Replies

"His rantings (Rush's)did Bush no favors that's for sure. Didn't make the conservative movement look too good either."

Rush also proposed that we take the next logical step and offer compensation to the victims. Of course if we did that, many Iraqi's would gladly submit to the same sort of treatment so they could be compensated too.

Rush was right to rant. The fact that our president gravely apologized to the prisioners, their families and the Iraqi people is farcical. If an a US Post office worker goes berserk and goes on a shooting spree that kills a German tourist, does that merit a presidential apology and hand wringing angst also?

Rush was upset that Bush caved to the the enemies without and within and thereby gave up some of the moral high ground.

Rather than a carefully worded almost apology Bush should have said that soldiers who commit crimes will be prosectuted and then gone on the offensive about the hypocracy of those attacking the US over this. He even rebuked Rumsfield for not telling Bush sooner. There are probably other crimes like rapes and thefts that were committed by US troops and are hopefully being investigated. Does bush plan on micromanaging everything that could give the libs something to attack him on?

There is a large segment of people in the world who call good evil and evil good. Bush made nice and caved in to them rather than calling them on it. The main theatre in the war on terrorism is ideology. Rush is a more potent warrior in this area than Bush. Bush blinked, and Rush was frustrated by it.

I agreed.

I was as frustrated as Rush was today.

The motivations of those leading this media assault are clear. It is politically motivated. Any perception of weakness lends their feigned outrage longer life.

I am tired of constantly feeling placed on the defensive concerning actions intended to preserve our freedoms, especially when we should more appropriately be on the offensive. It has been one issue after another. The frustration is cumulative.

Hearing the disputed apology issued from our President's lips, irked me. I have since calmed a bit.

The President does what he believes to be right, no matter the consequence. Irritating when I disagree, a source of pride when on the same side.

From a political perspective it was not the course I would have preferred. The war on terror is as much political as it is reality. The anti-war crowd claimed victory once through the means being levied against the administration AND public today.

I do not believe Bush was concerned with how his adversaries would attempt to use this against him politically. He did what he believed to be right. As he did when he made the decision to remove Saddam.

Agree or disagree, it is his desire to do what is right above possible political consequence that I do find to be among his more admirable traits.

Quite often, it also results in unexpected benefit to his favor.

What was said today is now out there. Two choices exist. Concede defeat to the appeasement crowd or continue to support a leader that has the strength to remain firm to his convictions of what is just behavior even at possible personal cost.