Posted on 04/26/2002 9:08:46 PM PDT by RCW2001
Fortunately they've done nothing that quite gives away the store. And the Arab rulers are so clueless that every move they make gives the Bushies one more reason to attack Iraq. So hopefully little is lost ultimately.
He is going to follow the path of his own convictions and faith and I can almost guarantee that he finds Washington the cesspool of backstabbing whores that it really is (was there for 15 months so I witnessed THAT first hand).
Any true Texan would much rather be 'home on the range' versus having to deal with the tripe that comprises DC. My thoughts, and especially with Karen Hughes hoofing it back, is that he is already of that mindset. Do what has to be done 'in the interest of the USA'!
Of course, If the mandate is sooo strong come 2004, maybe he will reconsider, but other than that, his sights are set on doing 'whats right' for the USA. All others, be damned!
To the dismay of the DC whores...'there isn't a chapter in their 'playbook' for such a man'!
Bottom line...President Bush is NOT running for re-election, He is running the Country!
The issue is not whether it did me harm; the issue is whether you posted the article in a straightforward manner.
what harm did it cause? That somebody clicked on the link and actually read the story? That upsets you? Why?
I have no clue what this string of insinuations is supposed to contribute except to muddy the waters. I have no objection to anyone reading the story. It is a very informative story. But I think it is important that FReepers have the confidence that when someone posts an article, they are really "reading the story," as it actually appeared in print, not as the poster has chosen to modify it to spin his particular point of view. I shouldn't have to click on the link to read the story; what you post should be the story , nothing more, nothing less.
I believe, in fact, that if you post copyright material, but change anything in it, you are legally obligated to say up front that you have done so.
I saw your name and instantly knew there would be an anti Israeli twist to this somehow, someway. LOL
Bush looked pretty insincere to me, on his "withdrawal now" comments, just like he did when he said it the last time, only this time, even less convincing.
Israel will withdraw, when they are done. No big deal. Period.
Enough with you...if you feel you have a legit complaint, contact the moderator and get the thread killed. I'll post as I feel fit and 'within' FR regulations. If capitalization of '2' letters of a titles is a violations...let me be informed by the forum moderators...
Reuters Wire | April 26, 2002 11:07 PM ET | Dan Williams
Posted on 4/27/02 1:17 AM Eastern by infowars
The Washington Times | April 26, 2002 | Carter Dougherty
Posted on 4/26/02 5:59 PM Eastern by codebreaker
(AP) | AUDREY WOODS
Posted on 4/26/02 8:15 PM Eastern by Dallas
True is much more pro-Israel than his father. And of course he is working toward reelection. Every first term President does. And don't project your fantasies that he is anti-Israel onto GWB.
He is also planning our attack on Iraq. The visit of the 'Prince' was part of that. The main thing the Arabs want now is to use the situation in the Middle East to divert attention away from that goal, but they are running out of time. The overarching thing they want is to get the US to turn against Israel. Bush made it clear again today, that goal will never be reached. He 'appeases' the Arabs when he needs to. But he supports Israel when it counts, like over the last month, when Israel was able to begin to shut down the terrorist networks. If you think Bush is not aware that the American public supports that, that Congress supports that, you live in a dream world. Rove is already on record as saying he is going after the Jewish vote, partly to prevent another close election. And we know the GOP is strongly pro Israel now. Bush knows that too.
The fact that he is doing that shows no leadership. If he was leading, he would tell the arabs to put up or shut up. He made it very plain in his speech after 9-11. I repeat, watch what a politician does not what they say. Try to please everyone and you will please no one. In fact, that shows lack of leadership.
Which you define as what? Not supporting Israel? I assure you Bush is not of that mindset. Nor are most Conservatives. As Rush says, it is in America's interest to support it's democratic ally.
I will bet he said exactly that to the Saudi Prince, in private, of course. Especially today, when it came out the Saudis are paying blood money to the families of terrorists.
I've said my piece about this, and don't see any need to pursue it further.
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.