Posted on 01/19/2007 4:40:49 PM PST by GretchenM
I found no new photos of the president today but there are some photos of Laura in Paris, at the conference on Missing and Exploited Children. As Tony Snow's assistant conducted the press briefing today, and the State of the Union address is next Tuesday, January 23rd at 9:00 PM EST, it seems likely it is crunch time for getting the address ready.
Defense Secretary Gates continues his visit to Iraq, in Basra and Talil, where he is being briefed.
Text of Dana Perino's press briefing today (information on SoTU).
Congrats on your toaster win, Dolly, and pass some soap my way, I'm probably a repeat offender (I blame the wine...)
Your posts bring to mind Ralpie's remarks on going blind from having had his mouth washed out with soap too many times ("A Christmas Story"), and the slightly piquant taste of Lifebuoy.
Good evening!
You weren't one of the provocateurs for the request to keep the place clean.
Hi Kaslin, not only do I not mind the ping to the other thread, I am grateful for it.
Kaslin brought this thread to my attention.
[President Bush] The courage of his convictions
InsightMagazine.com ^ | January 16, 2007 | Donald Lambro
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1770374/posts
If President Bush's decision to send 21,500 troops to Iraq tells us anything about him, it is this: He isn't someone who bases his policies on the polls or the results of the last election.
He is acting on his deepest conviction that, as he said in his address to the nation, we are engaged in “the decisive ideological struggle of our time” against Islamic extremists who have declared war against the West and the United States, in particular.
Abraham Lincoln, beset by a series of defeats and setbacks in the Civil War, told the nation “we must think anew so that we may act anew.” Mr. Bush, facing a long guerrilla war that his new secretary of defense said we are losing, essentially told Americans that failure was not an option and that we must readjust our military strategy so that “We can and we will prevail.”
It was a gutsy, sober decision that he knows will hardly make him more popular with the American people. Polls show that nearly two-thirds of all Americans oppose the war and think it was a mistake. His party lost the House and Senate in an election that turned into a referendum on the war.
But Mr. Bush has long ago made peace with the fact that he is not going to win any popularity contests for the remainder of his presidency as long as the war continues and casualties mount.
Sending more troops to secure the Iraqi capital against a stronger and far more lethal insurgency is clearly in the long-term security interests of our country, and he is willing to leave office two years from now with low-approval polls but secure in the knowledge that he fought the terrorists as hard as he could and kept America safer than it was before he came into office.
Only now Mr. Bush faces two wars, one in Iraq and the other on Capitol Hill, where Democrats were gearing up to challenge him on two fronts: 1) A nonbinding resolution that declares Congress' disapproval of increased combat forces and calls for troop withdrawal by this year. 2) Withholding funding for any additional forces being sent there or other provisions that would further restrict appropriations for the war.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should be careful about overplaying their hand on both scores. Thus far, as most polls show, a majority of Americans oppose an immediate or precipitous pullout of all forces in Iraq that would result in a bloodbath for the Iraqi people. Indeed, a number of Democrats would not support a speedy withdrawal if it would endanger our remaining forces there.
A congressional funding cutoff, which would have to clear a 60-vote hurdle in the Senate and then overcome a presidential veto, would be a political disaster for the Pelosi Democrats. It would threaten needed funds for our troops in the midst of war. How many Democrats would want to vote for that?
Mr. Bush explained the stakes in Iraq last week without sugarcoating what the future holds, even if his plan succeeds in pacifying Baghdad and the terrorist-infested Anbar province.
“Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue—and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties,” he said. The question, he added, “is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe it will.”
I think we will see a change for the better on the streets of Baghdad with increased troop levels. But if there is one change I would make in the new strategy, it would be a much sharper increase in the number of U.S. forces to train more Iraqi fighters.
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group proposed a massive increase in the number of U.S. military trainers by 10,000 to 20,000 to quickly escalate the size and skill of the Iraqi army. Mr. Bush's plan would just expand the number of advisers embedded in existing Iraqi forces.
The key to longer-term success and to an eventual drawdown of U.S. forces is a larger, better-trained Iraqi security force that can bear the brunt of the fighting and kill more of the enemy. That side of the military equation must be ramped up beyond anything that is now being contemplated.
Meantime, Mr. Bush is fully committed to his new strategy. He has received new promises from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to commit additional brigades to the war and to get a lot tougher combating sectarian violence. Mr. Bush is bringing new generals into Iraq and the region, and a new ambassador into Baghdad, to carry out the plan.
He is embarked on this course because all of the other options, such as a phased withdrawal this year, were nonstarters in his mind—signaling to the terrorists that they had won, that we would back down in the face of their threats and that would make us and the free world more vulnerable to their attacks.
It was perhaps the toughest and loneliest decision of his presidency but one that was made solely to keep our country safe.
Hi Gretchen...I see your disclaimer...I don't recall using bad language, but if I did...I apologize, and promise to be good from now on...LOL
The Freepathon is a HUGH success...we had 2 Freepers upping the ante to get their STATE, number 1...it was a lot of fun to watch.
TWO wonderful freepers to thank tonight,..Gitmo Soldier, and Red Rover.
Of course...that doesn't count all of the great freepers that keep the Freepathon going for several weeks like onyx and Mo1 and STARWISE, BigSkyFreeper,Lady Jag...JR, etc.
no... actually I am prolly one that was complained ABOUT
The First Lady's remarks in post #15 remind me of the great story of the OK girl who was kidnapped, but is now safe. I don't know whether they have caught the piece of human garbage who kidnapped her, yet. Here's the link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1770402/posts
That was funny. Gretchen. The house where the movie was shot is in Cleveland area & now opened for tours & a museum with memoriabila available. I was there before Christmas & got the DVD. Took lots of pix outdoors & at museum.
That's what I was trying to say, you were not one whose posts brought forth the request. (But who am I to meddle with one's conscience?) =)
Coarse language? When was that?
Define coarse.
Gates is cute. Hope some of that Rummy toughness hides behind that benign exterior.
I wonder how Laura's leg is healing. I notice she's still in pants, which is fine, but most of the ladies are in skirts and I wonder if she's still hiding a scar/bandage, etc.
Yeah! Bubba likes Ivory best, but he gets the soap out of my bathroom every morning unless I remember to put it out of reach. He tastes it and then puts it down on the carpet.
So I'm going with the martini. The alcohol should kill any of our mouth problems.
"Define coarse."
Profanity, vulgarisms, crudeness, that sort of thing.
Dictionary.com has this:
lacking in fineness or delicacy of texture, structure, etc.
harsh; grating.
lacking delicacy, taste, or refinement; unpolished
common; base.
vulgar; obscene; crude
Gretchen, trust me, I can say "My what a beautiful blue sky" and SOMEONE will be offended.
And when I am really chatting away, well, then even normal folks can be offended. I think we all somewhere say things that people don't like. I like movies, pets, am a vegetarian, & Christian & those four things alone will provoke people.
well, I am going to go check pings & email, find a pix for Eleanor to use & check the newside
BBL
good pix today. I am betting POTUS is working very hard on his speech. It is an important one
I have read some of the remarks Gates has made, and, though he may not be as tough as Mr. Toughness himself, he seems to have great potential.
It's come up from time to time. Enough that I've received more than a few FRmails on the subject. Before my computer crashed, I received two more on the same day so I felt it was time to make the request.
Thanks
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.