Posted on 10/01/2005 9:03:46 AM PDT by Salvation
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Radio Address Ping List.
(donning my word-parsing hat)
He notes that whether or not there's a second election depends on the outcome of the first, yet in the first sentence above he seems rather certain that there will be two elections coming up. Apparently then, he seems quite certain that the constitution will be approved. Or is he just making an assumption?
I was hoping he would've apologized for including Ronald Reagan along with Carter and Clinton as those in the past whose lack of courage and character emboldened terrorists.
Good question.
My opinion. I think there will be two elections.
Guess I missed that. Was it a mis-statement?
Good Stuff ~ Bump!
"The terrorists saw our response to the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings in the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. The terrorists concluded that we lacked the courage and character to defend ourselves, and so they attacked us."
Bush deliberately included Reagan in his comments. Before doing so someone might have suggested he ask Muammar Qaddafi if Reagan lacked courage or ask the millions now free from Soviet bondage (USSR was indeed one of mankind's greatest fomenters of terrorism) if Reagan lacked character.
Wondering what your thoughts about the President's address are. Is he right about our now being able to use Iraqis to maintain security of towns our guys liberate from the terrorists?
I think you're overreacting to the President's statement. He didn't say that Reagan lacked courage and character. He didn't even say that we as a nation did. He said that the terrorists concluded that we did, because we hadn't convinced them otherwise. Yes, we had our hands full during Reagan's watch, but that doesn't alter the fact that the terrorists were going to come to the most obvious conclusions that presented themselves to them. And the fact is, it's easy enough to see how our response to the Beirut barracks bombing would have been encouraging to them.
I'm not saying that to denigrate Reagan's presidency, because I don't know how many people could have done better under the circumstances, but historical facts do need to be acknowledged all the same.
Listen, Bush meant exactly what he said. He meant that the actions, or reactions, of Carter, Reagan and Clinton lacked courage or character and it emboldened terrorists' commitment to strike at us.
I voted for Bush twice. I donated a few hundred of my hard-earned dollars to his reelection. I praised him to anyone within ear shot. But I will not abide his utter disrespect and defamation of this nation's greatest President.
You don't know me very well. You can be forgiven for saying this, because it gave me quite a chuckle.
I am amazed that so-called conservatives won't hesitate for a second to censure Ronald Reagan yet if one dares brush up against W with so much as the slightest critique on their sleeve then that person is subject to derision.
Did you consider my post to you at all derisive? All I did was disagree with you, and I did so in rather civil terms.
Listen, Bush meant exactly what he said.
And what he said was that the terrorists concluded that we had lacked the courage to stand up to them. He didn't say they were right. He said we gave them the wrong impression, and we did.
I don't think he was necessarily even exempting his own presidency from his historical assessment, because he was in office for eight months prior to 9/11 and during that time gave the terrorists no overt sign that there would be any comeuppance for the bombing of the WTC in '93 or the Cole in 2000, among other things that happened in between. It took 9/11 to put Washington onto a different path.
Well said
I notice that Bush doesn't mention the administrations in question, so I see nothing invidious about it. In point of fact Reagan did withdraw after the bombing of the Marine barraks in Lebanon - not because he wanted to, but because of the Democratic Congress.But Bush's point, surely, is that that is a fine point to terrorists who have been conditioned to expect that their perseverence is greater than our own. We simply don't have the option of rewarding that perseverence; we must punish it.
Good catch. I should have mentioned that.
Believe that if you wish. But peddle your snake oil elsewhere because I'm not buying it.
Kill the enemy, ask questions later.
There's never been a PC war that's ever been won in all of history.
If you're harboring terrorists, you are a terrorist!!
Ack, ACk, Ack; BOOM!!
Kill the enemy, ask questions later.
There's never been a PC war that's ever been won in all of history.
If you're harboring terrorists, you are a terrorist!!
Ack, ACk, Ack; BOOM!!
Everything OK at your end there, dude?
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.