Posted on 11/24/2006 6:46:08 PM PST by kristinn
Sorry I do not validate the insane ranting of pseudo Conservative" Democrat Activists posturing as "Betrayed Conservatives". Pretty obvious you are no Conservative. All one has to do is check your posting history. Sorry but if you have to lie about your REAL background to try and win, you have all ready lost the debate. Wander back to Daily Kos boyo, you fool no one with your posturing here.
Bashing the mission........the kind that's been going on right here on FR..........is the equivalent of spitting on our soldiers.
Not by all, but by many.
I do not believe the leftist mantra that you can support the troops while belittling and denigrating their mission.
When you tell my son that his mission is a waste, you are telling HIM that what he did was a waste. (And trust me, he would be furious if he read this thread....he knows what he did was just and right, and he is anxious to get back and help finish the job).
You cannot separate the two from each other. I'm sorry, because you are obviously trying to do that.
Even the 911 Commission confirmed Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda. That connection trumps any WMD he may have had.
For institutionalized freepers only.....
Thanks for the psych analysis, now I don't even have to go see my therapist. :-)
All I know is that if I keep reading this kind of trashing of our mission, then I will no longer be at home on FR.
If you don't like bad news or contrary opinions about Iraq, then don't read Iraq threads or Iraq-related news, that would solve the problem entirely.
Because you don't know what's going on and haven't been paying attention to what he has said over and over and over again, he is to blame.
What a proud member of the late 20th century blame everyone but ME culture you are!
I know for sure Bush does not share that opinion with you. Thank God!
Well said Mr. President. Thanks for the reminder, Mike.
Here's just some of what he was talking about.
Saddam was supposed to destroy the Anthrax and Saddam was supposed to prove that he did.
Do you want a list of the rest of the stuff?
I'm in 100% agreement with you on this. It reminds me of the old noblesse oblige of his father who refused to vaunt our victory over USSR in 1992, apparently out of some tender feelings for Gorbachev, I suppose. He needed to tell the electorate that had stood with the Republicans through the nuclear freeze lies of the leftists in the '80's that they had been instrumental in the victory, but he couldn't summon the will to rub Gorby's face in it. You know Ben Franklin's rule of dealing with other people is never to be directly confrontational, as never to contradict, etc. I think this works well in personal affairs, as Proverbs 15:1 " A soft answer turneth away wrath." But it's lousy in politics. For instance, why hasn't Bush attacked Fitzgerald the way Clinton attacked Starr? Why, because it wouldn't be gentlemanly and what would DAD think?
So he was a troll - BFD. He wrote a great reply that I agreed with and the fact that you think I should "try again" merely exposes your ignorance, disrespect and immaturity.
Our shores do not constitute a barrier for safety. One picks the battles one fights. We are in Iraq. For good or not, we are there and to cut and run is not an option. Good campaign slogans, notwithstanding. The facts are what they are. It is what it is. We are committed and to abandon the battlefield is surrender, in any language. The reasons for which we engaged were, and are, valid. Rampant ignorance of the prevailing conditions at engagement is no strategy for withdrawal.
But if you take your argument to its conclusion, you would have to agree with everything the government does to the military. Aren't we a democracy (or better, Republic), where at some point we're supposed to have a public conversation about what we're going to do with our military?
Can we debate ideas about it without already being treasonous? And who decides which ideas are okay and which ones are "not okay"? Is it the president?
Remember when Clinton got us involved in Kosovo? Was I unpatriotic for opposing that?
Yes, I'd like to see the list of WMDs that were found by our troops after the war when we had unfettered access. I'm not talking about some ancient 1990 junk, I'm talking about real WMD weapons.
Also, I assume your reply means that you agree that WMDs were the rationale for the war?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
I've appreciated your posts today, thanks.
~Corey
That is true, and it is the best answer yet. Although no one has argued that there were specific Iraqi threats on us prior to the war.
Propaganda assault suggestion for the State department. Have Someone say to the Arabic press in Arabic, "The US remains unalterably opposed to Bin Laden's crusade." The use of the word crusade is deliberate.
Only the dense wouldn't trust the instincts and honor of those in harms way.
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.