OK, here they go again. I suppose in their eyes, a commie who shook hands with Daniel Ortega, who visited the Saigon Communist Museum, so forth and so on, is better for our country... ughhhhh!!!!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
To: republican4ever
So they 26 surrender monkeys (diplomats) and perfumed princes (military officers) to oppose the President. And they call it news?!
Here in Sierra Vista AZ, I can find hundreds of ex-military who support Bush. Think the media will cover us?
2 posted on
06/13/2004 8:41:55 PM PDT by
ex 98C MI Dude
(Proud Member of the Reagan Republicans)
To: republican4ever
Conversely, there are more then 26 former US officials who will be supporting PresBush with their votes this November.
3 posted on
06/13/2004 8:42:04 PM PDT by
Reagan Man
(The choice is clear. Reelect BUSH-CHENEY !)
To: republican4ever
aids and conservation
Some of the other issues these supposedly "neutral" diplomats and generals addressed.
This puts the lie to their identity. They say "neutral." Bringing up these non-military and non-diplomatic issues shouts fairly loudly that they are liberals.
4 posted on
06/13/2004 8:43:33 PM PDT by
xzins
(Retired Army and Proud of It!)
To: republican4ever
I assume that the networks and AP will give this the same kind of news blackout they gave the swift boat vets.
5 posted on
06/13/2004 8:45:01 PM PDT by
MediaMole
To: republican4ever
According to AP, this is "news."
Also according to AP, 250 Swift boat veterans declaring John Kerry unfit to serve is not "news."
7 posted on
06/13/2004 8:45:55 PM PDT by
Interesting Times
(ABCNNBCBS -- yesterday's news.)
To: republican4ever
The 'former' officials don't bother me, they're partisan democrat hacks. It is the officials still working at State Dept. and in the Defense Dept. that give me great concern because of their treachery. The democrap party will either be soundly rejected for their sedition and treasonous crap this election year, or they will take back the halls of power and this nation will cease to be as it was intended. I, for one, intend to burn the prayer rug the Islamicists try to force upon us when the democrats are through destroying our nation from within.
8 posted on
06/13/2004 8:47:55 PM PDT by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
To: republican4ever
26 disgruntled ex-employees don't like the guy who fired them.
9 posted on
06/13/2004 8:49:48 PM PDT by
Salman
To: republican4ever
Uh, I'm sure there are thousands of former officials opposing Bush's re-election, just as there are thousands supporting it. What a waste of everyone's time.
10 posted on
06/13/2004 8:51:08 PM PDT by
DallasJ7
To: republican4ever
To: republican4ever
In other news, the Associated Press continues their all out assault on President Bush and his re-election effort.
13 posted on
06/13/2004 8:54:11 PM PDT by
zencat
(Visit my profile for MAGNETIC Bush/Cheney '04 bumper stickers!)
To: republican4ever
Gen. Hoar was Howard Dean's military advisor for his campaign. Nuff said.
14 posted on
06/13/2004 8:55:04 PM PDT by
Pokey78
(quidnunc: A one person crusade to destroy Mark Steyn.)
To: republican4ever; All
The Nazis once published a petition called "100 Scientists Against Einstein", an anti-Semitic tract against the theory of relativity. When asked about it Einstein replied, "If I was wrong, one would have been enough."
15 posted on
06/13/2004 8:55:07 PM PDT by
Fedora
(Smeagol-Gollum 2004: "We can be our own VP, my Precious")
To: republican4ever
Yes, GW has some pretty screwed up ideas regarding immigration that could very well spell a security problem - but do they honestly believe that the alternative is far better for security? Someone who personally gave aid and comfort to the enemy at a time of war...
17 posted on
06/13/2004 8:57:16 PM PDT by
TheBattman
(Leadership = http://www.georgewbush.com/)
To: republican4ever
So? Why should I get jacked about this?
18 posted on
06/13/2004 9:00:39 PM PDT by
Jaded
To: republican4ever
There are two issues in my mind. The war on terror and lower taxes.
There are only two canidates, sKerry and Pres Bush. I wonder which canidate will meet my hopes for less terror and lower taxes, huhmmmmmmm?
19 posted on
06/13/2004 9:01:32 PM PDT by
SeeRushToldU_So
(Error 404; Page Not Found.)
To: republican4ever
How many are already on the record for providing aid and comfort to the enemy?
20 posted on
06/13/2004 9:01:54 PM PDT by
TheDon
(The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON)
To: republican4ever
Among the group are 20 ambassadors, appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, other former State Department officials and military leaders whose careers span three decades.
Every pencil-neck with the soul of a department of motor vehicles clerk is now on record as opposing this President.
What a great day to be a Republican.
22 posted on
06/13/2004 9:09:58 PM PDT by
Asclepius
(protectionists would outsource our dignity and prosperity in return for illusory job security)
To: republican4ever
Yet another unpaid political advertisment.
AP is a transparent shill for the DNC.
25 posted on
06/13/2004 9:16:53 PM PDT by
Kowdawg
To: republican4ever
May 21, 2004 issue of Executive Intelligence Review
INTERVIEW: GEN. JOSEPH P. HOAR
`The Neo-Cons Have Had Their Day; Now It's Time for a Clean Sweep'
31 posted on
06/13/2004 9:34:05 PM PDT by
kcvl
To: republican4ever
Current and former top US military brass dispute White House claims that Iraq poses an immediate threat to the US and that it must be dealt with militarily. In late July 2002, The Washington Post reports that
top generals and admirals in the military establishment, including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that
Saddam Hussein's regime poses no immediate threat and that the
United States should continue its policy of containment rather than invade Iraq to force a change of leadership in Baghdad. The report says that the military officials' positions are based in part on intelligence assessments of the state of Hussein's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and his missile delivery capabilities. The newspaper says that there are several reasons why these dissident officers disagree with their civilian bosses. They worry that if Saddam Hussein is removed, Iraq could split up, ... potentially leading to chaos and the creation of new anti-American regimes and terrorist sanctuaries in the region. It is also possible, they say, that an invasion of Iraq could provoke Saddam Hussein into using whatever weapons of mass destruction he may have. And even if the invasion is successful, the aftermath could see mass instability, requiring tens of thousands of US troops to maintain peace, prop up a post-Saddam government, and prevent the fragmentation of Iraq, the military brass warns.
Their position is that the US should continue its policy of containment, specifically sanctions and the enforcement of the US- and British- imposed no-fly zones. [The Washington Post, 7/28/02] Responding to the dissenting opinions of these military officials,
Richard Perle, current chairman of the Defense Policy Board, says that the decision of whether or not to attack Iraq is
a political judgment that these guys aren't competent to make. [The Washington Post, 7/28/02]
Joseph P. Hoar, a retired Marine Corps general who commanded American forces in the Persian Gulf after the 1991 war, warns the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the proposed invasion is both risky and possibly unnecessary. [New York Times, 8/1/02]
35 posted on
06/13/2004 9:39:59 PM PDT by
kcvl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson