman doesn't exist in reality, it's a strawman concocted by your imagination to justify hating good people.

Want proof? If you really believed that you knew about a specific person giving actual support to terrorists, you would be obligated to report them to authorities. If you really really believed it, you would take action yourself to eliminate that threat to our country. Since you've done neither, I can only assume that you either hate America, or you don't actually believe the hyperbole you spout.

The Bush political team is legendary for sanitizing any room Bush works. The "mission accomplished" banner got sign off from Bush's team, so he can live with it.

And if I see anyone repeating Pelosi talking points word for word, I will be happy call parrot on them. Don't squawk the squawk if you can't walk the walk dude.

The Taliban are no longer the government of Afghanistan, we destroyed that.

Which is not the same as destroying the Taliban, which was the claim.

The Taliban are no longer the government of Afghanistan, we destroyed that.

And please quit calling it the "mission accomplished speech". That was put there by the carrier people to signify the end of their involvement. Bush clearly stated in that speech that was plenty of work left to do and it would take time.

Lastly, please avoid the urge to label those who disagree as "parrots". It would make just as much sense to call any liberal a Pelosi parrot or a Schumer parrot. Debate the ideas, don't call names, it exposes a weakness of argument.

"In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html

Could Bush possibly be more full of wind?

Yet there is no shortage of little Bush parrots... "surrender" "fight them there instead of here" and so on.

It is better to have this guy dead than to have him alive, isn't it?

That really depends on what you had to do to kill him. For instance nuking Kabul to kill AQ's rapper star wouldn't exactly be a victory on our part.

It is better to have this guy dead than to have him alive, isn't it?

Why not just leave it at that?

But since you favor getting Marines killed in Baghdad, on the theory that it keeps you from getting blown up on Main Street, I guess that would've been a poor choice for you.