Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP war support showing cracks
Washington Times & UPI ^ | September 11, 2005

Posted on 09/11/2005 8:35:10 PM PDT by jmc1969

Edited on 09/11/2005 8:42:44 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

Staunch supporters of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq have become more vocal with their concern over the way things are going.

Andrew Bacevich, a Vietnam veteran and professor of international relations at Boston University, said he sees a marked shift.


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: gwot; handwringers; rino; rinos
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
Chuck Hagel and the RINOs are worried.
1 posted on 09/11/2005 8:35:12 PM PDT by jmc1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

Yes it's true, we are all abandoning the war effort. Anybody know how to join the Cindy Sheehan campaign?


2 posted on 09/11/2005 8:38:04 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: jmc1969

Happens every time I disrobe.


4 posted on 09/11/2005 8:41:52 PM PDT by NY Attitude (You are responsible for your safety until the arrival of Law Enforcement Officers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

I guess Katrina is fading from the bright white lite of the media's attention span. I guess they are bored and will now turn to other ways to screw the President.
If the GOP has any sense, they'd realize that that really loud noise they hear off in the distance is the sound of the Democrats clearing out their desks.
If the media had any sense they'd realize that sound THEY are hearing is their collective influence being flushed.
Music comes in many forms, does it not?


5 posted on 09/11/2005 8:42:24 PM PDT by nitejohnboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of international relations at Boston University. A graduate of the U. S. Military Academy, he received his Ph. D. in American Diplomatic History from Princeton University. Before joining the faculty of Boston University in 1998, he taught at West Point and at Johns Hopkins University.

Dr. Bacevich is the author most recently of The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War (2005). His previous books include American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U. S. Diplomacy (2002) and The Imperial Tense: Problems and Prospects of American Empire (2003). His essays and reviews have appeared in a wide variety of scholarly and general interest publications including The Wilson Quarterly, The National Interest, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The Nation, The American Conservative, and The New Republic. His op-eds have appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today, among other newspapers.

Professor Bacevich served for seven years, from 1998 to the summer of 2005, as the Director of the Center for International Relations at Boston University. In 2004, Dr. Bacevich was a Berlin Prize Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin. He has also been a fellow of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. Dr. Bacevich has been the recipient of numerous awards and grants, including the Moncado Prize given by the Society for Military History and the Arter-Darby Military History Writing Award.

6 posted on 09/11/2005 8:42:54 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie ("Avoid novelties, for every novelty is an innovation, and every innovation is an error. " - Mohammed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven

Good job


7 posted on 09/11/2005 8:43:56 PM PDT by jmc1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven
The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War

Well that's certainly an unbiased source.

8 posted on 09/11/2005 8:44:16 PM PDT by Numbers Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

He'll be on CNN and pMSNBC tomorrow with a headline like that!


9 posted on 09/11/2005 8:45:10 PM PDT by Mister Baredog ((Minuteman at heart, couch potato in reality))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
But Republican pollster David Winston cautioned against interpreting concern over war strategy as skittishness from the President's base and a lack of support for war overall.

BINGO

10 posted on 09/11/2005 8:48:07 PM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

IDIOTIC ARTICLE:

"Staunch supporters of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq have become more vocal with their concern over the way things are going."

NOPE. The ones who get the air-time are the ones who are NOT supporters. Most supporters see the progress made and support continuing until we win.

"Andrew Bacevich, a Vietnam veteran and professor of international relations at Boston University, said he sees a marked shift. "There are people who view themselves on the right, who were enthusiastic supporters of the war, who are now greatly concerned that the Bush administration or more in particular, the military, is losing its focus, its heart, and isn't fully committed," he told Fox News."

More hogwash. Why doesn't this article mention, even briefly the fact that we killed hundreds of terrorists in recent days, the fact that constitutional elections are scheduled, that the Iraqi army improves each day, etc.? There clearly is a commitment to win using a strategy of giving more responsibility for security to Iraqi forces as they are able to take it up.

"President Bush has said repeatedly there will be no exit timetable, but some of his supporters are saying the White House needs to be clearer about its strategy."

Another semantic bait-and-switch. No time-table because there is no plan to exit until the job is done, but a clear strategy of training the Iraqi security forces, establishing the legitimate democratic Government of Iraq, and rebuilding the country so Iraq is a free, sovereign, stable nation.

"Peter Beinart, editor of The New Republic, said Republicans have become more vocal about needing clarification on the war strategy and a better explanation to the American public."

A Liberal notes that some Republicans, seeing the media bias, want better PR campaign from the White House. I'm underwhelmed. The false implication is that there isn't a 'war strategy', which is a lie. There is one and it is executed every day.


"But Republican pollster David Winston cautioned against interpreting concern over war strategy as skittishness from the President's base and a lack of support for war overall. "There is still support for this war," Winston said. What people are looking for from the president, he said, are more specifics and measures for success."

This statement is a fair assessment. The Bush white house, gun-shy about making specific claims of success, due to the media ignoring those proven right and emphasizing nay claim that later founders, has fallen back to generalities and bromides. It's a pity. If the President were to announce what I've mentioned, that we killed a number of top terrorist leaders in Iraq in recent months, that the Iraqi army now has more battalions in active pursuit of terrorists than ever before ... that would mean something.

This article distorts lack of PR for a strategy into 'lack of strategy'. I hate media bias.


11 posted on 09/11/2005 8:48:13 PM PDT by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

Nuts


12 posted on 09/11/2005 8:51:07 PM PDT by armymarinemom (My sons freed Iraqi and Afghanistan Honor Roll students.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

Flawed thoughts on war

Oxford University Press, $28

by James S. Robbins

Andrew J. Bacevich promises that his new book will be about "misleading and dangerous conceptions of war, soldiers, and military institutions." Sure enough, his earnest tome is full of them.

War has become an unhealthy obsession for American society says Bacevich, a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran who is now a professor at Boston University. In "The New American Militarism," he argues that a combination of Wilsonian foreign policy and dominant military strength have seduced us. The result is a rising tide of militarism on both left and right that is leading to financial and spiritual ruin

Unfortunately for Bacevich, who poses as a kind of cultural conservative even though he has written recently for the New Left Review, his argument rapidly breaks down. He portrays today's all-volunteer force as a symptom of militarism, preferring instead the golden days of the 1950s and 1960s when "citizenship and military service remained intimately connected." Does he really believe that conscription during the Cold War was less militaristic than present-day voluntarism?

Another alleged symptom of militarism is the lack of service records among many of our politicians. Bacevich argues that decision makers who "opted out" of service are less sensitive to the sacrifices of war, and thus more willing to use force. Perhaps that makes intuitive sense to Bacevich, but he can't prove that this phenomenon exists because there's no clear evidence for it. So he satisfies himself by calling it a "paradox" and moves on. By his reasoning, our society would be less militaristic if our politicians were retired generals and admirals. In jabbing at the president's landing on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003, Bacevich says Bush sought to become the "first warrior President." (Hello, George Washington?)

The defense budget is another sore point for Bacevich He notes that military spending is currently 12 percent larger than the inflation-adjusted average during the Cold War. He takes this as proof of a wasteful obsession - a reckless willingness to spend more even as threats decline. That is one way of looking at it. A better way, however, is to analyze defense spending as a percentage of GDP. In 2003, the United States spent 3.7 percent of GDP on the military. The average per year from 1949-1989 was 7.6 percent, more than double today's rate. Combined with higher operations tempo, it indicates not that our country has grown more preoccupied with wielding global power, but more efficient at it.

In one of the most puzzling sections of "The New American Militarism," Bacevich castigates the armed services for their emphasis on "dominance," which the Defense Department defines as having enough power to act freely on the battlefield. "When it comes to military power," he chides, "mere superiority will not suffice." No, but dominance sure is nice - even for the losers. Bacevich ignores the fact that overwhelming power saves lives. It is not only an effective deterrent, but if we do go to war, we have the capability of finishing the conflict swiftly and with fewer casualties on both sides. Bacevich denounces the brutality of 20th-century warfare, such as the grinding trench combat of World War I, but that is precisely what today's military leaders have sought to avoid, and very successfully.

Bacevich also frets over the United States spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined. So how much of our edge must we give up? Perhaps he would be happy if our potential foes evened the balance by spending more. By this logic, more North Korean nukes, more Syrian scuds, more Iranian rockets, more Venezuelan fighter jets, and more Chinese troops would make the world a safer place.

Throughout the book, Bacevich ignores important distinctions between the Clinton and Bush years and seeks commonalities that strain credulity. He makes light of the sterile technocratic defense ethos of the 1990s without drawing the obvious conclusion that it was this impression of moral weakness that emboldened Osama bin Laden to bring his war to the American homeland. He also refuses to acknowledge that by the time al-Qaida did strike, the United States had a new leader who didn't shrink from using overwhelming force against our enemies. It is perhaps worth noting that in 2001, Bacevich was warning National Review readers that the U.S. war in Afghanistan was a terrible failure. "Caution and half-heartedness - not boldness, not ferocity - have been this campaign's signature characteristics," he wrote, adopting a rather militaristic tone. About a week later, the Taliban regime fell.

Bacevich's solutions to the new militarism are about what you would expect. He calls for more self-restraint when crises erupt, increased congressional involvement in security policy, reduced defense spending, and emphasis on non-military means of coercion such as economic sanctions (which, in the case of Iraq, succeeded mainly at making Saddam Hussein and U.N. appeasers wealthy). But these rather moderate fixes address a problem that exists only in Bacevich's imagination. The U.S. military is active today more by necessity than choice. We live in a time of global instability, due in large measure to our victory in the Cold War and the decline of the Soviet Union. Bacevich's fundamental concern is less with the military than America's inherited position of global leadership.

Well, why shouldn't the United States be the dominant military power in the world? Who better?

James S. Robbins is senior fellow in national-security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council.

http://www.dcexaminer.com/articles/2005/04/22//opinion/books%20and%20culture//85books18robbins.txt


13 posted on 09/11/2005 8:51:16 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie ("Avoid novelties, for every novelty is an innovation, and every innovation is an error. " - Mohammed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

I stand behind this war with all that is within me. Only those who are totally uniformed are not behind it. That is this lady's opinion anyway.


14 posted on 09/11/2005 8:52:34 PM PDT by ladyinred (It is all my fault okay?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
["There are people who view themselves on the right, who were enthusiastic supporters of the war, who are now greatly concerned that the Bush administration or more in particular, the military, is losing its focus, its heart, and isn't fully committed," he told Fox News.]


And to assume that it means they are lessening their support for the war would be wrong.

Those people (myself included) want there to be a little less concern for making this war seem more humane in a futile attempt to try to placate the cowardly and the pacifists among us, and a little more concern for killing as many jihadists as possible, regardless of whose skirts (or burkas) they're hiding behind.
15 posted on 09/11/2005 8:52:55 PM PDT by spinestein (Forget the Golden Rule. Remember the Brazen Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

Why is this still even being called a "war?" It's not a war.


16 posted on 09/11/2005 8:53:08 PM PDT by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven

He went over to the dark side. Too bad.


17 posted on 09/11/2005 8:53:44 PM PDT by Archidamus (We are wise because we are not so highly educated as to look down on our laws and customs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred

I agree. I hope the President does too.


18 posted on 09/11/2005 8:55:40 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
Andrew Bacevich, a Vietnam veteran and professor of international relations at Boston University

Humph. (Farrrr left wing guy)
If this guy feels he has to publicly spew this venom, that means Bush isn't doing so bad after all.

19 posted on 09/11/2005 8:58:47 PM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

Ah, yes, we've all seen the light and will vote for the counterpart to Kerry in the GOP; That much acclaimed RINO Chuck Hagel.

What this article means is that they've finally recognized that Democrats and the Cindy S's of the world with the support of the press cannot defeat the war. What they have realized is what the Libs have realized on judges, the only way to defeat the war is to break the Republican base. Because the Democrats only power is limited to obstruction. They cannot end this war.

They tried to splinter the base over Roberts. Now they are going to actively try to encourage us to follow the RINO off the cliff. They can go to hell.

