Posted on 05/19/2008 5:55:34 PM PDT by Kaslin
<<< Then, when the left jumped all over the event, the President and/or his staff failed to set the record straight. >>>
#####
American “news” media have two sets of rules for reporting “news.”
1) Anything said by someone speaking for the Administration is considered “propaganda,” and must be presented to the public with a rebuttal.
2) Anything said by a democrat is true and therefore needs no rebuttal.
Example: Dem spokesmen were on TV whining about President Bush’s words delivered at the Knesset last week within minutes of the speech being given.
NBC interviewed President Bush about his words, and then EDITED the interview to distort his answer. That is not editorial license. That is disgusting lying to their viewers.
Administration spokesmen have explained many times the meaning of the Mission Accomplished banner. I hope you know the true story of the twelve month deployment of the USS Lincoln. That kind of story is one that is more uncomfortable for the dbm to report than stories about soldiers acting badly.
Democrats are very good at the PR war with the collusion of the dbm. They are terrible at governing. Our media totally disregards this fact.
Please read this post by Dr Deb which links to the letter written to NBC”s president by Jim Gillespie, counsellor to President Bush.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2018392/posts?page=27#27
An intellectually dishonest cheap shot. In the political climate that has existed throughout Bush's terms, 60 votes in the Senate is a majority. If cloture is not invoked then a having slight majority of a Senate vote that is never taken means nothing.
agreed
I say Michael Savage is the biggest POS with screws loose in history. My opinion means about as much as his does.
Oops I hit a nerve.....more novacaine please!
try reading this article one more time
and as I have tried to remind some of you frothing at the mouth folks Reagan was “hated” by the left and some on the right when he left office (he wasnt conservative enough)
now back to your mouth frothing
How is it that a Republican POTUS vs the DEMs in 1980 could get much of his agenda through a hostile congress? How is it that Bill Clinton later could get his agenda passed through a non hostile and more than willing to please GOP congress but still the other parties majority? How is it that with what should have been a GOP dream come true in 2001 instead of leading like a Republican instead GW Bush acted as if he were a Democrat? Maybe perhaps because he and Gore really weren't that far apart on most issues and Bush ran in the wrong party?
The family Bush has produced two LIBERAL GOP presidents who have loathed conservative values and Reagan's Doctorines except for the pro-corporate ones. IOW two globalist who's main agenda has been focused on World Trade issues unfortunately not even that to our best national interest. Bush has wore out the W.O.T. using it as a diversion or reason for exactally that agenda. {Asking for FTTA due to the WOT as an example} He tells us there is a W.O.T., establishes databases to use against us, yet refuses to seal our borders. See a problem there?
This is a grammatically dishonest sentence. Sentences must have verbs in order to be sentences. Bush did not enter into legislation partnership with Teddy Kennedy on No Child Left Behind or Comprehensive Immigration Reform because of the legislative limitations imposed by the Senate cloture rules. I not interested in indiscriminate Bush bashing, but Bush's record in the legislative arena leaves a lot to be desired and that is why it was not mentioned in the article which sought to put the President in a positive light.
I think Bush has what are known as “peace talks” but I think he backs Israel sincerely, and from listening to his talk in Israel last week...he supports their need to bomb Iran if necessary. It is about finding a middle ground until Iraq stabilizes at this point, because it affects our economy, congressional reaction, and war funding as well.
Israel that tiny small nation whom in modern history took on the Middle East powers and won hands down by attacking with extreme vengeance. Israel did that yet a nation the size of the U.S. can't bring a military end to the war in Iraq in over 5 years due to the CIC's and SEC of DEF,s LBJ era type of policies and PC ROE's to limit our troops capabilities.
Same thing. The Uncle Momar's who thanks you for rebuilding their home that morning are working for the enemy that night just as the South Vietnam troops in quite a few cases were also VC. When our guys shoot back watch out because a Court Martial is in the making. Iraq will always revert back to it's Islamic culture and extremism. Last but not least. What POTUS calls Islam the religion of peace? If that's true was Nazism or Marxism the cultures of freedom then?
Had our troops been given the proper mission orders to start with in Iraq then Iran would not be an issue for us today. Had Bush not let the U.S. State Department run the war in Iraq we would have been out 3.5 years ago and Iraq in ruins. There is no such thing as a kinder and gentler war. Only fools believe it can be won that way and history says so.
I’m not saying you aren’t right about Israel, and the Pres could have acted more Truman like and blown them off the map, and I don’t think he is satisfied with how it has went. But half of the US backs the UN, and if we had pulled out 10 yrs ago we wouldn’t have had this type of war, it would have been over when we first went in. The enemy knows that the far left will back them up.
The Al Queda’s had been brewing for some time prior to this war.
In last 25 yrs we have hamstrung an already limited Presidency, because of our submission to the U.N. Any power we once had to operate independently was lost, and if you notice we had to give notice of attack when we engaged Afghanistan and Iraq. So I believe that no matter who was in office, that office as the most Powerful man in the world has been BS for 25 yrs. And as Jon Christian Ryter says, only Reagan and a few others have circumvented the choice for President by the Bildebergers (Intl Bankers)...our only hope is we can slip one by them again this year.
So as the excerpt below says, and as you can see it’s all about coalition building in order to accomplish anything...
EXCERPT FROM: Jan 1996 Council on Foreign Relations, headed by George Soros...council to evaluate UN to US:
“The coalition-building success of the Gulf War and tough economic sanctions designed to dismantle Iraqs nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons capabilities; the countermeasures threatened against North Korea to persuade Pyongyang to shelve its dangerous nuclear program; and the economic isolation of Libya to force the surrender of indicted terroristsall of these have been achievements of the United States working through the Security Council. U.N. treaty processes have set new limits on nuclear proliferation.”
In a politically correct environment, there is only one answer to that question...or he could be brought up on hate speech charges.
We are in a political climate that if he took the high road, there wouldn’t be enough Americans to stand behind him to make it effective. Obama drew 75000 in Oregan, and I don’t think we could get 75,000 to march on Wash, DC to defend Pres. Bush at anytime in past 8 yrs. Ferrekhan had the million man march...where are our million men to back up the conservative principles we are asking one man to stand up for in face of prosecution?
Oh so we cannot discuss one of Bush's biggest screwing of America?
I guess we cannot talk about the "religion of peace" lie either?
Glad you have been appointed Head-Moderator.
Bush except on a very few issues ran left of conservative. That's been the problem. He didn't defend conservatism from day one but rather listened to a looser named Jerry Ford to ignore them after all Jerry said "where else can they go"? referring to conservatives. That miscalculation nearly put Gore in the Oval Office.
In contrast when Reagan had a conservative idea or any idea to fight for he didn't need a march. He held a press conference, laid out his agenda so all could understand it, and called upon the people to pressure Congress. That tactic worked quite a few times.
How many conservatives are gonna call their congressman and ask for No Child Left Behind for example? An expansion of federal government even further into education. That program is going to produce a record number of high school drop outs along with students only capable of passing test but having no understanding.
Chris Dodd managed to get Bush to sign a bill that should have all conservatives outraged. Did you know it is now federal law that the government upon the birth of your child can and will collect that child's DNA and place it in a data bank without even asking you the parent? Are you gonna call your congressman and say Oh Please kind Sir keep a data base on me and my families private lives and business?
The war in the M.E. is nothing compared to the war Bush has surrendered to the DEMs on here at home. The terrorist will never take our nation out but our government is sure going to end what we once knew as the United States of America before 1989 while we are distracted with the WOT though.
Iran was a threat in 1979 I remember because I was placed on alert and was in my final year of Navy time. It wasn't a threat when Iraq and Iran were beating the snot out of each other. The Sauds are far more a threat and have sponsored likely far more terrorism than all other nations combined. They and not Iraq attacked us on 9/11.
That should have sent several messages in 2001. Get off Saudi oil dependence. That should have been a number one national priority meaning get us off foreign dependence for our needs including to China. Rebuilding our military to even half of where it stood under Reagan's term should have happened but wasn't even considered. The numbers of today still say 1996 End Troop Strength Levels even as I type. Meaning what? Meaning troops being ran ragged while the end goal gets moved further and further away.
An invasion on Iran is not likely. We have too many actions going as it is with the now limited resources we have. If we go into Iran like we have Iraq same strategy we're sunk. Iran acted out in 79 they saw Carter as weak. Iran has again acted out because they know we are mired up to our ears and a long term Iranian conflict would leave us as sitting ducks. That added to the PC Rules of Engagement where soon our finest will have to consult a JAG officer before returning fire. The troops nor the equipment will hold up especially when no realistic provisions are being made for build up. An Army guard unit I once belonged to in the 1980's is now on alert for call up for a second deployment. They haven't even replaced the equipment they left in Iraq yet.
A big a Liberal and Socialist as FDR was even he had the good sense to let the Generals do their jobs and congress supplied them accordingly. Can you imagine if we had fought WW2 under todays PC terms and limitations?
I am not as optimistic as you.
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.