Skip to comments.
DRUDGE: Senate Republicans Push for Plan on Ending War
Drudge Report ^
| November 14, 2005
| Matt Drudge
Posted on 11/14/2005 7:16:56 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
SENATE REPUBLICANS PUSH FOR PLAN ON ENDING WAR
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 109th; iraq; nevilleonboard; republican; rinos; senate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360, 361-367 next last
To: birbear
I was going to respond, but then I went and looked over your FR home page and decided not to...
321
posted on
11/14/2005 10:55:18 PM PST
by
SierraWasp
(The only thing that can save CA is making eastern CA the 51st state called Sierra Republic!!!)
Comment #322 Removed by Moderator
To: papasmurf
Sen. Robert Taft, Republican leader of the US Senate, 1941:
"As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur."
To: Cboldt
I could be wrong .. but doesn't McCain also want to change the field manual
324
posted on
11/14/2005 11:02:42 PM PST
by
Mo1
To: FreeReign
Theodore Roosevelt, 1918, during the First World War: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
To: birbear
Well, Dubya's head shoulders more of a man than BJ ever hoped of being.
And I'm grateful to him, and proud.
326
posted on
11/14/2005 11:21:44 PM PST
by
jwfiv
To: Mo1
I could be wrong .. but doesn't McCain also want to change the field manual He may want to, but the amendment speaks for itself.
I've not seen an analysis that puts the amendment in context.
327
posted on
11/14/2005 11:34:30 PM PST
by
Cboldt
To: churchillbuff
If the Senate and House lose out to the Democrats, they will impeach Bush. You are talking about money and others are talking about principles. Fighting Al Queda in Iraq is a noble fight that needs to be won on the grounds of security for both the middle east and America and for the protection of all cherished civilized values. To back down is both foolish and immoral. To back down because of money gives the enemy confidence that America's will is weak and that it really is a corrupt nation.
Iraq under Saddam had provided terrorists with safe haven, money, encouragement and training. Withdrawal now would mean the terrorists will have beaten the most powerful nation in the world and it would encourage their ambitions to establish an Imperial Caiphate ranging from Spain to the Philippines. Osama Bin Laden has already acted in the role of a statesman trying to affect world decisions. He has already conquered the hearts and mind of the Democrats and the MSM into indirectly supporting him. If you want to talk appeasement for mass murders then join Kerry's reelection bid.
If there is anything else to you... then stand up for America and the civilized world and fight the good fight.
To: Mo1; All
329
posted on
11/15/2005 1:30:01 AM PST
by
MEG33
(GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES)
To: Blind Eye Jones
330
posted on
11/15/2005 1:31:02 AM PST
by
MEG33
(GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES)
To: Txsleuth
They's be voting on this, I think, the first thing this morning, so we'll see. I have a very heavy heart about this, as I know you do.
331
posted on
11/15/2005 3:34:54 AM PST
by
Bahbah
(Free Scooter; Tony Schaffer for the US Senate)
To: numberonepal
I say "Spain" because we are in the process of building up our facilities in that country.
332
posted on
11/15/2005 4:17:33 AM PST
by
RobbyS
( CHIRHO)
To: jwfiv
It didn't start with Clinton. The previous administrations refused to acknowledge the resurgence of Islam , the role of the House of Saudi in funding their puritanical form of Islam, and continued support of "secular" leaders like Saddam--right up to the moment of his seizure of Kuwait.
333
posted on
11/15/2005 4:26:08 AM PST
by
RobbyS
( CHIRHO)
To: churchillbuff
Did Taft go so far as to blame FDR for having provoked Hitler to declare war on us? That certainly was more nearly true than all this stuff about "lying."when Bush was simply implementing the national policy outlined by the Clinton Administration. Oh, I forget, that was just rhetoric, like Bush I's talk about Saddam being a Hiter. Those presidents never meant to carry through It was OK for Bush I to leave the Shiites and Kurds to be slaughtered by Saddam's untouched reserves. Why, the country would break up if we went all the way to Baghdad. Saddam would be overthrown anyway in the wake of the defeat.
334
posted on
11/15/2005 4:38:18 AM PST
by
RobbyS
( CHIRHO)
To: churchillbuff
America's military involvement in Iraq must NEVER END!How about we leave conducting a war to the experts: the American military.
The politicians may get us into war, but when they try to conduct it/determine the length of it, it is a disaster.
To: churchillbuff
I want freedom in America. But for a lot of freepers, that makes me a "chamberlainbuff." In my book, they're old-fashioned FDR (or LBJ) liberals.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
To have freedom IN America, there's got to be an America. Something the left is working very hard to eliminate. The outside world will not allow America an isolationist posture (witness 911). And yes, least costly in human lives, sacrifice at home, and in the portion of total U.S. resources spent. A billion a week for for 5 years is a minuscule amount compared to the national product over the same five years. contrast that to WWII production costs and even the cold war expenditures. One thing conservatives have always understood is a strong defense. As we watch Spain, Australia, Britain, and France all recently attacked by the muslim hoards, it becomes obvious to thoughtful conservatives that our offensive against muslim extremism has prevented such occurrences on our soil. The war is a necessary (and cheap) price to pay for this security. Also, costs will escalate in the future to continue this fight. I hope the nation has the will to defeat this menace NOW, not add up the dollars and retreat into a suicidal isolationism.
To: churchillbuff
Your discourse and argunment is pretty pathetic.......you never respond to anyone who debates you sensibly. You just keep repeating these poll tested DNC phrases that sound clever but have no meaning, and you never answer your critics, you just imply that anyone who criticizes you is unworthy of your lofty thoughts. You know nothing of the stakes of the conflict, and could care less that these savages would glady remove your head with a dull knife, and quite honestly, you and your DUmmy cut and run friends would be first in line for that....irony in the highest sense of the word.
So...I leave you with a quote....let's see if you can answer this quote, since you will have no idea who said it.....but believe me, the people being rightfully and correctly slammed is you and your cut, run, and cower DUmmy friends:
The tactics of al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists have been consistent for a quarter century: They hit us, and they expect us to run. The terrorists witnessed our response after the attacks on American troops in Beirut in 1983, and in Mogadishu in 1993, and they concluded that America can be made to run again -- only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences. The terrorists are mistaken. America will never run. We will stand, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror.
337
posted on
11/15/2005 6:00:20 AM PST
by
Lakeshark
(Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
To: GregoTX
Oh yes we have Churchill as one to thank in helping bring about the creation of Iraq. You remember, during the last wave of attempted Westernization of the Middle East. Well of course you don't remember or you'd see this is an exercise in futility
The Real Churchill
Rethinking Churchill
338
posted on
11/15/2005 6:24:21 AM PST
by
billbears
(Deo Vindice)
To: churchillbuff
PRoblem is, more and more Americans have come to realize that Iraq wasn't a threat to US security. Bush has acknowledged 1) they didn't have WMDs and 2) they weren't involved in 9-11. No wonder at least half of Americans, according to all the polls I've seen for the past three months, now say the invasion was a mistake.
And if you think Saddam wasn't going to come after the US the moment our backs were turned, then you are even MORE stupid than I already thought you were.
339
posted on
11/15/2005 6:33:20 AM PST
by
MikefromOhio
(We don't give a damn for the WHOLE state of Michigan.....)
To: Blind Eye Jones
"If the Senate and House lose out to the Democrats, they will impeach Bush."
and the second US Civil War will begin.
340
posted on
11/15/2005 6:42:21 AM PST
by
DarthVader
(Do something positive for your country today: Punch an America hating leftie in the mouth.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360, 361-367 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