Skip to comments.
The Iraq Panic: Zarqawi's bombs hit their target in Washington.
The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal ^
| June 27, 2005
| Editorial
Posted on 06/26/2005 9:20:00 PM PDT by quidnunc
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 last
To: Texasforever
He shouldn't have to hammer anything home You're correct .. he shouldn't have to
But thanks to many in the media and press and even some Congress Critters up on the Hill .. they have convince some in the public into thinking that we are suppose to fight and win a perfect war
There is no such thing as a perfect war, where everything goes our way
This isn't Hollywood where Bruce Willis beats the bad guys in less then 2 hours
The is real life and sadly some have a hard time telling the difference
41
posted on
06/26/2005 10:57:17 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(Democrats Sold Out America ... just to regain power)
To: Mo1
I firmly believe the Press is very concerned about the Democrat Party and is doing all they can to paint all the NEWS as negatively as they can. The desperation from the left these days is so thick you can cut it with a knife. I believe the Liberals in the Press are just as desperate.
I also believe that GWB needs to focus on explaining what could happen if we hat up and leave Iraq, I believe he will and I also believe the RATS are gonna pay a very heavy price for comments like the one we heard from Senator Durbin
42
posted on
06/26/2005 11:06:16 PM PDT
by
MJY1288
(Whenever a Liberal is Speaking on the Senate Floor, Al-Jazeera Breaks in and Covers it LIVE)
To: MJY1288
George W. Bush needs to get his butt out there and focus on explaining to all of these bed wetters, what is at stake. Hubby tells me President Bush has scheduled a televised address on Iraq for Tuesday.
Notice how well the MSM has informed everyone about this.
I'm looking forward to seeing his butt, too, because I got the message in September, 2001, and will not have anything else to entertain me.
The message has been on my profile page since 2001 for those of you who are slow learners.
43
posted on
06/27/2005 12:49:37 AM PDT
by
patriciaruth
(They are all Mike Spans)
To: JCEccles
To: angkor
2025, when we turn our remaining bases over to the then-stable, prosperous, and democratically-elected Government Of Iraq.
Unless you can figure out a way to keep GWB in the White House 'till 2025, better figure out a way to get it done by 2009.
45
posted on
06/27/2005 1:22:24 AM PDT
by
jaykay
(The following statement is true: The preceding statement was false.)
To: quidnunc
Well, we tried the hearts & minds thing.
If it don't work, well...
There's always
Plan "B"
46
posted on
06/27/2005 1:31:44 AM PDT
by
Bon mots
To: MJY1288
The worst part is that the war has already been won, there is no insurgency, both the Iraqi's and the Coalition forces are fighting terrorist from outside forces who consider a free Iraq as a threat.
If they are coming from outside Iraq, then why doesn't the President do something about it?
I hate to tell you but there IS an insurgency, and unless we fight this war like WW2 instead of like Nam, we will not win.
Rumsfeld says insurgencies go on for up to 12 years. Sure, if you play with them. But if you stomp on them and don't play this kinder gentler compassionate Bush type war, they don't last long at all.
Insurgency didn't last long in Germany and Japan. I wonder why?
47
posted on
06/27/2005 1:33:04 AM PDT
by
TomasUSMC
(FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
To: TomasUSMC
Where should we nuke first?
48
posted on
06/27/2005 1:35:23 AM PDT
by
patriciaruth
(They are all Mike Spans)
To: jaykay
better figure out a way to get it done by 2009.George Allen and Condi will get us to 2013 or 2017, which is more than halfway there.
49
posted on
06/27/2005 1:42:49 AM PDT
by
angkor
To: jaykay
I forgot to mention:
Disneyworld Babylon will open in about 2010. Bring the wife and kids.
Our presence over the remaining years will be strategic and not tactical, e.g. Japan.
50
posted on
06/27/2005 1:45:05 AM PDT
by
angkor
To: quidnunc
As a Nebraskan, I wish to apologize to the entire civilized world for Chuck Hagel.
To: quidnunc
The Iraq Panic: Zarqawi's bombs hit their target in Washington.Very apt headline. Clausewitz says the most important personal characteristic to successfully lead military operations is perseverance. Don't give up.
To: quidnunc
WELCOME TO THE THEATER OF THE ABSURD:
So why the Washington panic? A large part of it is political. As Democrats see support for the war falling in the polls, the most cynical smell an opening for election gains in 2006. The Republican Hagels, who voted for the war only reluctantly, see another opening to assail the "neo-cons" and get Donald Rumsfeld fired. Still others are merely looking for political cover. Rather than fret (for the TV cameras) about "the "public going south" on the war, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham could do more for the cause by trying to educate Americans and rally their support. It isn't as if the critics are offering any better strategy for victory. At last week's Senate hearing, Carl Levin's (D., Mich.) brainstorm was that the U.S. set a withdrawal schedule if Iraqis miss their deadline in writing a constitution....
MEANWHILE, AWAY FROM THE KENNEDYS AND THE HAGELS WHERE LOSING ISN'T AN OPTION:
President Bush plans to speak about Iraq tomorrow, and we hope he points out that this Beltway panic is hurting the war effort. General John Abizaid of the U.S. Central Command stressed this point last week. Troop morale, he said, has never been better. But "when I look back here at what I see is happening in Washington, within the Beltway, I've never seen the lack of confidence greater." He added that, "When my soldiers say to me and ask me the question whether or not they've got support from the American people or not, that worries me. And they're starting to do that." Mr. Bush will no doubt remind Americans of the stakes in Iraq, but he also needs to point out that defeatism can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
53
posted on
06/27/2005 5:51:12 AM PDT
by
OESY
To: patriciaruth
Where should we nuke first?
Tehran or Damascus.
54
posted on
06/27/2005 12:16:57 PM PDT
by
TomasUSMC
(FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
To: quidnunc
The word from the horse's mouth, Secretary Rumsfeld, is that it's gonna be a long war (10 years or more), just as I've said before. Together with a long-protacted war comes many deaths and tens of thousands of wounded and maimed young soldiers, many crippled for life.
So Rumsfeld is right.
55
posted on
06/27/2005 12:22:52 PM PDT
by
TAquinas
(" it is as it was." JPII)
To: TomasUSMC
Be a shame if we had to do that, but it may come to that. I'm still hoping the young people in Iran who are tired of the Mullahs will overthrow them by the end of the decade and a toe to toe confrontation with us won't be necessary.
We will probably have to take out their nuclear facility before then. We didn't sell an AWAC to Israel for fun.
As one FReeper has as a tag line ("USMC--when it absolutely, positively has to be destroyed overnight")
I have been ramrod for a troop support group that works out of FR. We have 6 Army units we send packages to, one at Bagram, Afghanistan, 1 at Mosul, 2 at Kirkuk and 2 at Baghdad.
Do you know a USMC unit in Iraq or Afghanistan that we could adopt?
I'll ping you to our latest thread.
56
posted on
06/27/2005 1:59:03 PM PDT
by
patriciaruth
(They are all Mike Spans)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson