You are quite rude in your defense of the indefensible.
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?
What about Iran laughing in our faces for all this time? I feel like we have gone back to the Carter administration. The only thing missing is 55 mile per hour speed limits.
I see.
So your line (today) is the same as the Bush haters of 2004?
You voted for Bush because even though you disagreed with his policies, he wasn’t Gore or Kerry. And when you voted for him in 2000 and his policies didn’t change in 2004, even more of you voted for him, even though you claim to disagree with the policies you have voted for twice.
Oooookay. Yes. I believe that.
The Second Presidential Debate
BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.
Regarding #3, you’re absolutely right on the money. Our household voted for Bush twice and sent him campaign money and he abandoned us. Sorry I ever voted for the man. All I feel I ever got out of Bush for my money was one Supreme Court Justice of his chosing.
Thompson in 08.
Bush isn’t fighting terrorism, our fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, sons and daughters are. I don’t know of a single member of the Bush family that’s fighting in this war.
Don’t you ever say that Bush is the one fighting terrorism. He’s just watching it on t.v.
Ahh, another psuedo conservative with a pre 9/11 mentality.
Exactly!
My God.
You are repeating lines I can find on any liberal kook blog anywhere on the internet.
Next, are you going to suggest that I enlist since I support the war?
He took and oath of office and has willfully ignored portions of that oath.
Impeachment isn’t just for those who break the law, it’s also for those who ignore it.
I’ll also point out that you, along with all of the other Bush haters here on FR have failed to answer the question.
But, I give you kudos, Hating you have down pat. Just like the liberals.
See my post #37. FYI: I always vote a straight Rep ticket no matter what kind of differences I might have with a candidate on a particular issue. I am not a one issue voter.
You are quite rude in your defense of the indefensible.
I voted for him in 2000 because I hated Al Gore and Bill Clinton, I voted for him in 2004 because of 9-11 and to support our soldiers.
What you believe about me and my motiviations laurie_d is irrelevant and matters not one whit to me.
His policy on immigration has NOT changed. His policy on No child left behind has NOT changed. His policy on working across the aisle has NOT changed. All of these policies you voted for in 2000 when you elected President Bush. Then, you re-elected him in 2004 with the largest number of votes in the history of this country.
Do you believe that Bush has been derelict on border security, especially after 9/11? Is Bush above criticism because we voted for him? What’s your point?
I think we need to support the president when it comes to our military and the WOT. I don’t see why we can’t be selective with our support. The WOT is just too important and he’s steadfast on that subject.
I think we need to support the president when it comes to our military and the WOT. I don’t see why we can’t be selective with our support. The WOT is just too important and he’s steadfast on that subject.
Then we can talk about Iraq.
EXACTLY!!!
I voted for Bush twice, and if it was possible for him to run again against a Defeatocrat I would vote for him again if he was the only Republican candidate. But with his stubborn refusal to admit the harm that illegals are doing to the nation and try to stop it he has totally abandoned the very people who put him where he is and has joined forces with the Democrat enemies we elected him to oppose. Why should we continue to support him when he no longer supports us?
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.