Posted on 07/13/2007 5:15:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
Watching a steady stream of Democrats like Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Chuck Schumer each take their turn delightedly pummeling President Bush over the war in Iraq today, I couldn’t help but think of fellow conservatives who are starting to give aid and comfort to these Democrat Party loyal oppositionists.
According to Byron York of the National Review, the Republican Party base has simply decided to throw Mr. Bush under the wheels of the bus. Since so many of us disagree with him on things like illegal immigration and Scooter Libby, York opines that a whole bunch of Republican loyalists are practically counting the days until Jan. 20, 2009, when a new commander-in-chief takes up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Other conservative voices are jumping on the Bush-bashing bandwagon. The other night on Fox News, I saw a radio host proclaim that the president’s soft stance on illegals has cost him support for the war in Iraq.
Just what, precisely, is the point?
Why do conservatives believe that trashing the Bush Administration’s efforts on everything from this complicated war to a commutation of a vice-presidential aide will accomplish anything but give Democrats more ammunition against the GOP in 2008
Look, I’m as disappointed in this administration’s attempted amnesty for illegals as anyone. But I looked President Bush in the eye in the Oval Office and saw a man who truly believes in his heart that giving illegals a “path to citizenship” is the right thing to do.
I believe he’s wrong. But I know that this good and decent man believes he’s right.
So because of this issue, I’m supposed to abandon my president?
I’m expected to go on radio and TV and give miserable attack dogs like Dick Durbin more ways to say, “See -- even Republican supporters of Bush are defecting!”?
From the day the bombs started dropping on Baghdad, President Bush kept telling us that nothing about this war would be easy. Our nation has never attempted something as bold as installing democracy in this troubled part of the world and attempting to make a country like Iraq stable enough so that they can handle their own terrorists without our intervention.
Simply put, the vast majority of Americans supported our country’s pre-emptive strike. The longer this battle rages, the more we see impatient Americans start complaining. I guess that’s what a society in a Tivo/Iphone era does.
And I certainly expect that from Democrats who blame George W. Bush for everything from hurricanes to health care.
But I think it takes some guts to stand behind a president who is doing what he believes to be right, even in the face of enormous opposition.
Liberals are emboldened by Republican-fueled criticism. And if good folks like Byron York aren’t careful, we’ll be handing over the White House on a silver platter to Hillary or Barack. After all, just how far can Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson distance themselves from the Bush Administration?
Liberals are emboldened by Republican-fueled criticism. And if good folks like Byron York aren’t careful, we’ll be handing over the White House on a silver platter to Hillary or Barack. After all, just how far can Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson distance themselves from the Bush Administration?
Besides, who really wants to be on the same side of the political fence as Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy…or Betty Williams?
Betty Williams won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976 for creating a group that helped initiate peace talks in Northern Ireland. This week, she was the keynote speaker at The International Women’s Peace Conference in Dallas. According to the Dallas Morning News, during her speech she told the thousand or so attendees, “Right now, I could kill George Bush.” The paper said she went on to demand his impeachment since “the Muslim world right now is suffering beyond belief” as a result of this administration’s foreign policy.
What a woman of peace. That’s some “peace conference.”
I’m not sure what would happen if an American traveled to Northern Ireland and expressed a desire to kill Mary McAleese, the current President of Ireland. I doubt that such an opinion would be met with cheers and a standing ovation, as was reported had occurred when the Nobel laureate said what she said in Dallas.
And when we tracked Betty Williams down and put her on my radio show, I was shocked to hear her claim that any published report that quoted her as saying, “Right now, I could kill George Bush” was lying. I reminded her that according to numerous published reports, she used the exact same phrase in a July 24, 2006 speech to schoolchildren at the Brisbane City Hall. At that point in the interview, she sounded totally defeated and said she not only “regretted” saying it, when I asked her if she was sorry for saying it, she said she was. In fact, the Dallas Morning News sent me the audio of the speech which confirms their reporting of Ms. Williams comments about the president.
You can hear my interview with this awful woman at www.mikeonline.com.
People like Betty Williams and Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi and Keith Olbermann and so many others on the left have made it quite clear what they think of George W. Bush. They teem with hatred and contempt.
They sure don’t need to get any assistance from us. Now, more than ever, we ought to stand behind President Bush.
