I'm betting this becomes the leftists' new attack line on Bush. She sounds exactly as 'saddened' as Daschle.
1 posted on
08/20/2003 11:06:23 AM PDT by
Gothmog
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
To: Gothmog; Timesink
Figures.
2 posted on
08/20/2003 11:08:21 AM PDT by
mhking
To: Gothmog
Although these people might want to be in power, they are not. We are also not interested in how they would handle the situation since we are sure it would be at best the same as now, and probably worse. Vietnam was a Democrat war. Most wars are Democrat wars.
3 posted on
08/20/2003 11:09:44 AM PDT by
RightWhale
(Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
To: Gothmog
maybe if he said please, they would not have bombed.
To: Gothmog
How many U.S. troops were lost in this bombing?
Who invited the U.N. back into Iraq?
Why should we defend those who do not defend us?
5 posted on
08/20/2003 11:10:53 AM PDT by
CONSERVE
To: Gothmog
8 posted on
08/20/2003 11:13:55 AM PDT by
Pubbie
(Bill Owens for Prez and Jeb as VP in '08.)
To: Gothmog
"This senseless intelligence failure
leaves me deeply saddened."
9 posted on
08/20/2003 11:14:38 AM PDT by
Sender
To: Gothmog
The mainstream media, as well as the left in general, isn't part of the solution; they are part of the problem.
10 posted on
08/20/2003 11:19:03 AM PDT by
My2Cents
("I'm the party pooper..." -- Arnold in "Kindergarten Cop.")
To: Gothmog
Who won the pool?
11 posted on
08/20/2003 11:19:15 AM PDT by
Caipirabob
(Democrats.. Socialists..Commies..Traitors...Who can tell the difference?)
To: Gothmog
"ABC Reporter Suggests Bush To Blame For Bombing"
So, what else is new?
12 posted on
08/20/2003 11:20:02 AM PDT by
Roughneck
(Starve the Beast!)
To: Gothmog
Hay, Martha....how many people have been murdered in the past 6 months in CALIFORNIA and NEW YORK?.....idiot.
13 posted on
08/20/2003 11:20:16 AM PDT by
goodnesswins
(Vote Democrat ....... pay for our drugs, travel, and total retirement life! Ha hahaha ...fools.)
To: Gothmog
Someone needs to clue this media dolt that this is part of the strategery...Here's what Mark Steyn said about "Bring it on!" a couple of weeks ago -- The rhetoric may be macho, but it isnt necessarily phoney. Indeed, its authenticity is what strikes a chord with the American people. In these pages in November 2001, I noted various California commuters reactions to the governors announcement that terrorists were planning to blow up the states major bridges. The TV cameras positioned themselves at the Golden Gate Bridge to measure the downturn in traffic, only to be confronted by drivers yelling, Come and get me, Osama! More to the point, Bushs bring-em-on is not just macho swagger, but the core of the strategy. My distinguished former colleague, the dean of Canadian columnists David Warren, brilliantly characterised whats going on in Iraq as carefully hung flypaper. In other words, the US occupation of Iraq is bringing Saudis and other Islamonutters out of the surrounding swamps and thats a good thing. If theyre really so eager to strike at the Great Satan, better they attack its soldiers in Iraq than its commuters on the Golden Gate Bridge.
And, whaddayaknow, theyre falling for it. On al-Arabiya TV in Dubai, an al-Qaeda affiliate insisted they, and not Saddam, were behind the attacks in Iraq. I swear by God no one from his followers carried out any jihad operations like he claims, chuntered the spokesterrorist. They are a result of our brothers in jihad. Plenty of room for both on that flypaper, boys.
If Democrats are still so consumed by chad fever that they dont get the basic soundness and success of this strategy, theyre heading for a bad fall in the election and not just at the presidential level....
But tarring Bush as a liar wont make him a loser. Step back and look at the two years since 11 September. In 2001, the Islamists killed thousands of Westerners in New York and Washington. In 2002, they killed hundreds of Westerners, but not in the West itself, only in jurisdictions like Bali. In 2003, they killed dozens not Westerners, but their co-religionists in Morocco and Saudi Arabia. The Bush cordon sanitaire has been drawn tighter and tighter. Meanwhile, the allegedly explosive Arab street has been quieter than Acacia Gardens in Pinner on a Wednesday afternoon, and I wouldnt bet that blowing up fellow Muslims and destroying the Moroccan tourist industry and Saudi investment will do anything for the recruitment drive. All of this could be set back by a massive terrorist attack on the US mainland, and if John Kerry is banking on disaster, that at least has a certain sick logic about it. But if he genuinely believes that Bushs war is as disastrous as he says, hes flipped, and the Dems will wind up as helplessly stuck to that flypaper as al-Qaeda. Bush is doing what the lefties wanted: hes addressing the root causes by returning the cause to its roots, and fixing it at source.
16 posted on
08/20/2003 11:27:05 AM PDT by
My2Cents
("I'm the party pooper..." -- Arnold in "Kindergarten Cop.")
To: Gothmog
She also blamed the power outage on him last week, said that FirstEnergy made big contributions to the Republicans.
Only heard her report it once, however.
21 posted on
08/20/2003 11:36:46 AM PDT by
mombonn
(¡Viva Bush/Cheney!)
To: Gothmog
U.N. officials at the headquarters refused heavy security because the United Nations ``did not want a large American presence outside,'' said Salim Lone, the U.N. spokesman in Baghdad. AP today
22 posted on
08/20/2003 11:37:05 AM PDT by
Lexington Green
(WOD Resistance Tip # 2 - Plant Your Seeds)
To: Gothmog
Good propaganda and good headline fodder both make for terrible policy. I hope that people will tune this ignorant blather out.
28 posted on
08/20/2003 11:45:29 AM PDT by
.cnI redruM
(The Problem With Socialism Is That You Eventually Run Out Of Other People's Money - Lady Thatcher)
To: Gothmog
BOYCOTT DISNEY: a vortex of seductive evil
29 posted on
08/20/2003 11:46:34 AM PDT by
Petronski
(I'm not always cranky.)
To: Gothmog
"Except for the recently built concrete wall, U.N. officials at the headquarters refused heavy security because the United Nations ``did not want a large American presence outside,'' said Salim Lone, the U.N. spokesman in Baghdad." UN Officials Deliberately REFUSED U.S. Security in Baghdad "did not want American presence"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/967348/posts
31 posted on
08/20/2003 12:00:22 PM PDT by
SunStar
(Democrats piss me off!)
To: Gothmog
Yup, Martha is a vile lefty.
And ugly too . . .
33 posted on
08/20/2003 12:09:58 PM PDT by
Petruchio
(<===Looks Sexy in a flightsuit . . . Looks Silly in a french maid outfit)
To: Gothmog
From the article~~~
"But officials may now have to look at adding troops to the nearly 150,000 already there." (ABC News, Raddatz, 8/18/03) Why? Do UN personnel now want to be seen in the company of American soldiers?
To: Gothmog
Well .. it's going to be short-lived because FOX is all over the place saying that WE offered the UN more security and THEY TURNED IT DOWN - saying they did not want a USA presence there. Now, Kofi Annan has come out saying that if the UN did that, it was the wrong decision.
Also .. Rush was saying the same thing today. The issue is dead and ABC is wasting their breath.
36 posted on
08/20/2003 1:09:39 PM PDT by
CyberAnt
( America - "The Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth")
To: Gothmog
Oh, brother.
37 posted on
08/20/2003 1:10:38 PM PDT by
Saundra Duffy
(For victory & freedom!!!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson