Posted on 06/14/2005 8:30:00 PM PDT by Matchett-PI
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Today, I would like to join the chorus of those calling for a cease-fire in Iraq. I don't mean a truce and I don't mean a surrender. Don't misunderstand me. I'm talking about a cease-fire.
I, your host, El Rushbo, on today -- Tuesday, June the 14th -- call for a 90-day cease-fire in Iraq.
I call on the New York Times to lay down their arms. I call on the Democrats in Congress to stop the assaults. I call on weak-kneed Republicans to lower the temperature for 90 days, three measly months.
Lebanon is in the middle of a crucial election sequence. Iran is about to have an even more crucial election. Syrian and Saudi terror backers are losing for signs.
So for 90 days, no attacks on our war effort. Somewhere, deep inside, there has to be something -- a memory of patriotism, a stirring of some national pride -- some remaining sense of right and wrong.
A loose wire in the brains of the left and the media that can be connected if only temporarily, to bring about a 90-day cease-fire because the upside for the United States is enormous.
Positive news, upbeat spirit, a seemingly united United States would send a warning to our enemies, a rallying cry to our allies and a signal to those nations shirking responsibility.
Just a 90-day cease-fire. There's no downside to this. You still have a full-year plus to return to playing politics, to bashing the president, to bashing the administration, bashing the Republican Party, to even bashing America if you want. So much to gain and so little to risk from a 90-day cease-fire.
After all, it could take two years or two decades for the wisdom our Middle East policy to bear fruit. Is it too much to ask you on the left to give unity a chance for just 90 days?
No, my friends, I'm not living in a dream world. I know it won't happen but I wanted to put it out there. I know it won't happen because the left in this country considers Christians to be a greater enemy than militant Islamist terrorists.
END TRANSCRIPT
Thank you Jan.
No we won't.
But you have a lot of company in believing that. CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, et al are right there with you on that.
They hope we lose this thing. But we aren't going to. It's working - progress is going forward at a very encouraging rate.
Despite what the media loves to tout, Iraq is not Vietnam.
Establishing a strategically located strong ally in the world's most volatile region doesn't serve our interests?
"If people in the administration would have listented to our Generals and we had enough troops to defeat the Iraqi Army and to occupy the country, we would have all our troops home right now. "
Ya know, there's a difference between running a war and being an arm chair quarterback. Coulda woulda shoulda.
If 200,000 troups had been there, like as not the war would have moved elsewhere.
The basic truth about freedom and what is necessary to preserve it, eludes many, mostly on the left...........but also a few around here who are old enough to know better.
You only believe that if you are suffering from extreme tunnel vision.
We lost more than that on the first day of the war.
3030 - Total deaths due to terrorist attacks on 9/11.
I'm glad as hell we are fighting those evil bastards over there and not in my back yard. I hope like anything it continues the way it is until the local have finally had their fill of it and put a stop to it. We started, and are continuing, to fight a war against terrorists. Not a war to win the territories of Iraq. Since the terrorists are willing to oblige us by fighting away from our children, wives and mothers I think the war on terror is being carried out in a successful manner.
Too many people loose track of the goal, they can't stay focused.
I don't want us sending out the military just to cause elections. Want to re-invade Vietnam? Want to invade Libya? Want to invade Syria and Iran?
"To: The Old Hoosier: Great comments. We need to get out now." ~ AllThingsMilitary
Rush talked about you two losers and your like-minded friends yesterday:
Rush: Friedman Provides Cover for Democrats
The Rush Limbaugh Show ^ | June 15, 2005 | Rush Limbaugh
Posted on 06/16/2005 10:41:43 AM EDT by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1424070/posts
The Democrats would have supported continued sanctions. They've only changed that now because it's a way of bashing Bush since we invaded.
Kim Jong Il actually does have WMD. All the same arguments would apply, and yet we haven't attacked him.
I'm not saying Im' for it, but it would have made more sense.
That's a great argument. Did you go to the Howard Dean school of debate?
Maybe if the war were going better and had accomplished something worth 1,700 soldiers' lives, you'd be able to come up with something better.
There is no longer a government there that murders its own citizens by the thousands. There IS a government that is pro-US, pro-democracy. There are bad guys (many of whom are not even Iraqi), but that doesn't mean that the cause of freedom is doomed to failure.
Iraq is our ally, and they are in the heart of the Middle East.
All the pessimism and isolationism in the world doesn't change the facts. And the fact is, that we have achieved victory in Iraq, and a fledgling democracy is growing where once there was brutality and tyrrany.
Go back and read your post WWII history. The Nazis didn't stop their brutalities right away after that war, either. Not for a few years.
This civil war crap has been trumpeted by the media for well over a year now. I haven't seen it happen yet. Nor will we.
And yes, I mean a strong ally. Of course, I don't have the same perspective you do. I'm just over here in Iraq working long hours seven days a week and don't have as much time to watch CNN and read the NYT. So, yeah, I guess you know more than I do about this.
9/11 was not put on by Saddam, nobody thinks that. We invaded one country that was absolutely overrun with al Qaeda terrorists, and I'm glad. In Iraq, they had a small presence, but it probably pales in comparison to their presence in Canada. Their presence in Saddam-controlled Iraq was probably one percent of their presence in Pakistan today.
I resent that accusation deeply.
Your accusation that the war in Iraq has accomplished nothing is an outright lie.
I expect that from liberals, but not from anyone on this forum.
You have swallowed lies and now are regurgitating leftist talking points. You should be ashamed.
If someone can't think independently enough to not swallow what the NYT is feeding you, he's not worth the debate.
That comment was not made to you. It was made to the jackass that started calling names.
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.