But if people on the left OR right don’t want to support him these days, I have a heartfelt reminder: November of 2008 will be here soon enough.
Until then, how about getting off the president’s back?
...let’s see Japan and Germany both had to be re built...now I’d also call that nation building...
What a shame that you compare apples to oranges.
The reconstruction of those nations happened after they were DEVASTATED by total WAR. We aren't engaged in a war. War was never declared, use of force was. We have what amounts to nothing more than a police action in the Middle East.
as a matter of fact...if Germany would have been taken care of properly after WWI...we’d not had WWII...
Your facts seem to be your own. Was it the world's responsibility to take care of Germany? Besides, I thought that WWI was what "properly took care of Germany". Losers don't get to dictate.
BTW, don't forget that little political party that helped put Hitler in power. If not for that party and their "leader" we’d not have had WWII either.
I see you're still waiting on that keyboard...
The war we’re in today is the result of the conflict called Desert Storm, it wasn’t finished due to the advise of the same men that put together that ridiculous Iraqi Study Group Report.
First off, we aren't in a war. There was no declaration of war. Secondly, we're making the same mistake as in Desert Storm in that we're there, basically, under the auspices of the UN. That's almost a guaranteed loss.
You sure do see things differently.
You tout elections in Iraq as a big breakthrough. Many of the ones with painted fingers would slit your throat in an instant. I completely understand how evil the enemy is. Bush and the rest of his administration don't. If they did this war would be fought on different rules and different terms. Roman rules would be the ROE's not ROE's that allow bomb makers to live because a lawyer says it wrong to tamper with the initiator supply.
You seem to think people have changed their fundamental behavior in the past 25 years. They were as petty and selfish then as now. CNN hated Reagan then and was a much more powerful force than it is today. The other alphabet networks were just as bad.
Afcrapistan is teetering on the edge of collapse. NATO controls only small pockets near cities and bases. The poppy crop this year was the biggest on record. The Towelaban controls most of the country including the region near the Pakistan frontier. Where guess who is residing - OBL. Once again I do not dispute the effort and dedication of US Forces. My two adopted sons just left the service after 12 and 15 years. Both have spent YEARS in Iraq and Afcrapistan. We had a chance to completely crush OBL and the Towelaban but the 10th Mountain couldn't deliver the goods. WHY? Because W chose war on the cheap.
You are right history will be the judge - just remember history is written by the winners and right now that isn't looking good for the US team.
It is believable. She can't live without fighting. I suspect that she works herself up into a frenzy, walking around hissing and grunting. What a life!
"Thanks for the laugh of the day!"
Didn't you do the exact same thing at WideAwakes.net?
Ahem...that would be "boot on our neck." We must be precise! :-)
Seriously, CIVIL discourse and disagreement has always been welcome on this site, to the best of my memory. Some other sites, which shall remain nameless, barely tolerate dissent.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
The fact that registered republicans only account for 36% of the electorate doesn't help your case very much.
In any event, this is a conservative forum, not a republican one.
Your lack of any reasonablilty is laughable. You're beyond foolish. Uh, huh, GWB inherited a recession, inherited a stock market bubble, was in office less than 8 months upon the largest attack on our homeland, survived the largest natural disaster....YET
He's leadership & policies have helped preside over an economy that is extremely robust by all historical standards, we have an all-time high stock market (with real wealth behind it now - price to earnings ratios), we have historically low unemployment (lowest of any modern President on avg) extremely low interest rates, high productivity, lower federal taxes,....this list could go on and on...
No, GWB will be judged very fairly with time. All he has taken on as POTUS will be see in its enormity with time.
CNN hated Reagan then and was a much more powerful force than it is today. The other alphabet networks were just as bad.
Again, you refuse to be honest. Yes, CNN didn't like R.Reagan. But if you think the MSM was worse then, than it is now.....You simply can't be intellectually honest. News today is overtly and 24/7 bias. It is agenda driven like never before. R. Reagan never had to contend with DEM 527s groups. R. Reagan / GOP was never out spent during elections. The GOP was outspent in 04 and 06.
Afcrapistan is teetering on the edge of collapse. NATO controls only small pockets near cities and bases.
