Bush Says Victory in Iraq is Important (President Bush, No Surrender)

Fox News ^ | 12/7/2006 | Fox News

[tobyhill]

Bush Says Victory in Iraq is Important

[ohioWfan]

It's easy to say when you have nothing to risk by typing the words on your little comfy keyboard, but this is NOT WWII.

The question is, are you willing to sacrifice 400,000 men to defeat this enemy, or is your nostalgia for WWII selective?

[altura]

You can buy 'em books and buy 'em books, but you can't make 'em read.

He's explained it well. And over and over.

The dems don't listen, the press doesn't listen and apparently kabar doesn't listen.

[advertising guy]

lmao........man that was timely.

[ohioWfan]

Reagan Man doesn't admire Reagan.

He uses Reagan's name and either a very bad memory, or reading the wrong books about the man, to cause dissension among conservatives.

It's not worth arguing with him.

[altura]

dang it, here it is Pearl Harbor day and I just find out it was the Germans who bombed Pearl Harbor.

tee hee

[altura]

Being in bed with Molly Ivins is way dangerous!

She might role over on you.

[advertising guy]

well it's the meandogs of the voting gambit we need. The way left vs the right of right need that "squishy middle".
However , I will never compromise my love of God country and family. My schematic is the Holy Bible and the U S Constitution.

[processing please hold]

If I may. It isn't defeatist, jveritas, it's let our soldiers do what has to be done to finish the job they were tasked to do. He's only saying(if i'm interpreting him correctly)don't tie their hands behind their backs as they get murdered by terrorist day in and day out. That's not right. Terrorist follow no rules of war. Rules of war were made by countries, some with a touch of honor. Terrorist don't follow the Geneva Convention rules. Terrorist have no rules. Our soldiers are paying the price for trying to use the rule of war against an enemy who has none. How do they win a war like that, how?

[advertising guy]

all respects but you bet this ain't wwII
,It is bigger.

[altura]

There are a lot of people, well, some, anyway, who use Reagan's name as a weapon against Bush.

ReaganMan is the worst, but he has company.

These are also the very people who would have attacked Reagan the most viciously when he was President.

[prov1813man]

By nature, I am optimistic, cuz I know who wins in the end.

Still, in this particular case, billboards, etc, versus the global BSM is, pardon the phrase "pi$$ing on a forest fire".

[La Enchiladita]

Hear! Hear!

Same here.;^)

[ohioWfan]

Or she might LOOK at you. :)

[ohioWfan]

Agree completely.

[Chuck54]

all respects but you bet this ain't wwII

,It is bigger.

MUCH bigger.

[ohioWfan]

Oh, yes, RM has lots of company.

And every last one of them would have been, or were bashing Reagan when he was President.

(I don't think RM was out of diapers in 1988, so he probably didn't say much bad about him then..... :)

[jveritas]

I am not disagreeing with you here. He should have been much clearer in writing his posts if he meant what you just said.

[jveritas]

Amen to that.

[brydic1]

Mr Miller, you should realize that many of the posters simply worship at the feet of GWB no matter his position. Their rhetoric has nothing to do with rational debate or thought. It is more akin to the type of discussion on the DU website with their name calling demanding that others shut up, sit down, stop posting, stick something up, etc.,etc.,. It is a shame that real discussion of conservative thought can not take place on a website dedicated to conservative thought if one dares question the wisdom or lack of wisdom of this president.

[FMBass]

That was part of a speach by John Belushi’s character from the movie “Animal House".