I don't back down for ANY damn RINO or Liberal agenda. The only thing the Republicans need to worry about is offending me to the point where I say they are of no use to me anymore. And that point arrives when they cannot be counted on even in the WOT, Judges and taxes. If the Reps turn tail and run on the WOT, I withdraw my vote, buy a gun, and defend myself here at home from the incoming terrorist threat because it's damned sure neither Rep or Dem would do it.

That's what they had better understand clearly. If I want a Liberal pacifist that hikes my taxes and promotes Ginsburg's and O'Connor's intentionally, I'd vote Democrat. I don't want that, so I vote Rep. Become a Democrat, lose your majority.


20 posted on 09/11/2005 8:59:00 PM PDT by Soul Seeker (Barbour/Honore in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

Well, he gambled his election on this war and poll numbers, so yeah, I think it's a safe bet the President feels the same way...


21 posted on 09/11/2005 9:00:46 PM PDT by Soul Seeker (Barbour/Honore in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven

Resume makes him part of the East Coast Establishmernt;hence as much at odds with Bush as Pat Buchanan .


22 posted on 09/11/2005 9:02:22 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
People get war-weary.

Even during WWII people were starting to get sick of the war towards the end.

And unrest war beginning to develop among the GI's from the European theatre when it appeared that they might be sent ot the Pacific.

Nuking Japan is very likely to have saved us problems here on the home front.

23 posted on 09/11/2005 9:02:31 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

Weak Links Should Be Sawed Off And Replaced!


24 posted on 09/11/2005 9:03:50 PM PDT by stocksthatgoup (Polls = Proof that when the MSM want your opinion they will give it to you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spinestein
It is the RINOs like Turncoat John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Arlen (Magic Bullet) Specter and few sundry others in the Republican Party that have thrown in the towel. That is so that they can get their uggy mugs on the tube.
25 posted on 09/11/2005 9:04:11 PM PDT by stan_25 (If you canít run with the big dogs, stay on the porch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
"Why is this still even being called a "war?" It's not a war."

Then what is it?

26 posted on 09/11/2005 9:05:38 PM PDT by blackbart.223 (I live in Northern Nevada. Reid doesn't represent me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: spinestein
WOW! I agree with you.

This war on terrorism is an UGLY WAR, unlike any other, and war is always hell, no matter what.

Hey panty waisted liberals....get used to it...

Get out of the way of our troops, donate your peace symbols to the nearest Good Will Store, start caring about terrorism as a global threat, BE HAPPY that so far we have avoided major attacks here since 9/11, ACKNOWLEDGE that the United States has demonstrated to the terrorists that WE MEAN BUSINESS, will not act like pussy coated whiney liberal cowards, and have put the UN on notice that UN RESOLUTIONS (to defeated tyrants at any rate) actually MEAN SOMETHING!

Be GLAD that we have flipped off PC popularity seekers and do what is necessary to secure our homeland and are attempting to secure an important nation in the Middle East, two actually, well, THREE if you count Kuwait, as an incredibly visionary means of bringing these nations into the world of democratic principles.

27 posted on 09/11/2005 9:05:41 PM PDT by Republic (Michael Schiavo murdered Terri Schindler.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven
"To a large degree, the way you use force is determined by the sort of forces that you have at hand to employ," said Bacevich, who said he supports Kerry but is playing no role in his campaign.

I guess it's too much to ask the MSM to find an actual Republican who previously supported the President but who now disagrees with the President's policy in Iraq. Could it be though that it is kind of difficult to find such a Republican given that Bush got around 90% of the Republican vote in the last election.

28 posted on 09/11/2005 9:06:47 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
Good job


Tomorrow, or it is today, we start a new blame-game chapter in the LSM; the John Roberts' hearings!!!
29 posted on 09/11/2005 9:14:05 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

A nation that can't handle 2,000 military casualties after sustaining 3,000 civilian casualties won't be around very long.


30 posted on 09/11/2005 9:23:53 PM PDT by tomahawk (Proud to be an enemy of Islam (check out www.prophetofdoom.net))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stan_25
I was referring to grassroots supporters, not politicians, though my take on the article is that it was referring to elected officials in particular.
31 posted on 09/11/2005 9:29:35 PM PDT by spinestein (Forget the Golden Rule. Remember the Brazen Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk

Great post!

