Skip to comments.
Bush Vows to Spend What Is Necessary to Win War
Reuters ^
| Sept 7,2003
Posted on 09/07/2003 3:48:26 PM PDT by Dog
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
1
posted on
09/07/2003 3:48:27 PM PDT
by
Dog
To: Dog
I'm wondering if our president will define his "victory / exit" strategy.................
2
posted on
09/07/2003 3:52:18 PM PDT
by
WhiteGuy
(It's now the Al Davis GOP...........................Just Win Baby !!!)
To: Dog
calling it part of the war on terrorism although no conclusive evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has been found and no substantive links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda have been established. I think FR seriously needs to consider a ban on Reuters; they are about as factual as the Weekly World News.
3
posted on
09/07/2003 3:53:03 PM PDT
by
gore_sux
(and so does Xlinton)
To: Timesink
Note the
Wash Post spin on the same article...Bush will offer a stay-the-course commitment to Iraq, calling it part of the war on terrorism although no conclusive evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has been found and no substantive links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda have been established.
Same article but the Post spins it.
4
posted on
09/07/2003 3:53:35 PM PDT
by
Dog
To: gore_sux
Post has the same spin about WMD and AQ..
5
posted on
09/07/2003 3:54:36 PM PDT
by
Dog
To: Dog
Bush Vows to Spend What Is Necessary to Win WarI would certainly hope so.
Astonishing what the left construes as news.
6
posted on
09/07/2003 3:55:58 PM PDT
by
Rome2000
(Vote McNader and Bustamonte wins)
To: gore_sux
I think FR seriously needs to consider a ban on Reuters; they are about as factual as the Weekly World News. I second the motion!
7
posted on
09/07/2003 3:56:13 PM PDT
by
Eala
(None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. - Milton)
To: Dog
I really hate these pre-emptive speech articles. It only serves to give the other side early ammo and to dissuade people to actually listen to the speech. A lot can be lost in the translation even before the media spin.
Prairie
8
posted on
09/07/2003 3:59:42 PM PDT
by
prairiebreeze
(de Villipin wants UN approval for any military actions...ever. I fart in his general direction!!)
To: Dog
But what about the war on AIDs in Africa, are we going to spend enough to win that one too? And the war on high pill prices for seniors? My Aunt Mildred said today she couldn't afford to take Fluffy
to the groomer but once a month and still afford her Lipitor.
9
posted on
09/07/2003 4:00:47 PM PDT
by
putupon
(Wake up and smell the RINOs.)
To: Dog
Gee... you'd think if GWD wanted to protect America from further terrorist attacks, stopping illegal immigration would be a numero uno....
Whoops, I forgot, the big contributers want cheap labor.
To: StatesEnemy
Gee... you'd think if GWD wanted to protect America from further terrorist attacks, stopping illegal immigration would be a numero uno....With the exception of the hard core, I don't think many people are taking the "war on terrorism" seriously anymore. Mr. Duct Tape complete with flashing color alerts while the southern border remains wide open -- just how serious can anyone be? It's all about creating more debt and spending more money cause the economy is weak.
Richard W.
11
posted on
09/07/2003 4:26:50 PM PDT
by
arete
(Greenspan is a ruling class elitist and closet socialist who is destroying the economy)
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
Comment #13 Removed by Moderator
To: Dog
Well, I'm glad he's putting his money where his mouth is. How much does he have left over from his sale of the Rangers? Oh, wait, he's vowing that he's going to spend as much of OUR money as is necessary.
To: TedsGarage
Statement:"Bush Vows to Spend What Is Necessary to Win War"
Response: Besides it ain't my money! Har! Har! Har!
15
posted on
09/07/2003 5:17:12 PM PDT
by
AEMILIUS PAULUS
(Further, the statement assumed)
Comment #16 Removed by Moderator
To: Dog
Bush 2 is just like Bush 1. He seems to be out of touch with the American people and the economy.
To: seamole
Thanks for running to the Admin to tattle-tale.
To: baylorbaylor
Yup.
The Bushies are poor excuses for Reagans
To: StatesEnemy
Yeah,, W would have never run after the barracks were bombed in Lebanon,, that move as well as Somolia(Clinton) have been a cause of terrorists hits since,,, and I love Ronald Reagan,, W is the best guy for the job in this time,, any names out there who would be a better President now and who are now alive? I don't know of anyone,,
20
posted on
09/07/2003 6:12:40 PM PDT
by
Lib-Lickers 2
(God Bless Our Military)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 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