You're a know nothing fool when it comes to Stan. There is no nicer way to say it. Afghanistan isn't anywhere near collapse. The Taliban have been reducded to begging for shelter in the Pak border regions...They are merely a terrorist group eking out their survivals in these border regions. Your suggestion that it is they that control everything and us / NATO only small pockets....shows exactly that you are no better then the CNN/MSNBC/CBS types.....YOU CANNOT BE HONEST. If it doesn't fit your needed notions....you SIMPLY MAKE IT UP.
Bud, Stan has come a long way since 01 - night and day - And no, it isn't going to be perfect within 6 years - It will be a decade long process. Just as rebuilding Europe and Japan and SK had been. And we still have soldiers in each of those. Large amounts of soldiers.
We had a chance to completely crush OBL and the Towelaban but the 10th Mountain couldn't deliver the goods. WHY? Because W chose war on the cheap.
You clearly know nothing about Stan and the terrain there - Nor about UBL in Tora Bora. The notion that more soldiers would have assured anything (and by all accounts UBL was not even at the battle, Tora Bora, in which you are referring to). But again, as typical, tou don't have a clue what you are talking about other then re-reporting silly MSM news stories.
Reality is...When UBL made his way to the Pakistan border regions (likely through Parachinar) is up for debate. Regarding the bombing of Tora Bora. Members of the now disbanded (and unclassified) TRODPINT unit (Afghan and Uzbek operators contracted by CIA....they are the ones that helpd the CIA locate Mir Aimal Kasi).....Members of this unit are confident UBL left the Tora Bora Mtns for Pakistan a week or so prior to our bombing campaign there.
Lets cut the BS bud - First and foremost no one was allowed to escape (or move) off that mountain even during the agreed upon ceasefire - Those that did move and were spotted were put in the ground (plenty were killed precisely during this time frame) But people need to sell books and get TV time...."we just missed UBL" is great advertising.
But that is neither here nor there to some extent. Because the other premise that is flawed is the notion that if we could have just put a few more thousands troops in the mountains of Tora Bora this would have assured us from stopping UBL from escaping. Nonsense. Those mountains are too vast, rugged and engulfing in size / scope for simply several thousands soldiers to secure.
Could they have been of some help? Probably in small sections. They could have been staged in specific / strategic zones....but the reality is when escaping from above (as AQ was doing) this would have simply been "noted" by AQ and Taliban and these zones would have just been easily avoided.
There are all sorts of other very real logistic problems associated with moving men to and throughout Tora Bora that simply weren't in place back then....
Idiots talk tactics....professionals talk logistics, logistics, logistics regarding such Ops as this one was.
Your "GWB was fighting on the cheap" comment speaks volumes regarding which of the above two you are...
Let me get this straight, Reagan had control of the Senate when most of the vetoes took place. If he had control of the senate then why would they pass over 70 bills that he saw fit to veto? That doesn't make any sense.
Also, 9 of his vetoes were overrriden and some were on economic and military matters. Here is an example of one that was overridden that increased spending but also cut out $2 billion in military requests. 1982 CNN article>
If the congress was solidly conservative then Reagan wouldn't had to veto any bill and he certainly wouldn't have had any vetoes overridden.
I think you are confusing socially conservative with fiscally conservative. Southern democrats were somewhat socially conservative but certainly not fiscally conservative.
You act like this is the first time the president has strayed from conservatives or the first time his has shown some incompetence. It's not. This is just the latest is a long string. Would you like a list?
He has done some good, but seriously, who wouldn't have? Like another Freeper said very well, even the most infamous despots in history have defended their country.
Besides abortion, the positive things he has pushed for have been at most half-hearted. If a person really only cares about abortion then he has been great.
It may not make any sense. But it's reality. It's politics in Washington. R. Reagan had a Republican controlled Senate for the majority of time he was in office. A large majority when he passed full amnesty and other measures (including being overridden on vetoes).
And I didn't say the Congress was "solidly" conservative under Reagan. What I said was Congress was NOT anymore solidly conservative under GWB (even if it has slightly more "Rs" in the House).
Exactly...actually that treaty strapped Germany so completely resulted in WWII...conflict in North Korean...another appeasement...that's why we're still in South Korean...yes, that was a UN operation. Did we stop the North Korean conflict because Americans became like we're seeing today?