And since I think it bears repeating, I'll repeat it:

[A nation that can't handle 2,000 military casualties after sustaining 3,000 civilian casualties won't be around very long.]


32 posted on 09/11/2005 9:32:41 PM PDT by spinestein (Forget the Golden Rule. Remember the Brazen Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

Good rebutal. Thanks. As our and the Iraqi forces relentlessly cream the remaining local and foreign insurgents and the Iraqi border is effectively closed, then the voting over the constituion goes through etc., more crap will have to be generated by so called experts. One things for certain, the L/MSM cannot allow any positive comments about the Iraqi SASO to leak out. All they do is do a real quick report on something like Tal Afar, so they don't appear fully neglegent.
Meantion that some alleged freedom fighters appear to have been injured, and five Iraqi soldiers killed in action, with treats of terrible consequencies if the US/Iraq army do not pull out. And the masses of morons follow the shit like a fly goes to jelly. Tis life in the good old US of A.


33 posted on 09/11/2005 9:34:33 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven
In jabbing at the president's landing on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003, Bacevich says Bush sought to become the "first warrior President." (Hello, George Washington?)

Not to mention Jackson, Grant, T. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennedy... just to name a few off of the top of my head. This guy is a complete cretin.

APf

34 posted on 09/11/2005 9:44:53 PM PDT by APFel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
What people are looking for from the president, he said, are more specifics and measures for success.

The President has repeated a consistent, specific measurement for success, Simply put the message has been, "As Iraqis stand up, Americans will stand down.".

What people are looking at every evening is a co-ordinated effort by the liberals and their willing accomplices in the MSM to convince us, "Americans will never be able to stand down because Iraqi's will never be able to stand up.".

Every poll has the questions constructed to elicit polling numbers which reflect an ever increasing Bush is failing response. How many of the people who say they are not happy with Bush's handling of the war are not happy because they feel our military is not being allowed to simply pulverize the enemy before they cross the Syrian or Iranian borders? If this question were asked I think you would find the American people overwhelmingly support the war.

35 posted on 09/11/2005 9:45:08 PM PDT by hflynn ( Soros wouldn't make any sense even if he spelled his name backwards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
Chuck Hagel and the RINOs are worried.

They should be. They know that no one will vote for pussies!

36 posted on 09/11/2005 9:47:26 PM PDT by Bommer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

To Hell with those bastards! We are 4 years removed from 9-11 and all they think about are themselves.
Any RINO runs for President in 08-- I'm not voting, not like I would've really wanted to well........unless Hitlery is running then I'll have to hold my nose and pull the lever. I forgot about that B!t#h.


37 posted on 09/11/2005 9:48:21 PM PDT by CommieCutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred

Of coarse they're misinformed. How many of them listen to the news and here about us fighting "insurgents" and not terrorists.
It's so frustrating hearing people repeat this garbage and thinking they're up to speed with what is going on.


38 posted on 09/11/2005 9:53:32 PM PDT by CommieCutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

In order to suceed in Iraq, we must stop the "insurgents".

That means taking out Syria and taking out Iran.

But in both cases, we should simply destroy their military capacity and infrastructure - then, after we have wasted them, pull out.

Let the cry babies in the U.N. worry about reconstruction.


39 posted on 09/11/2005 9:58:52 PM PDT by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven
Yes. I would put him in the "Used to be GOP supporter of the war" category.

/sarcasm
(This tag has been provided as a courtesy for the sarcastically impaired.)

40 posted on 09/11/2005 10:03:18 PM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
I know Andy Bacevich well. I've joined him for conferences up in Boston that he and BU hosted, as well as met him at other venues. He was always a pleasant enough man, but look him up. He is very left wing, and a staunch Democrat. Has hated Bush from the start. Not surprised at his comments. (I am June Cleaver's husband; too lazy to log in as myself)
41 posted on 09/11/2005 10:06:05 PM PDT by June Cleaver (in here, Ward . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
Why is this still even being called a "war?" It's not a war.

What would you call it, then?

