Free Republic

Oddly enough, they didn’t say what Bush’s reaction was. I know what *I* would say.

The problem is, anytime you remind people of the failings of the left wing, they call it an attack or.... being swift boated.

*laughing* Hagel is nothing more than a prop for Obama. What a fool!

Catch this ping Kaslin and check out the link.

I have never seen a peace demonstration since the late 60’s. Back then they were like going to big parties. It was something to do. I wonder if they’re as useless as they were back then?

It seems they’ve already went public when they said, “In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn’t need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it’s our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.”

Well, Obama could be the first European President. I would be fine with that. He’s well suited for their temperament. I think he should go there and stay there.

A lie. He consistently opposed the Iraq War. That's the only principled position he's ever taken. But he's wrong about it - dead wrong!

Actually, Obama has been all over the map on this issue as well and when he was asked if he could have voted to authorize Bush to use military force against Iraq, Obama said he didn't know.

In 2004 he sung a different tune. "The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."

And yes.... he expressed that we should not go to war with Iraq with these reasons.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Why was it a dumb war? He didn't say. He just thought it was a dumb war but from where I sit, he didn't know.

However, listening to his speech further, he gave a good case for war.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I like this part the best for his reasoning for going to war with Iraq is dumb.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length?
at undetermined cost?
with undetermined consequences?

That struck mme funny some how.

I figure the Europeans are a fickled lot. Right now... they think of Obama as a novelty... something that never happened before.... sort of like a monkey in a new pin striped suit but as soon as he makes policies that doesn’t agree with theirs, they’ll dump on him like anyone else.

Obama would first try to please every one all at once and wind up stepping on some toes... hurt someone’s feelings or/and he’ll, in trying to please, switch positions so often no one will know what his policies are.

He doesn’t have the backbone to make commitments and stick by them. He’ll want to be all things to everyone.

I agree with the writer though.

Also.... the left have been unhinged even now.... they’ll go ballistic if they lose another election and I wouldn’t be surprise if another screwball with a Jody Foster fixation would be gunning for McCain.

It’s my strongest opinion that in this country it seems that the left has the good share of the crackpots and kooks and the rioting in this country have always been on the democrat side... They hear someone make a speech that they don;t like, they’ll try to shout down the speaker if not throw food or body fluids or even.. spit on who they disagree with.

If Obama loses..... it’ll get real ugly fast!

It seems to me, Iraq had a lot more to fight for than Afghanistan. I also believe that Saddam and Bin Laden struck up a deal.

Thirdly, I think Bin Laden believed that after a few body bags, we would have packed up and went home.... just as the Democrats have been wanting to do. Before the troop surge, it must have seemed to them they won seeing all the pressures Bush was getting from home but Bush took a lot different approach and that is what sunk the Al Qaeda’s hopes.

That... and Al Sadr pulled back for a while so our troops could focus a lot on driving Al Qaeda back home.

The national debt under Clinton was about 6 to 7 trillion dollars. The absolute lowest it was during his term was 5.7 trillion.

how is that a surplus?

I thought you would find this interesting. PING!

I think they have more pressing matters to focus on... things like clearing way for drilling for more of our domestic oil and not some distraction bull overseas.

Thank you Kaslin *BG*

Notice Capps didn’t come with any better ideas. The only energy policies of the left is, sue OPEC for more oil.

That is a lot of money to push the blame on their own doing.

The Democrats are so spineless that they are not able to accept responsibility for their own actions.

HA!

I don’t think THAT post will be around long but I kept the info anyway.... just in case it all of a sudden vanishes.

I think all their home addresses should be published.

Thanks!

And that is why they’re gaining a good foothold in Europe and the U.S. will be next.

But then again each time attacks come from “Hezbollah guerrillas”.... Israel could send Iran over a nuke.... light them up like a roman candle.