Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NO CHOICE BUT TO PERSEVERE
New York Post ^ | 9/08/03

Posted on 09/08/2003 12:33:34 AM PDT by kattracks

Edited on 05/26/2004 5:16:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

September 8, 2003 -- President Bush went on national television last night and reiterated the obvious: The War on Terror will be a long time in the winning.

"Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the War on Terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places," he said.


(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2ndanniversary; bush43; persevere; staythecourse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

1 posted on 09/08/2003 12:33:34 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Spot On.
2 posted on 09/08/2003 12:55:49 AM PDT by CaptSkip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001: "ATTACK ON AMERICA!" (Updated Daily)
http://www.truthusa.com/911.html
3 posted on 09/08/2003 1:06:49 AM PDT by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Bush put thing in context so that any rational man or woman would feel ashamed in light of 9/11 and what he explained when the war on terror began.

It's not an overnight operation. The investment we are making now will lay the ground work for a safer future, if it is permitted to be successful. This future may not stabilize any time soon, but the common man should look beyond himself and look at the future this will build for our children.

Yeah, this one is for the kids. It's for their very ability to have any future at all.

Shame on any Democrat who doesn't see it that way.

4 posted on 09/08/2003 2:28:06 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Democrats.. Socialists..Commies..Traitors...Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
BTTT
5 posted on 09/08/2003 3:50:34 AM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks; MJY1288; Calpernia; Grampa Dave; anniegetyourgun; Coop; Ernest_at_the_Beach; ...
Good post, but reporters need to start listening to the defense experts and stop parroting the mainstream reporters.

Secretary Rumsfeld Press Briefing from Camp Victory, Baghdad - Sept. 5, 2003
 
Q:  General Sanchez -- he didn't ask for any more troops, did he?

     Rumsfeld:  Absolutely not.  This is really a fixation people have.  If he wanted more troops, he would have them, believe me.  And I would send them.  He has said he has about the right number of forces.  We have all said it is healthy and good to enlarge the number of international forces, so we have for four months now been all across the globe been talking to something in excess of eighty or ninety countries and we now have 29 physically involved.  And we want more.  And we think that's a good thing.  But mostly what we want, and what General Sanchez wants and want Jerry Bremer wants is more Iraqi forces.  We want more force protection, more site protection, more border protection, more police protection in cities by Iraqis.  This is their country.  The security of their country, and the political future of their country, and the economic advancement of their country is going to be done by Iraqi people.  It is not going to be done by nation builders.  It is not going to be done by people coming in and fashioning a template and saying "here's how we do it, and therefore you must do it."  They're going to figure it out.


8 Secretary Rumsfeld Press Availability in Iraq [w/ Amb. Bremer and Gen. Sanchez, excellent] - DoD | 9/6/03 | Rumsfeld, Bremer, Sanchez, media

Q: General Sanchez, yesterday you talked briefly about the frequency and types of attacks your troops are seeing. I wonder if you could expand on that and why you've come to the determination that you do not need more troops?

Sanchez: I was hoping you'd ask me that question.

The last five days we have had an average of 15 attacks per day. Fifty percent of those attacks were attacks that were conducted at a long range, outside of contact of the American and Coalition forces. The enemy has made a decision to stay away and not engage us other than with improvised explosives that are being remotely controlled, or with mortars where they can escape readily.

The other 50 percent of those attacks are attacks that are being conducted with a combination of small arms, rocket-propelled grenades and improvised explosives.

So seven a day occur where we can engage the enemy and kill them in a near battle, and they last about a minute to two minutes. Now tell me that I have a strategic or an operational or a tactical problem here in this country when I have got 160,000 troops on the ground. Absolutely not. There is no risk at any of those levels, at the tactical, operational or strategic level.

The only way that we will fail here in this country is if we choose to walk away from Iraq and make America the next battleground on the global war on terrorism. That's the only way we can lose. That's the choice we have to make here. I don't need additional forces, and the choice that we need to make is to stay right here and defeat the enemy.

If you want on or off my pro-Coalition/anti-wanker ping list, please Freepmail me. Warning: it is a high volume ping list.

8 Unapologetically Pro-Coalition News Links and Articles

6 posted on 09/08/2003 8:24:08 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl ("We will support our troops and we will keep our word." ~ President Bush, 9/7/03)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
The left-wing presstitutes are obsessed with troop count ~ why do these dunder heads think they know more about war than the DoD or the military! *sigh*

Anything to make the USA look bad.

Hang 'Em High!
7 posted on 09/08/2003 8:35:29 AM PDT by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Bump!
8 posted on 09/08/2003 8:38:25 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
This article is just terrific.Where did the "more troops"thing from Gen. Sanchez get distorted?I hear armchair generals,pundits,McCain,Dems.all calling for more troops.They say he doesn't ask out of "loyalty".
9 posted on 09/08/2003 8:45:37 AM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
bump to the top
10 posted on 09/08/2003 9:02:29 AM PDT by Soaring Feather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Doesn't the NY Post have one of the best Editorial and Op-Ed sections in the Nation? Fantastic!
11 posted on 09/08/2003 9:38:16 AM PDT by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Can you check this out, and if you think it's warranted, circulate to your ping list.
12 posted on 09/08/2003 9:51:36 AM PDT by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AxelPaulsenJr
Here's the thread I was alluding to, in paragraph format. Enjoy.
13 posted on 09/08/2003 9:53:52 AM PDT by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Awesome post from Sanchez, simply awesome. I'll be sending it to my local dnc inspired newspapers
14 posted on 09/08/2003 10:51:41 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican
Appreciate it, thanks much.
15 posted on 09/08/2003 11:15:45 AM PDT by AxelPaulsenJr (Hillary for dog catcher. I met her once, she is qualified to catch dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Thank you for the ping.
16 posted on 09/08/2003 12:21:29 PM PDT by RightWingMama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All
BUMP
17 posted on 09/08/2003 1:43:54 PM PDT by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: All
BUMP
18 posted on 09/08/2003 5:44:39 PM PDT by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl; kattracks; Grampa Dave; BOBTHENAILER
The president will ask for $87 billion to fund military operations and reconstruction in Iraq.

Too much?

How much did 9/11 cost?

How much would another 9/11 cost?

9/11 cost a trillion: 1,000,000,000,000.

It has depressed the economy for two years.

It killed 3,000 although it was designed to kill 100,000--will the next attack succeed to a greater extent?

Hitlery Rod 'Em and Howard Prissy Dean don't care--to these scumbuckets, all the terrorist attacks possible are all good.

The adults are in charge QED there is a God.

Go W, beat Osama Inc.

19 posted on 09/08/2003 7:17:35 PM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
All the while, the Clinton White House made it clear it had no stomach for a fight. Spill a little American blood, and America will go away.

Great article with a lot of truth.

I have heard some estimates of the "cost of 911" as being north of $1 trillion. I wish W and company would start laying out those facts.

20 posted on 09/08/2003 7:35:48 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson