Posted on 08/23/2005 8:18:15 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
The president's response was perfect.
If the problem were only with Iraqi 'insurgents' they would probably be handling it themselves already.
However, the 'this problem' involves Jordanian, Iranian, Syrian and Saudi terrorists as well.
It's our 'problem' too. That's why we're there.
Not yet - but "soon": http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1469046/posts
" Cindy Sheehan is becoming increasingly close to going beyond protest as well. Calling insurgents "freedom fighters".
She's gone way past, long, long ago.
And she's not alone in treating terrorists like heros.
This past Saturday, FOX News had Dan Burton and Robert Andrews ( D-NJ ) on, discussing Iraq.
Andrews called the terrorists in Iraq that are killing our soldiers " resistance fighters. "
Last year, during the Democrat primaries ( when the pro terror , anti military movement officially ginned up )
MSNBC's Chris Jansing also referred to the Iraqi terrorists as " resistance fighters."
We have gained a dishonorable reputation in the world of bugging out, leaving our allies in the lurch, not fulfilling obligations we've made, and leaving people to the tender mercies of their enemies. The President knows this.
It is VITALLY important that we turn that around and start saying what we mean and meaning what we say.
I agree - the PR problem with arresting her, though, is probably why that won't happen soon.
makes you want to vomit doesn't it. This is what I'm talking about. I will defend free speech all day long, but when it gives aid and comfort to the enemy, which we know it does, a line has to be drawn.
With all the exposure that the media is giving that loudmouth moonbat Sheehan, it is undoubtedly seeping it'w way into the ears of the insurgents and giving them further motivation.
President's Remarks to Press Pool
Tamarack Resort
Donnelly, Idaho
8:50 A.M. MDT
THE PRESIDENT: I want to thank the Governor for the invitation to come to Idaho. He's been asking me to come here for five years, and I finally made it. I'm going to tell the people tomorrow in Boise that I made a mistake not coming here earlier. It's a beautiful state. We're out spending a little time hiking the trails here. This is a spectacular part of the world. I want to thank the people of Idaho for a warm welcome.
I'm looking forward to my speech tomorrow, to thank the Idaho National Guard and those who are on active duty for their selfless dedication to working to make this world a more secure place for those of us who love freedom. I'll remind the people that we're making progress on two fronts -- a political front. The Iraqi people are working hard to reach a consensus on their constitution. It's an amazing process to work. First of all, the fact that they're even writing a constitution is vastly different from living under the iron hand of a dictator.
As Americans watch the constitutional process unfold, as we watch people work to achieve compromise and unity, we've got to remember our own history. We had trouble at our own conventions writing a constitution. It took a lot of work and a lot of interest, and willingness of people to work for the common good. That's what we're seeing in Iraq, and that's a positive development. The fact that Iraq will have a democratic constitution that honors women's rights, the rights of minorities, is going to be an important change in the broader Middle East.
And on the security front, we'll remain on the hunt. We have an obligation and a duty to protect this country. And one way to do so is to not only firm up the homeland, but to stay on the offense against the terrorists, and we'll do so. We'll defeat the terrorists; we'll train Iraqi forces to defeat the terrorists. In the long run, we'll defeat the terrorists through the spread of freedom and democracy.
Anyway, thanks for the invitation. The Idaho National Guard has done good strong work, and I look forward to thanking them in person. I'll take a couple of questions -- AP.
Q Mr. President, we know you met with Cindy Sheehan a year ago, but she says a lot has changed since then; she has more to say to you. And even some Republicans have said that you should meet with her. Why not do that when you get back to the ranch?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I did meet with Cindy Sheehan. I strongly support her right to protest. There's a lot of people protesting, and there's a lot of points of view about the Iraq war. As you know, in Crawford last weekend there were people from both sides of the issue, or from all sides of the issue there to express their opinions.
I sent Deputy Chief of Staff Hagin and National Security Advisor Hadley to meet with Ms. Sheehan early on. She expressed her opinion. I disagree with it. I think immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake. I think those who advocate immediate withdrawal from not only Iraq but the Middle East would be -- are advocating a policy that would weaken the United States. So I appreciate her right to protest. I understand her anguish. I met with a lot of families. She doesn't represent the view of a lot of the families I have met with. And I'll continue to meet with families.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050823.html
Pulling out of Iraq is surrender, period. It hands the Islamofacists a victory. Setting a date for pullout is surrender on the installment plan.
" they advocate a position that would weaken the United States."
That's what they want.
"Can someone please explain to me why we don't put people on trial for treason anymore???"
I'll try...
Since the advent of the Viet Nam "syndrome," which has never disappeared but has become an axiom, it is now "patriotic" to denigrate America. According to liberals, who babble ad infinitum about how much they "love" their country, America is responsible for every conceivable ill in the world, became wealthy and powerful because we stole from everyone else, (not because we're free), and is led by a radical right-wing, war mongering, Nazi imperialist named Bush.
To the left, the paragon of patriotism is embodied in the previous president, who dodged the draft, gave nuclear secrets to the Red Chinese, bombed the Balkans for no reason other than someone named Monica, favored unlimited abortion, issued lots of un-constitutional and anti-private property executive orders, appointed plenty of activist judges who deliberately undermine the constitution, pardoned real traitors, ignored terrorist attacks (like WTC-1), and neglected our military and intelligence communities so badly as to leave us wide open to huge terror threats (like WTC-2).
Therefore, in comparison to that REAL patriot, ANYTHING negative one says about America is "patriotic" and one can't arrest all of these "true patriots" for treason - or the left would go insane hollering about how all of their freedom of speech is being denied.
I'll add that if this definition of patriotism was our guiding light during World War II, we'd now be speaking German; or Japanese.
- knightshadow.
Can anyone tell me about the current power and water situation in Iraq? On another forum someone is saying that the power and water situation is still worse than it was before we "invaded" Iraq (stupid leftist jargon). I find this hard to believe.
England ruled Iraq from 1921 to 1958. US rules Iraq from 2003. The terrorists of 9/11 have nothing to do with Iraq. A US oil company, Halliburton controls the crude oil of Iraq. Cheney and Bush earn their money and power from Iraq's oil.
How about let the whole world to share Iraq's oil? Cheney and Bush won't allow that because they want to control the world but not share the world. They satisfy their ambition at the lives and money of US people. They are too greedy.
When AP leaves out something as important as GWB's previous meeting with CS, his PR guy should be on the phone immediately, demanding that the story be corrected.
You can bet the 'other side' would be doing so!
(I wonder if it would do any good anyway... but you gotta fight this!)
Halliburton just paid me $100,000 to ban you.
Very simply put, socialist democrats of any kind, any democrat, is an enemy of the Republic, cannot be trusted with the safety of this Republic, and I consider them my enemies. Period!
One could imagine that your post was directly quoted from the 'moveon.org' website. Please find some accurate sources of information.
Leaving the 26M Iraqis to the tender mercies of at most 10,000 insurgents? Seems like we should be feeling sorry for the insurgents in that mismatch. Those 26M won't crush the insurgency until they are forced to, and those Iraqis will be wildly successful once they decide they want to put a stop to this. Would a populartion of 50M be enough, then, to crush the insurgency? 100M? 26M is a lot of people. Why is that not enough people?
Money well spent!
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.