Posted on 01/16/2005 5:21:03 PM PST by Jacob Kell
There's also a difference of around 50,000 dead. It's annoying how the press and the left say this is the next Vietnam but we've only lost 1000 something. (Not to say that that's an insignifigent amount but nothing compared to 'nam.)
Teddy should go back to making commecials for Oldsmobile.
Chappaquidick would have ended any politician's career. Except a Kennedy in Massachusetts.
Dear Ted: Stifle yourself. If your dad hadn't struck it rich, you would be sitting in some obscure bar in Southie getting bombed.
The charge made by a lefty is always more important that the facts to back it up. Swimmer and his party do believe that if they say it often enough and loud enough it will, in fact, become fact. Which takes the greater effort? To back the President and move forward in Iraq, assure victory and a quick exit with the least lost lives or to whine about our involvement and lack of 'worldly' approval? All the dims are doing is expending their energy to get Bush out of office and themselves back in.
I for one donot care what this old drunk who is also a killer has to say. He has no standing other than having two brothers killed while running or serving in office.
How does this malevolent buffoon remain both alive and in office?
Is this anything along the lines of, oh, say Teddy Kennedy's Chappaquiddick? - A comparison ought to be out there somewhere; though it escapes me.
I don't think that Iraq would be America's or Bush's Vietnam War. Iraq and Vietnam are two different stories. The Vietnam War are all part of the cold war whose purpose was to test American military equipment in battle against Russian military equipment. While it may appear to be a local war, the Vietnam War was really part of a larger war between the United States and Russia. That is why the participants were very enthusiastic about the outcome of the war.
That Iraq's future being one of the new democracies in the Middle East cannot be denied. It is just a matter of time when the new Iraqi government sets up a successful republican government in Iraq sans Saddam's dictatorship. Iraq's new government will be different from the Islamic government in Iran. Except for the violent overthrow of the former Saddam government, the new Iraqi government has not used terrorism to put down its opponents unlike the Iranian revolutionaries. It is a republican government that was installed by the Americans using the most acceptable forms of republicanism found in the West. There are no concentration camps in Iraq and neither does an Iraqi fear execution should he not found favor with the new government. When Khomeini took over Iran, there were plenty of executions to take care of dissidents who could not be assimilated to the new Iranian hegemony. The new Iraqi government will be a centerpoint of Islamic republicanism much more different from Islamic republicanism practised in Iran. Dissent will be tolerated and the people can always change the form of government they want. This is not possible in Iran.
Will someone please stick an apple in BLIMP MAN'S mouth and make him be quiet.
A friend of mine, who is hard core left, told me last year that Bush was evil, but has no problem supporting Teddy Kennedy, or the Clintons.
I won't cry when Ted Kennedy takes his last breath. This is one of the most worthless human beings. He has a heck of a lot of audacity to accuse Bush of the things he does when he is a murderer.
Kennedy still drinks too much. He should visit the AAA.
Chortle on, Swimmer -- the more you rant, the more people turn to the right.
Chortle on, Swimmer -- the more you rant, the more people turn to the right.
The Vietnam War has amply demonstrated that Americans are made of sterner stuff. What few people realized is that the Vietnam War changed battle tactics. During the Korean War, the American troops had to retreat in the face of a massive counter attack by advancing Chinese forces. During the Vietnam War, the Americans faced the same situation that they faced during the Korean War. They were again outflanked by North Vietnamese advancing through Cambodia, but due to the tremendous increase in American fire power, a retreat was not necessary as American troops could easily seal the breach brought about by attacking North Vietnamese forces springing in the rear of the American forces. The Vietnam War was a military victory for the Americans showing how superior firepower could amply make up for outflanked forces. It was an exercise of supreme military brilliance. During the Korean War the only alternative for the Americans was to retreat or face annihilation, with their lines of supply and communication cut off by advancing Chinese armies. In the Vietnam War no such retreat occurred even though the American forces were outflanked by North Vietnamese that attacked from the rear through Cambodia.
My bumper sticker: "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun". This clown is one of the biggest hypocrites on earth.
I'm sure Saddam supporters were glad to hear this news. It will surely motivate them to keep attacking our troops and coallition forces. Benadict Arnold will be so proud of Ted. Of course since Bush and the multilateral coallition achieved they're goal of regime change fairly quickly, it doesn't sound like Vietnam to me. If Ted doesn't turn out to be a magic genie of "if you say a lie over and over people will believe it," perhaps his comments will turn into his Waterloo.
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.