Posted on 06/29/2005 6:03:08 AM PDT by OESY
President Bush told the nation last night that the war in Iraq was difficult but winnable. Only the first is clearly true. Despite buoyant cheerleading by administration officials, the military situation is at best unimproved. The Iraqi Army, despite Mr. Bush's optimistic descriptions, shows no signs of being able to control the country without American help for years to come. There are not enough American soldiers to carry out the job they have been sent to do, yet the strain of maintaining even this inadequate force is taking a terrible toll on the ability of the United States to defend its security on other fronts around the world.
We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation. But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks. We had hoped that he would seize the moment to tell the nation how he will define victory, and to give Americans a specific sense of how he intends to reach that goal - beyond repeating the same wishful scenario....
Most important of all - despite his lofty assurance last night that in the end the insurgents "cannot stop the advance of freedom" - all those years of effort and suffering could still end with the Iraqis turning on each other, or deciding that the American troops were the ultimate enemy after all. The critical challenge is to gauge, with a clear head, exactly when and if the tipping point arrives and the American presence is only making a terrible situation worse....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
What a cheerful Liberal :-)
From the same paper that had Abu Garib on the cover 26 times and the congressional visit to GITMO on page 19.
Is this the NYT or Scrappleface??? It's so hard to tell anymore.
The liberals want us to lose. Is there, or has there ever been, any doubt at all? They are the enemy within.
Hmmm, what was their position when we invaded North Africa in 1943 when it was the Japanese that had attacked us?
Why fight in Morrocco and Algeria when the real enemy was in the Pacific?
Did they talk "quagmire" after our stunning defeat at Kasserine Pass?
He's done this 4,245 times, and it has not changed. I am done thinking about liberals and their stupidity. Durbin, the NYT, and their ilk are on the wrong side of foreign policy issues 100% of the time, and they are irrelevant. We must move forward and ignore them. History will prove them wrong as has been the case for the last 40 years.
Don't let the MSM or e-mail friends get away with believing the Democrat's absolute lies that Saddam didn't have a relationship with AQ.
This is the Clinton Department federal indictment against OBL which states specifically his working with Iraq. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts?page=30#30
1999: Newsweek reports Saddam reaching out to OBL http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158277/posts
ABC news reports on the Osama/Saddam connections January 14, 1999. ABC News http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1229608/posts?page=1
Western Nightmare: Saddam and OBL versus the World. Iraq recruited OBL. February 6, 1999. The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html
Saddam's Link to OBL February 6, 1999. The Guardian http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts
Saddam offered asylum to bin Laden February 13, 1999. AP http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158274/posts
Son of Saddam coordinates with OBL. Iraqi Special Ops coordinates with Bin Laden's terrorist activities. August 6, 1999. Yossef Bodansky, National Press Club http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts
That and more here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327993/posts
Oh, and it looks like Iraq had advance notice of 9/11:
Less than two months before 9/11/01, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper “Al-Nasiriya” carried a column headlined, “American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin.” (July 21, 2001)
In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the US “with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.”
The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden “will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,” and that the US “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs” – an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, “New York, New York”. March 28, 2004, NewsMax http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1106657/posts?page=1
Catastrophic mistakes? Seriously, what catastrophic mistakes? I don't even know what lefty fantasy he's alluding to.
Patriotism, rallying and support are not words commonly used in liberal circles. Replace that with words such as question, debate and nuance.
And they wonder why their (NYT) ciculation is faltering.
So, the NY Times wants us to cut and run from Iraq just as we did in Viet Nam. What about the millions of Iraqis who will be butchered as a result?
Have the editors of the Times forgotten what happened in Southeast Asia when Americans ran away and left Asians to die by the millions? Or, perhaps they don't care.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
ewww
Yeah their idea of catastrophy is pretty murky...isn't it?
If you read this POS, and didn't know the last three years of history, you'ld assume the Taliban is still in power in Afgahnistan, Saddam Hussein and his son's are laughing it up having beaten us in Iraq, that there have been continued bombings of U.S. embassys, and repeated attacks on U.S.
soil.
NYT is an insult to paper, type, and thinking men and women everywhere.
The only possible way we can lose this war is if the Democrats take over the White House in 2008. Our enemies know that if they can just hold out until then and, in the meantime, have the left incite the American people against the war then victory can be theirs. How can the Democrats sleep at night? Their aiding of the enemy is the most shameful thing any group or party has ever done in the history of our country.
They don't care as long as they continue their agenda to make this administration look bad...and to think the NYT original founder was a Republican.
"Lets face it, Democrats are the American Terrorists."*
ADD: How should we best classify the NYT?
*(Pull quote from The Adventures of Chester.
...All praise and glory to "Herb". )
The Constitution mentions "enemies foriegn and domestic".
Another desperation act by the NYT to bouy up the "troops" in the efforts to defeat America and George Bush, regardless of the costs to our military and our country.
They know their side is losing!
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.