Posted on 01/17/2007 7:00:03 PM PST by NormsRevenge
It would be helpful, I believe, if reflexive Bush bashers took a time out, caught their collective breath and considered the consequences of some of their actions and positions. Sure, I know that they are exercising their constitutional right as Americans to criticize their president and any other elected official with whom they disagree whether their criticism is based upon fact and logic, blind emotion or, as is commonly the case today, just visceral hatred of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and all who support them.
It’s time for us as a nation to decide whether or not we are really a nation at war or just a nation at war with itself. By war, I mean the real kind, fought by real soldiers who are dedicated to achieving a mission, not the make-believe, civilian kind such as the war on drugs or the war on poverty.
If we really are at war, then we should endeavor to rally behind the troops who are fighting it and the wartime president who is their commander-in-chief. That’s the American way, isn’t it? It doesn’t mean you have to agree with the war or love the president. Feel free to vote against his party whenever you get the chance but meanwhile, at the very least, refrain from saying or doing things that weaken the nation’s image, harm morale of the troops or provide comfort and encouragement to the enemy.
Egregious examples of the latter include demonstrations demanding return of the troops now and threats by Congressional Democrats to deny funding for military operations deemed necessary by the wartime commander-in-chief. Lesser examples include the unremitting condemnation of the president’s plan for a last ditch military effort to salvage something out of the Iraq fiasco without offering an alternative plan which the president has said time and again he would consider. By alternate plan, though, I mean something more substantive than recommending that we consult with our enemies in the region, Iran and Syria, both of whom are sponsors of terrorism which we are supposed to be at war against. Why on earth would we do that, knowing how they feel about us?
The anti-war protests are starting up again and nothing good for America will come from them. Protestors may truly feel that they are acting in America’s best interests but here’s a reality check. Ask any active duty soldier or marine who has seen combat in Iraq or Afghanistan how the anti-war demonstrations back home affect troops in combat. They are at best disturbing and unsettling to the troops and at worse, downright harmful to morale. The troops are, for the most part, too dedicated and disciplined to complain or to let it affect their performance but everyone I’ve asked has told me that it is important to know that the folks back home support them. Supporting them, however, entails more than just saying the words. It includes supporting the mission that they are putting their lives on the line for.
I’m certainly not going to bet the farm on the prospects for the president’s latest plan to succeed. Our troops will, of course, do everything in their power to achieve some manner of success in this so far mismanaged war. They deserve solid support from the home front and restraint from the Bush bashers while their lives are on the line. In the final analysis, though, success depends on the Iraqis themselves and their performance to date gives little cause for optimism. I personally have little confidence in their ability to put aside religious and tribal hatreds long enough to salvage their country.
Given the low regard that large numbers of Iraqis seem to have for Americans, it has become a matter some indifference to me and probably to most Americans whether Iraqis live happier ever after or whether they go on killing one another after we leave. I am far more concerned with the safety of our troops and with American interests in the area. A precipitous withdrawal, such as advocated by some, including Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. John Murtha, would be inimical to both concerns and any attempt to deny funding for wartime military operations would be an outrageous infringement of a wartime president’s authority.
And I'm talking about 'pretend' Republicans and compromised Republicans. We have plenty of those.
I did no such thing. The power was conveyed to me by Howlin.
You'd have to give me some examples of whom you are talking about.
LOL. Never been collateral damage either.
It's a day of firsts.
So now that everyone's arguing, how can we agree again in time for 2008?
I mean, disregarding for a moment whether one should support the President even when he's wrong (on topics I won't mention in this thread) those who complain loudest, and those who defend loudest, really want the same things.
It's the ones who don't care, which are the real problem.
I may not agree with everything the Boss has done, but he is our President and deserves our support.
---
Ditto,, and if he does say 95 things right and 5 or whatever things wrong or that I disagree with (I'll let folks fill in their own 5 if they have them), I shall still respect the office of the Presidency in the case of the 5 wrong but will not feel that my acquiescence or agreement on the 95 should preclude me from voicing my concerns on the 5.
I shall , in those cases, try to be as lucid and clear in my arguments and seek to maintain some reasonable level of decorum in sharing and discussing them. To do less serves no one well.
Sorry, it's late and I'm out of here for the night.
Right now I'm leaning towards Romney.. If he loses and say Guiliani is the nominee then I would vote for him... They key is the primaries.....
I will give you an example: Pat Buchanan. He hates George Bush so much he is siding with Ted Kennedy.
And now here in Ohio we have neither. We lost a Senator with a lifetime ACU rating of 80 because he wasn't a Vestal Virgin Conservative, and as a result we now have one less Senator than we needed to keep control. Oh, but we taught the GOP a lesson. Great -- now we have a 'rat Senator with a lifetime rating of 4. Also a 'rat Governor, who crushed a solid conservative candidate.
Those "conservatives" who target "RINOS" instead of 'rats are de facto allies of liberals. I have no desire to help 'rats and become a "Nancy Boy".
We, those who love this Republic, had better start concentrating on the things we agree upon, rather than those that we don't, or we are doomed.
What is insidious, on this Forum especially, is that people of honest, traditionally valued, conservative principles are labeled as Bashers, when we speak our minds, which is one of our inalienable rights.
It was much more civil around here, one conservative to another, back when we were united against the Xlinton team. And I have been around long enough to remember those days. Unfortunately, with the likes of some of the posters to even this thread, those days, more than likely, won't be seen again!
Hear! Hear!
It's always good to remember that posters such as raybbr
who reside in BLUE STATES are the most demanding that "we" elect "real and true" conservatives and they bitch to high heaven about so called RINOS.
Fix their own damn states and leave others to do the same.
At least you were smart enough to not bring up illegal immigration! lol
So now that everyone's arguing, how can we agree again in time for 2008?
---
How did the Founding Fathers do it?
If we can not recognize we face a common foe, then all is for nought.
It is the one key lesson that hopefully we have learned out of the '06 debacle.
Romney is too flip-floppy for my taste.
You capitalize "Boss" when speaking about George Bush? You put him on the same level as God?
bumping for later...
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.