Posted on 01/02/2004 4:43:11 AM PST by RJCogburn
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:11:18 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
THE YEAR 2003 ENDED with some very good news for the United States. The capture of Saddam Hussein, the capitulation of Moammar Khadafy -- and perhaps Iran too -- as nuclear players, and the successful convening of a constitutional assembly in Afghanistan were boosts to the morale of a nation that was beginning to perceive nothing better than the small but steady drip of coffins coming home from Iraq. The news is inherently good for George Bush, whose popularity was beginning to wane as his Iraq adventure slid from initial victory to drawn-out insurgency for which the Pentagon was so dramatically unprepared.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Did I miss something? Did Iraq not fall in a heartbeat? Are these "insurgents" now any more dangerous than the typical thug on, lets say, the streets of Gary, Indiana?
Translation: Bush doesn't care about Jews or their support -- all he wants is their money! And that money rightfully belongs in the Democratic counting houses.
What a pathetic and mis-guided editorial. But it's from the Globe, so there is no surprise.
Utilize the pre-emptive weapon against domestic enablers/enemies...vote. If we vote them into extinction, we are one step closer to a perfect union. The commander-in-chief/military is doing an outstanding job against foreign enemies. It is up to us to defeat domestic enemies. That is our legacy to future generations.
I really like this line ;^)
The capture of Saddam Hussein, the capitulation of Moammar Khadafy -- and perhaps Iran too -- as nuclear players, and the successful convening of a constitutional assembly in Afghanistan were boosts to the morale of a nation that was beginning to perceive nothing better than the small but steady drip of coffins coming home from Iraq. The news is inherently good for George Bush, whose popularity was beginning to wane as his Iraq adventure slid from initial victory to drawn-out insurgency for which the Pentagon was so dramatically unprepared.The writer admits that Libya and Iran are less troublesome than they had been, that the Iraq war was won, and that the "steady drip of coffiins" from Iraq is "small.." But he readily convinces himself that his second guess on the mopping up of Iraq/al Qaeda support is more important than all of the above, accomplished with limited (albeit individually painful) casualties. The writer has delusions of competence.. . . One can only hope that Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, will be asked to fall on their swords for the terrible advice and incompetence they showed in Iraq. Almost every bet they made has proved wrong, and although Bush would never admit it publicly, he must be wondering how his Pentagon could have so ill-served him. If Bush is reelected one can only hope that the sobering experience of Iraq will still some of the loose talk of empire that so enchants the neocons.
It was Bill Clinton's selfish incompetence that lent the necesasry time to Al Qaeda to allow it to murder thousands of America on 9/11. Instead of pursuing the 1993 bombing of the WTC as a political matter, Clinton, not wishing to possibly disturb oil prices, pursued a criminal prosecution of the culprits. A criminal conviction obtained, Clinton could ignore geopolitical events and enjoy sexual predations in his office. There never were heady, carefree days in this world, only selfish, hedonistic liberals. Bush entered the White House deeply inexperienced
Yeah, he was only CIA chief and Vice-President, among other things.
but it has to be said that he has grasped the elusive cloak of leadership
Yeah, "read my lips". Bush 41 was a phantasm when compared to his son.
Bush's would-be opponents suffer from the hoary old cliche that Americans trust Democrats with the mummy issues -- health, education, social welfare -- but look to the Republicans for the daddy issue of national defense.
It is not a cliche, this is a fact. This statement exposes liberals for the effete deceptors that they are.
The Democrats who could best pass that test, John Kerry and Wesley Clark, have not yet captured the public imagination.
And with good reason. Clark seems to have left his brain and decision-making skills in the Army. Kerry, like most liberals, cannot tell fact from fiction, especially when it comes to his own voting record.
But the trouble with running as an antiwar candidate, for which frontrunner Howard Dean has amassed a following, is that not even he is saying we should pull out and bring the boys home.
This is only half-true: Dean has never said that we should abandon Iraq now. He hasn't even merely implied that. He has never said that we should stay. That would alienate his angry base too much. The Globe (as usual) is glossing the facts to fits its own agenda, which is apparently an effort to chide the positive loser-but-front-runner into a more moderate, palatable policy regarding Iraq.
One can only hope that Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, will be asked to fall on their swords for the terrible advice and incompetence they showed in Iraq. Almost every bet they made has proved wrong, and although Bush would never admit it publicly, he must be wondering how his Pentagon could have so ill-served him.
As stated alsewhere on this thread, how were Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz incompetent? How did the Pentagon fail? The Iraqi war was brilliantly executed, and Saddam is ours. What gives here?
If Bush is reelected one can only hope that the sobering experience of Iraq will still some of the loose talk of empire that so enchants the neocons.
What is this rant about? Howard Dean has begun to put Jesus into some of his speeches, but he will have a long way to go before he can out-Jesus George.
The Globe, being a liberal rag, cannot understand genuine faith. Dean will never "out-Jesus" George because Dean's actions - his way of life - witness to his own faithlessness. Dean will always sound phony because he is a phony.
And that is another advantage that the Republicans hold in God-fearing America.
Can you just feel the love the Globe has for Christians, in particular?
Likewise, Bush's political strategist, Karl Rove, knows a pro-Likud posture toward Israel will please the Christian right and help pry some Jewish money out of Democratic counting houses.
Jewish and counting houses in the same sentence? Is the Globe now anti-semitic, too?
With their think-tanks and their greater intellectual energy
Uh-oh. Republicans have "greater intellectual energy"? I thought Republicans were neanderthals, pointy-headed, mental midgets? Is this a subtle insult to encourage liberals to begin thinking rather than just feeling? Will Streisand now be banished to the back of the bus?
Regards.
I actually was interested in the article up until this nonsense.
Yes, the idea that the Republicans now have the "intellectual" high ground seems like new territory to me as well. I am quite sure that any number of my professors would be shocked at the idea. Has anyone heard any other liberal sources suggest that Republicans have this "greater intellectual energy?"
Not a chance..............The Republicans are spending money like a bunch of drunken Democrats in an effort to 'prime-the-pump'.
LOL....poor demons!
Sounds a bit anti-Semitic to me. Those Jews have to have their fingers pried off the filthy lucre they keep in their counting houses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.