We're in the phase of rebuilding a country destroyed by saddamn...what'd you have us do...let Iran take care of Iraq? Talk about a future war...Bush is doing exactly what should be done. That's the long and short of it...No one ever said it'd be easy...let's leave it and let the mid east fight amongst themselves....real smart right...talk about 100 yr war...if it's not taken care NOW...that's exactly what'd we'd be facing...our children, grandchildren great grandchildren...right here in this county....
So I assume then, that you think a President Gore or President Kerry would have done anything that would resemble what President Bush has done? I guess you must have skipped right past that long list at post #439. If that list won't convince you, nothing will.
Obviously we cannot continue sicne you refuse to argue the points in contention. You just want to put your preconceived notion of my perspective.
Your comments on the MSN and the press are laughable. I was there I lived it. It was a time when over 50% of the country watched the three main networks at least once a day. CNN was the new upstart and made a name for itself banging on RR.
The WTC made W breath a sigh of relieve that he wouldn't be the recession President. His policies - other than run away spending have done little for the quality of life of many Americans. In fact middle income earners during the Bush years have suffered a 35% reduction in buying power. The economy is good unless you are buying a house, food, fuel or a college education and your job probably got sent offshore. Even the FRB admits they don't completely understand the apparent "growth" in the economy.
The low unemployment number is a farce. The actual average wage in this country has dropped dramatically over the the last 6 years. Yes more are employed but they make less for it. You need to look again at productivity again the US has slipped and is now being threatened for the first time by the EU. The dollar is at all time lows against about any currency you can name. It is also no longer the standard currency for oil payment. The trade deficit continues to grow as does the national debt.
The reason the GOP is outspent is guess what - Bush both his elections were the lowest spending - why because he doesn't excite the base like RR did.
I spoke to an Afghan friend today who is one the biggest importers in to Afghanistan. I asked him again - which I do often - what is the situation. His answer was "The Government controls the cities and towns, the warlords do what they want in most areas and the Taliban controls most rural areas." So you know more than a guy who lives that and is heavily involved in the politics? The leadership of the Taliban has not been decimated. They thrive it is the poor idiots who follow them in the Jihad that are being killed.
Also there is a Canadian Freeper who's name escapes me who will be happy to give you the Canadian side of the Tora Bora action. It is quite different than yours.
You can continue to hurl your insults at me and others but I know what I know. I have talked to literally HUNDREDS of military personnel who have been to both countries in all services. Some Marines who where there for months and never fired a shot in anger and some who like my daughter's boyfriend saw action nearly everyday for 10 months. Lost 12 Marines in his company and was wounded three times. Most have a different story than you. They say the Iraqi's aren't worth it. Sure they were happy when they voted and then it is back to the same old grind of stupid useless patrols and IED's. My oldest son personally arrested a Sheik 4 times in the last three years and caught him red handed with the weapons and identified suspects. The Iraqi's let him go every time.
In addition, the successes you cite for Bush were almost all in his first term.
I do thank you for your service and some other efforts you have made on FR. But we agree to disagree. In twenty years we shall see who is right.
Timely manner? We removed the Taliban from power and had AQ running for the Pak border region within a few months after Sept 11th! -
Not in a timely manner? Are you F'ing kidding me! - And now you are trying to blame GWB for not micromanaging logistic Ops inside of Stan within these first few months - You're too much -
The speed in which we made the Taliban in full retreat mode is astounding. We accomplished in a few months what the former USSR couldn't achieve in over 10 years (sans the 10,000 plus KIA they endured).
You simply don't understand (nor can you comprehend) the terrain within Stan. That is abundantly clear to me.
Thank you...I love it when the absolute truth is spoken. ;o) President Bush is a God send...I thank Our Lord daily for this man.
And yes I do blame bush and his MINIONS for poor logistics in the military. His watch, his administration and his people. Did he keep Clinton's "The buck never got here!" sign?
You're nuts, terribly misinformed or just a liar - You pick - GWB raised more money and more was spent in 00 and 04 (for the GOP) then anytime in history. It is just the DEMs (with 527s) spent more! (throw in the free multi-tens of millions of free MSM PR as well).
00 & 04 were the "lowest spending" you claim. Bud, GWB was the first to forgo the need for federal funds because he was raising vastly MORE money. I've given you too much credit and too much time......You are simply so uninformed it is scary that I've taken as much time with you as I have.
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.