42 posted on 09/11/2005 10:09:47 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

The war on terror, the war against the Islamo-fascists responsible for 9/11 (UPI: please review the photos of the WTC jumpers)is not about the Republican Party. It's not about Hagel, McCain, Warner and the rest of the RINOS. It's not about who is the latest Republican to raise the white flag. It's about the future and safety of America.
God bless our troops and our President and those elected officials who stand behind them through thick and thin.
God bless America.


43 posted on 09/11/2005 10:17:08 PM PDT by citizencon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

OK, I know this is wrong but why is it every time I see the title "Professor" before someone's name my automatic thought process says "idiot".


44 posted on 09/11/2005 10:29:00 PM PDT by angelsonmyside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01

I don't know.


45 posted on 09/11/2005 11:00:02 PM PDT by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

Heck, I thought someone had MOONED the traitors!


46 posted on 09/11/2005 11:03:12 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

Yeah, lots of commie professors are seeing bad things about Bush. I'm shocked.


47 posted on 09/11/2005 11:12:22 PM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
But look at the difference between "war weary" in WWII and now!

WHile it is little consolation for those who have lost loved ones, there were five times the number of Allied casualties on D-Day (one day!) that we have had in the entire Iraq war.

Maybe we should remember 9/11/01! Some people seem to have forgotten.

As for the general population, this is no hardship, our lives have not been as greatly changed.

Prices of some things are up, but we have no rationing now (unlike WWII).

A fraction of the people are directly involved in the prosecution of the war, with a small fraction of the number of soldiers serving.

We have not quit making new models of automobiles for the public, (check the model years, there were 1941 models, and 1946/7 models, but there were not many 1942,3,4,or 1945 model cars.

Everything was about the war effort, from rationing to scrap drives. (BUY WAR BONDS!) Even books were printed with special typesets and cheaper paper as part of the war effort.

Most people nowadays do not even personally know a soldier involved in the fighting in Iraq.

If we are "war weary", then we are truly just a faded shadow of the generation which grew up during the Great Depression.

48 posted on 09/11/2005 11:18:43 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Smokin' Joe wrote: But look at the difference between "war weary" in WWII and now! WHile it is little consolation for those who have lost loved ones, there were five times the number of Allied casualties on D-Day (one day!) that we have had in the entire Iraq war. Maybe we should remember 9/11/01! Some people seem to have forgotten. As for the general population, this is no hardship, our lives have not been as greatly changed. Prices of some things are up, but we have no rationing now (unlike WWII). A fraction of the people are directly involved in the prosecution of the war, with a small fraction of the number of soldiers serving. We have not quit making new models of automobiles for the public, (check the model years, there were 1941 models, and 1946/7 models, but there were not many 1942,3,4,or 1945 model cars. Everything was about the war effort, from rationing to scrap drives. (BUY WAR BONDS!) Even books were printed with special typesets and cheaper paper as part of the war effort. Most people nowadays do not even personally know a soldier involved in the fighting in Iraq. If we are "war weary", then we are truly just a faded shadow of the generation which grew up during the Great Depression.

On the other hand, radio, the movies and print media were constantly delivering a flag-waving, pro-war effort message.

There was a concentrated campaign to keep the civilian morale up, something that is largely non-existant today.

And while rationing created hardships, it also gave the people on the home front the sense that they were in the war along with the GIs.

49 posted on 09/11/2005 11:41:18 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
On the other hand, radio, the movies and print media were constantly delivering a flag-waving, pro-war effort message.

There was a concentrated campaign to keep the civilian morale up, something that is largely non-existant today.

And while rationing created hardships, it also gave the people on the home front the sense that they were in the war along with the GIs.

All very good points.

So, I guess the question is one of when it became acceptable, if not fashionable for our media to be against the war effort?

Certainly, this had happened, for the most part by 1968, but did this begin during Korea?

Was this the New Left's backlash to the McCarthy Era--the hearings of the Committee to investigate un-American activites?

Many of those so-called "witch hunts" have actually been vindicated over time.

Or is it just that the MSM, print, and others have become so saturated with Socialists?

Perhaps the bottom line is that this may be the reason for the slide on the MSM's viewership, and the decline in print media as well as folks leave those media behind in the quest for the other side of the story.

50 posted on 09/12/2005 12:04:46 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson