Posted on 02/01/2005 11:20:44 AM PST by Republican Red
You're right! LOL!
Mark Brown at the Chicago Sun-Times. He said almost exactly the same thing.
Probably some kind of clever gimmick to help him land that network anchor job he feels he is deservingly qualified and entitled to.
A little red "x"? I don't get it. ;)
I'd be happy if he just went away.
I think they both look like weenies.
Unngghhh!
I gotta ask..who was the other?..any links?
Maybe we should encourage the Left to keep setting benchmarks. It seems to encourage us to meet and surpass. LOL
The Left kept harping about the popular vote, "selected not elected", for years. What did we do? Make them pay by giving the President over 10 million more votes over 2000 and a 3 Million popular win.
The left kept trashing the economy, loss of jobs, worst since Hoover. We turn around to create a vital ecnonomy with jobs replaced just on the wire to prove them wrong. Amazing when you consider the obstacles to do this in such a short time.
The left said Afghanistan couldn't be won. We created a democracy.
The Left stated the vote in Iraq would never happen. It did and to greater success than thought.
>Having that O'Roark/Dennis Miller type awakening is a >wonderful thing Jon. Once you have it you start making >sense again. But don't stop the Tucker-bashing. Ever.
Yep, I can hear Dennis Miller. "Jon, you CAN still be funny and cool and NOT be a democrat."
http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown01.html
What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?
BY MARK BROWN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?
February 1, 2005
BY MARK BROWN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.
You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.
Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.
By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.
But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?
It's hard to swallow, isn't it?
Americans cross own barrier
If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.
For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.
I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.
Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).
I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.
Deciding democracy's worth
On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:
Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.
Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.
Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.
I don't want to get carried away in the moment.
Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.
Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)
In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.
Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.
And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.
Penance could be required
But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.
Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.
Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.
So is the rest of the world.
For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.
If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.
Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008.
Got a link to the other liberal "what if Bush is right?" comment?
Thanks...
Once the success in Iraq become undeniable and they recompose themselves (or for what passes as "composure" for liberal weasels), they will begin the earnest work of rewriting history to make it look like the Iraqis succeeded in spite of the blundering buffoonery of Smirky the Chimphitler. No matter what, Bush was wrong, is wrong, will always be wrong, and any good that comes to pass can have nothing whatsoever to do with George Bush.
Recognition of reality and being a liberal Demonrat are mutually exclusive. When a person allows him or herself to face reality, they can no longer be a liberal Democrat. Case in point: Zell Miller.
We're sharpening our skate runners; Tanya Harding is coming over later to give us free skating lessons. Surely H377 has frozen over.
Yea that's the other one.
Fareed Zakaria is a biggesr jack ass than Jon "the nobody" Stewart. He is always the first to criticize Bush's policies both domestic and foreign. I don't know why "This is Week w/ geaorge S. always has him on their panel of "experts". Richard Perle totaly manhandled him one month ago.
You can catch it today at 7pm, 11:30 pm, and 1:30 am if you missed it.
"What if Bush, the president, ours, has been right about this all along?"
What if the Sun rises in the East?
What if Ted Kennedy is a Dipsomaniac?
So many questions.
So little time.
He sings that song "Gold".
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.