1 posted on
07/12/2003 11:27:52 AM PDT by
yonif
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
To: yonif
Someone needs to tell him to shut up. The rope-a-dope is working like a charm so far.
2 posted on
07/12/2003 11:29:49 AM PDT by
Pukin Dog
(Sans Reproache)
To: yonif
Actually, if Bush did that, it would backfire as being too much game playing. He campaigned on being "transparent", and not all this backroom intrigue stuff.
3 posted on
07/12/2003 11:30:17 AM PDT by
jlogajan
To: All
Hi Mom!
4 posted on
07/12/2003 11:31:09 AM PDT by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: yonif
"The credibility of CNN went way down" CNN had very little credit when the "war" started
6 posted on
07/12/2003 11:35:31 AM PDT by
alrea
To: yonif
...former Army general Wesley Clark, who is now running for the Democratic presidential nomination... Huh? When did Clark enter the race?
7 posted on
07/12/2003 11:36:22 AM PDT by
AHerald
To: yonif
Actually, I expect next summer to be pretty exciting with a number of revelations and accomplishments. It's going to be fun to watch.
9 posted on
07/12/2003 11:38:37 AM PDT by
McGavin999
(Don't be a Freeploader, contribute to FreeRepublic!)
To: yonif
If indeed Bush is sitting on WMD evidence and properly solidifying his case, that would be a great move.
Anything brought to the public now would be ill-timed and if it wasn't thoroughly proven accurate, it would have horrific impact.
12 posted on
07/12/2003 11:42:16 AM PDT by
ApesForEvolution
("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
To: yonif
Actually, if they're holding anything back, it's because they want to make 100% certain that the press cannot cast doubt upon it. All of the things they have found so far - which, in line with Saddam's "on-demand" strategy for the preparation of chemical weapons and assembly of forbidden conventional weapons, simply support what this Administration has said and even what the Clinton administration said - have been ridiculed by the liberal press because they did not have "WMD" printed in big letters on the side.
If this were Clinton, the press wouldn't even be asking for proof. Or even any significant threat to national security (witness Bosnia, where we even fought on the wrong side for us of two equally wrong sides).
22 posted on
07/12/2003 11:47:04 AM PDT by
livius
To: yonif
"The administration is willing to take the heat for now," McInerney yesterday told The Jerusalem Post, "then release the information next August." Doing so would put the Democrats who have been critical of the US president's policy on Iraq at a distinct disadvange in the run-up to the presidential election in November 2004.That would be sweet, and tossing the idea out there, whether true or not, is a great head fake.
30 posted on
07/12/2003 11:51:25 AM PDT by
Petronski
(I'm not always cranky.)
To: yonif
I wonder just how far out on the plank the Democratic candidates will walk?
I wonder how many Democrat officeholders will be out there with them when the board is sawn off?
So9
To: yonif
A year before the Bush Administration planned for war in Iraq, McInerney and fellow Fox News analyst Vallely correctly predicted that the invasion would be an air-centered, technologically networked "war of liberation" that would last less than 30 days.
Wow, it took a rocket scientist to figure that one out. I also dont buy this "waiting untill just before the election to release WMD evidence" stuff. The public would see right through that, this isnt Clinton were talking about here.
35 posted on
07/12/2003 11:54:22 AM PDT by
Husker24
To: yonif
60% approval doesn't require the info to be released just yet. Wait til the rating crosses the 55% or August, 2003 whichever comes first.
To: yonif
"You have to remember that there's still leftover irritation from the election," said Jacobs, a Medal of Honor recepient and commentator for NBC. "If George Bush came out in favor of worldwide democracy, they would be against it."
"If they're fer it, then I'm agin' it!" is about how far their principles go, it seems.
To: yonif
51 posted on
07/12/2003 12:07:11 PM PDT by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: yonif
"The administration is willing to take the heat for now," McInerney yesterday told The Jerusalem Post, "then release the information next August." Maybe they'll also say something about the anthrax mailings. Maybe they got something on Steven Hatfill out of that Maryland pond...? (not holding my breath)
94 posted on
07/12/2003 12:40:40 PM PDT by
pttttt
To: yonif
This is the real Iraqi story
That Iraqi resistance exists at all, said Jacobs, is due to the rapid collapse of Saddam Hussein's army during the war. Coalition forces simply did not have the opportunity to hammer all his troops. "We are victims of our own success," he said. Jacobs went on to chide the Bush Administration for showing "insufficient ruthlessness" in rooting out pro-Saddam partisans hiding in the "Sunni triangle" of Tikrit, Baghdad, and Fallujah. Private arms held by the population must be confiscated with greater alacrity.
To: yonif
Well, sure I'm hoping the same but aren't we assuming too much that we've already found WMDs? I know I'm getting tired of having everything that's been reported end up being a ice cream truck (riiiight). I'm confident there are/were WMDs but you all seem to have some secret source to be so confident about torturing the Rats with he timeing of release. Give our troops time and we'll see what they unearth (soon, please).
To: yonif
I'd been saying this for the last two months.
125 posted on
07/12/2003 1:08:19 PM PDT by
Porterville
(I support US total global, world domination; how's that for sensitive??)
To: yonif
The Bush administration may already have hard evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction Well duhh!!!
134 posted on
07/12/2003 1:17:21 PM PDT by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: yonif
"We know that these WMDs traveled through Syria," he said. "We know that a lot of these scientists had French passports."That's a pretty big hint. It's what the Israelis have been saying since last fall.
Unfortunately, will we be able to produce "hard evidence" without having to invade Syria as well?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson