Posted on 12/07/2006 6:56:01 PM PST by blam
Yeah but Abraham Lincoln wasn't hated worldwide like President Bush is currently. Half of the nation despise Bush and most of the world hates him.
Is the world shrinking or is is Chirac only getting smaller? Who knows. LOL.
Most of the world only know what their media feeds them. Have you noticed any international outrage at the govt of Sudan for genocide, or at China for supporting them? We do more good in the world than Europe and all the rest put together.----Mark
A fantastic article for exposing the biases of the press, and of those toadying Neo-Lib socialist sycophants and capitulators who oppose Bush and Blair {and the democratically elected leaders of Australia, Denmark, Israel, Poland, and Ukraine}.
A pox upon their houses!
BTW, am I the only one who has noticed and been outraged by the disrespect the U.K. Telegraph "reporters" {term used quite loosely indeed!} are showing 'Mr. Bush'?
The last time I looked, he was still the duly elected President of the United States, and as the sole occupant of that office, social and journalistic conventions rightly accord and confer upon him the correct and appropriate honourarium due - which is to call him -
"President Bush", damnit!
AM I the only one who noticed this obvious and intended slight, which was repeated in the body of the article?!
I am not joking - were I their managing editor, these inexcusably ignorant and biased practitioners of the journalistic art would discover their wages docked for this and any other similar infractions. Should there accumulate too many violations, they would find out how truly dispensable their services were!
[finished with soapbox rant, the AmericanArchConservative steps down from his perch]
A.A.C.
"I'll take Bush and Blair as leaders over anyone from the other party. Baker's group is off base on many counts. Imagine believing that talking to enemies like Iran and Syria will help us in Iraq."
I think I agree with what you stated above, but I want to make sure we are on the same page.
Generally, I am against talking directly with Syria and Iran.
I could consider it, if the purpose was only to meet with them and say "Shape up or else"
I would not oppose direct talk if the talk is truly direct. I completly oppose talk with either, much less both if the talk is to appease.
"Rummy was the sacrificial lamb. The scapegoat. He did it to save the the US from the political foes, to save the Presidency, to save Iraq, to save the ME, to save the world.
Freedom will prevail. Godspeed Rummy."
I am not going to argue against your statement above, but I will ask: Are you sure Rummy didn't resign because he was tired of answering stupid questions? I ask this question because I can not believe some of the idiotic questions he has been asked by people who whine if they are not the first informed of a situation.
Oh..I believe what you say and more..much more.
"So many stupid questions from so many stupid people."
Yes, and those asking the stupid questions are the ones proclaiming that they are the only ones qualified to ask questions.
I think the American people would be much better educated as to the state of this country and the world if the President was to have a news conference with people like you, JimRob and some others here asking the questions.
Now there is a great idea...Give it to the youth, of America of course!
You are right, China could execute thousands of prisoners on ABC News Live and the MSM will still find a way to justify that.
In contrast to fraternity pranks we did in Iraq on the captured terrorists.
"....the only realistic path to security is by ensuring the spread of liberty,"
This is THE most important thing he can say.
And it deserves repeating a thousand times if necessary.
Because it is TRUE.
"It's bad in Iraq. That help?" he shot back fiercely. "You want frankness? I thought we would succeed quicker than we did. And I am disappointed by the pace of success."
That was the beginning of a great segment with President stating what's at stake. I'm glad they came out so quickly with a response.
Let's realize that any meaningful talk would involve appeasement. Iran and Syria would ask for alot. That is a road to nowhere.
And I'm glad the Prez pretty much shot down the Iran-Syria idea. God bless this man of steel.--Mark
If we do it, it will be to make the far left feel all warm and fuzzy. It won't accomplish anything concrete. Actually it might result in devastating compromises.
"Oh..I believe what you say and more..much more."
Thank you.
You stated that Rummy was the sacrificial lamb. I think that if that is true, and I believe it may be, he was a willing sacrificial lamb for the reasons you and I stated.
"Now there is a great idea...Give it to the youth, of America of course!"
From this statement of yours, I am thinking that you and I both would find better questions and more information if a class of first graders was able to ask all questions at the Presidential press conferences than what the White House press corp asks.
I totally agree. The war is on. We can't be side-tracked by commissions and panels that develop strategy under a green banker's lamp.
President Bush needs to continue the march. We will prevail. Our troops expect resolve and scorn appeasers. To hell with them. Full speed ahead.
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.