Skip to comments.
Critics of the War -- And Their False Charges
Wall Street Journal thru FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE.com ^
| August 13, 2003
| Vin Weber
Posted on 08/13/2003 2:49:56 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
To: MJY1288; Calpernia; Grampa Dave; anniegetyourgun; Coop; Ernest_at_the_Beach; BOBTHENAILER; ...
If you want off or on my pro-Coalition/anti-wanker ping ling, just ping.
2
posted on
08/13/2003 2:51:23 PM PDT
by
Ragtime Cowgirl
(149,998 US troops won hearts and kicked butt w/ their 2 lost brothers yesterday: www.centcom.mil)
To: Ragtime Cowgirl
BTTT
3
posted on
08/13/2003 2:54:20 PM PDT
by
facedown
(Armed in the Heartland)
To: Ragtime Cowgirl
"The Bush case for going into Iraq was based largely on findings of U.N. and International Atomic Energy "Revisionist? The UN did not approve of war.
4
posted on
08/13/2003 2:56:36 PM PDT
by
ex-snook
(American jobs need BALANCED Trade. We buy from you. You buy from us.)
To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Thank you, RC, for the ping.
It all comes down to one simple thing: Democrats Hate George W. Bush.
5
posted on
08/13/2003 3:02:33 PM PDT
by
Old Sarge
(Serving You... on Operation Noble Eagle!)
To: ex-snook
No, but the more reasonable Bush Admin used UN reports along with "reams and reams and reams" of documented evidence of Saddam's evildoing to remove him from power for once and for all.
6
posted on
08/13/2003 3:03:12 PM PDT
by
Ragtime Cowgirl
(149,998 US troops won hearts and kicked butt w/ their 2 lost brothers yesterday: www.centcom.mil)
To: Old Sarge
Bingo.
The Dems do things like releasing a brand new terrorist report 10 days before a new President is inaugerated and publishing the article 2 days after he's in office.
Iraq Rebuilt Weapons Factories, Officials Say - New York Times - 1/22/01
...One morning at the nub end of Bill Clinton's presidency, Clinton chief of staff John Podesta walked into a senior staff meeting in the Roosevelt Room waving a copy of USA Today. Holding the paper aloft, Podesta read the headline out loud, "Clinton actions annoy Bush." The article detailed the new rules and Executive Orders the outgoing President was issuing in his final days, actions aimed in equal measure at locking in Clinton's legacy...and bedeviling his successor. "What's Bush so annoyed about?" Podesta asked with a devilish smile. "He's got four years to try to undo all the stuff we've done." ~ Link.
"We laid a few traps," chirps a happy Clinton aide.....
7
posted on
08/13/2003 3:09:22 PM PDT
by
Ragtime Cowgirl
(149,998 US troops won hearts and kicked butt w/ their 2 lost brothers yesterday: www.centcom.mil)
To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Being a Democrat means never having to remember what you said yesterday.
-PJ
To: Ragtime Cowgirl; Kathy in Alaska; MoJo2001; LindaSOG; LaDivaLoca; bentfeather; Bethbg79; ...
Excellent Read PING
Thanks Ragtime Cowgirl !
To: Ragtime Cowgirl
That is good.
10
posted on
08/13/2003 3:12:56 PM PDT
by
HISSKGB
To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Read this early this AM....great post for a good article.
11
posted on
08/13/2003 3:15:04 PM PDT
by
BOBTHENAILER
(One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Start from one premise, and reason all your arguments backward. The premise: Bush is not the legitimate President. Therefore, every action he takes is without any mandate, and must be resisted in any manner possible. Any rationalization that Bush uses to justify his actions, can only be lies, by definition.
For a certain minority of persons born in this country, claiming citizenship as a birthright, and a smaller minority of those who have established residency here, and eventually gained citizenship, this is their sincere belief, and no amount of logical argument will dislodge this fixed idea.
Never mind that the reasons enumerated for taking up arms and marching to Baghdad included humanitarian and strategic considerations, relating to the very nature of the Saddam Hussein regime. These critics have latched onto one of the less important reasons cited for making a pre-emptive strike, that Saddam had in his possession weapons that could render extreme harm upon civilian populations, not for military advantage, but purely to spread terror in the target area. As it happened, these weapons were not deployed in the course of hostilities, but were apparently hidden for later use by guerrilla fighters. Because these terror weapons were NOT found, the argument goes, the whole invasion of Iraq was totally illegitimate. And if the invasion was illegitimate, then Bush's Presidency is illegitimate.
Maybe the US as a whole could do a recall election on the Presidency like they are doing in California.
To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Bump!
13
posted on
08/13/2003 3:26:00 PM PDT
by
SAMWolf
(Nothing is impossible until it is sent to a committee.)
To: ex-snook
Revisionist? The UN did not approve of war.How on earth did you read the article and come up with this statement? It did not say that the U.N. approved the war. U.N. findings and U.N. approval are two entirely different things.
14
posted on
08/13/2003 3:29:40 PM PDT
by
rdb3
(I'm not a complete idiot. Several parts are missing.)
To: Ragtime Cowgirl
I do not care 1 bit about what the UN, Democrats, or the liberal media have to say about anything. They are about as reliable as the PLO and the absurd promises that are always made concerning the peace process.
I often wonder just who these institutions think that they are talking to. Anyone who would listen to or heed them is obviously too stupid in the first place to be taken seriously.
15
posted on
08/13/2003 4:00:06 PM PDT
by
Radix
(This Tag Line is placed here for the purpose of making you read it all and realize that it)
To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Excellent story...thanks much.
16
posted on
08/13/2003 4:02:36 PM PDT
by
CWOJackson
(The World According to Garp isn't that bad when compared with The World According to Todd.)
To: CWOJackson
Seems to me both sides fought to a draw. They need to share the liars cup and get ready for the competition next year.
17
posted on
08/13/2003 4:09:14 PM PDT
by
meenie
To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Thanks for the heads up!
To: alloysteel
The hilarious thing about it (tragic though for the country) is that Dems like Kerry etal are such stinking hypocrites. They all enthusiastically supported Clinton when he passed the bill to dethrone Hussein in '98. Of course they all (except for Lieberman) have a case of political amnesia. They should do what Lieberman does which is just to say that he can do what Bush is doing much better. Kerry and Lieberman know that to follow the paths of Dean and Gephardt would be sheer disaster. Clinton knew that in "92 which is why he ran his campaign of ostensibly trying to out-Republcan the Republicans. His stealth campaign of creeping liberalism was well camouflaged. They should do the same to have a chance. But at least quit being such unbelievable hypocrites.
19
posted on
08/13/2003 5:15:46 PM PDT
by
driftless
( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
To: Ragtime Cowgirl
bump
20
posted on
08/13/2003 5:16:07 PM PDT
by
VOA
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson