Posted on 08/23/2005 8:18:15 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
DONNELLY, Idaho (AP) -- President Bush has rapped sharp critics of his Iraq war policy, saying they advocate a position that would weaken the United States.
What is applicable to someone who gives inspiration and moral support? Code Pink gave money, didn't they? They support her, as well. What am I missing? : (
I think he might have mentioned that we should have pulled out of the War of 1812 a little earlier and we should have pulled out of the Spanish-American War of 1898 a little later.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you!
Damn straight they are attempting to weaken the U.S. Hear that Senator Hagel? You seek to lead this country and our military as their C-I-C. It isn't going to happen. They deserve someone that wishes to strengthen them and the country they serve.
The MSM, DEMS, hippie activists and Hollywood seek our defeat because they seek Bush's defeat. This is indefensible. They are not Patriots. They are the enemy. They need to be stamped out permanently. And that is exactly what is happening with the growing counter protests against them.
"Can someone please explain to me why we don't put people on trial for treason anymore???"
Here is a pretty good explanation from Daniel Pipes.
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2865
Why this collapse? Because the notion of loyalty has fundamentally changed. Traditionally, a person was assumed faithful to his natal community. A Spaniard or Swede was loyal to his monarch, a Frenchman to his republic, an American to his constitution.
That assumption is now obsolete, replaced by a loyalty to one's political community – socialism, liberalism, conservatism, or Islamism, to name some options. Geographical and social ties matter much less than of old.
Where is TONK!!!
Wars are fought to be won. When you pull out they call that retreat - which means you have been defeated. When you start a war as we have, there are only two ways to go. I am rooting for our troops to win and not be defeated.
When did "pullout" come to substitute for the words retreat and defeat anyway?
Sounds like a shout out for the 2nd Amendment Sisters.
We should have never been involved in the War against Britain. As for the Spanish American war who knows..
I agree.. There are some within the American film industry who is supportive of the troops and the war..
You know, listening to the sound bite on Rush.... Freepers and everyone else that has shown up to counter protest should be proud! The President just gave you wider exposure by acknowledging your presence, that Cindy does NOT represent the totality of opinion on the war or of Parents of troops.
WTG!
PresBush needs to fight back more often and not pull his punches. The leftwing establishment has taken advantage of the dogdays of August and continues to ratchet up the antiwar rhetoric everyday. It's time for VP Cheney, Dr Rice, Rumsfeld and other high profile memnbers of this administration to get out and counterpunch these worthless and pathetic pacifists.
Its "exclusive" because it makes the President seem seperated from the rest of the Americans...thus making him look bad. Duh... ;)
Myweighin.com - my pet project
we've already won the part of the war that our forces were designed to win. the administration never updated its message, its just a constant mantra of "stay the course". the public message needs to be much broader then that.
changes are coming in 2006 - troop reductions, giving iraqi forces more responsibility, especially for missions like transportation and checkpoint duty - the US takes almost all its KIA from IEDs and car bombs. our forces will become more "base centric" and be used for major offensive operations. And all of these moves are good ones. The administration, at some point, is going to have to explain the coming strategy. They are not doing it now because they fear it will signal "withdrawal" at the wrong time. But as time marches on, they will have to update the message as the military strategy evolves.
They DON'T CARE if they are weakening American, causes more deaths among our troops. "THEY" are supporters of Islam and communism. "THEY" WANT TO SEE AMERICA DEFEATED!!!
When are you and the RINOcrats going to get that through your heads and quit thinking you can work with these people?
By the same token I should place a caveat for the MSM and DEMS, too, shouldn't I? Why no objection to the generality of those two?
No. I would state 99% of the people know well to what I infer when I reference Hollywood. I do not need to place several markers to cover every possible being not connected to the Liberal idealogy embraced in the sector involved in this active protest against our country.
You and I must have gotten here about the same time. I AGREE it's time to get with the program. Especially with the anniversary around the corner. I'm not willing to let the caravan and the FReepers going to Crawford carry this load alone, we all need to pull our own weight:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1468758/posts
Not saying that there isn't documentation but I doubt that any of it is addresses in grade or high school, let alone on the History Channel or PBS every year.
Also, with regards to the current "war". The war in Iraq is over. We do not fight Iraqis, we fight foreign terrorists who flood into Iraq. We are partnered with the Iraqis in this fight.
We fight a larger war on terrorism. Consider it like our fight with the Barbary pirates when Europe was paying them protection money.
The enemy has no government. Has no flag. Has no nation. Has no uniform. They have an ideology (Islam is a political system as well as it is a religious belief) and a belief, as did the Nazis and the WWII Shinto Japanese, that they world is their's.
Are we to treat the enemy as soldiers, troops we can kill before they fire upon us; as criminals due all legal rights of an American citizen; or rogues with no protections of the Genova conventions (since they are not signers to the agreement and have made it clear they do not abide by those rules)?
Clinton said that we should treat them as criminals and run them through our courts (see the 1993 WTC bombing; also see his policy of only accepting Bin Laden if he had something to charge him with).
Do we have agents who are "licensed to kill"? I'm not talking about Robertson's talk of a hit squad to take out Chavez. He is a head of state. I'm talking about rouge organizations that threaten security. Can we "whack" a spy or terrorist or not?
If the enemy are just "criminals" then we cannot fire on them until they shoot first. Regardless of the battlefield.
This is another cold war that will last a long (or very long) time.
It did not take killing every Japanese or Nazi to put an end to their world conquest or threats to society. It won't take that to defang Islamnazism either.
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.