Posted on 01/18/2007 7:50:55 AM PST by jveritas
I ask again, isn't the reverse also true? He gets credit for the successes as well.
Instead of making the enemy tremble in fear, it gave them a focal phrase to energize them.
LOL, one of the more amusing criticisms you've offered. The enemy no more took that as a challenge than they would our postings here. They forgot it a week after it was said, unless you count the times the media dredged it up as you are doing on this thread.
Here's one I remember about Bush. An unannounced appearrance one afternoon not too many months after 9-11 where a steely-eyed Bush looked straight into the camera with a look in his eye that was dead-on serious and threatening and said "If you do this, we will hunt you down!"
That, joesbuck, was a message that the enemy KNEW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT was intended for it.
What it specifically pertained to, I don't want to speculate or know. I remember it made my blood run cold....then warm with admiration for Bush. Plus it's hard to argue with 5 years of no subsequent attacks on America and who knows how many plots thwarted in the meantime.
You're are doing a lot of moaning about being challenged here on FR. Perhaps it's YOUR view that's more than a little skewed.
I think we went into Iraq for many reasons.
Many don't seem to be aware that it was the official policy of the US to have a regime change in Iraq. This was signed into law by President Clinton (HR 4655 - The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998) in October of 1998. After the demands of the world were not met by Hussein regarding the many UN Resolutions regarding weapons insectors etc. the time was ripe to go in there - especially after what happened here in the USA on 9/11/01. True, it was not Iraq that attacked us but nonetheless, the toppling of the dictatorship of Hussein, especially with all of the intellegence regarding his contacts with al Quaeda as well as the reports regarding the attempts to purchase yellowcake from Niger (which that bumbling idiot Joe Wilson claims were debunked by his visit, when in fact they were affirmed) made it the right time to go in there.
Also - the location of Iraq. It is centrally located in that area of the world and a free and democratic nation (that would be an ally of the USA) right smack in the middle of that area of the world is an attractive idea.
Wasn't Saddam more an impediment to the establishment of Sharia law in Iraq than a supporter? Didn't we back him in his war with the radical Islamic regime in Iran?
Hussein was a dictator who did not implement Sharia law but his own dictatorial rules (that changed as he saw fit). We didn't back him as much as we backed a stalemate between the two countries - but yes, we did supply arms to him. That has nothing to do with the current Iraq war though. BAck when we were suppoting him the US had not been attacked on her home soil and the radical maniacs of Islam weren't as vocal and obvious about their goals.
Frankly, even if we had nothing but a rosey picture from the Dems and the media, we would still be in the same situation we are now. The Dems and the media are simply easy targets vs focusing on the real core problems and motivations of the middle east.
Not that JV is wrong but that his attitude that anyone who is not on his bus is guilty of treasonous behavior is pure BS.
And a heartfelt "Thank you" to you for your kind post! :) We're in the fight of our lives...and I cannot forget it and will remind anyone who will listen as often as I can.
That isn't what the President said. We are going to change the rules of engagement. He told Maliki we need to treat bad guys equally, not just the Sunni's. And more.
I did not say the war is not being fought correctly. I said we need to be more agressive, go on offense and kill the SOB's. You seem to imply that by my suggestions that we alter our tactics that I am saying and implying that we are losing and not fighting the war correctly. You read all that into my comments; seemingly in a zealous pursuit to label people with different viewpoints defeatists.
I would like all terrorist dead yesterday, but would settle for today. I can't be anymore clear.
Hi Allegra. It's cold, here, in your home state. Thanks for helping out, "over there". You and your fellow civilian employees are greatly appreciated by us old timers.
Of course you may believe what you desire. But if the President believes it is an issue, then it must have been something that didn't have positive consequences.
As for his steely eyed look. Yep, had I been in his sights, it would have freeked the bejesus out of me. The problem is, I ain't the enemy that is being fought. They work from an entirely different mindset. I could never be a car bomber. Seems they don't have a draught finding those more than willing to be one. I couldn't behead someone. Clearly, they can.
The one thing I expected during Saddam's execution was him kicking, screaming, crying.....anything we'd consider cowardly. I hate to say this. He took it more like a man more than most people I know. Sure, he had no choice......but most dictators are sniveling cowards. He didn't snivel. He didn't cry. He didn't cry out for mercy from his executioners. I'm sure those who are the enemy who are in the trenches have less emotion than he has. They simply don't care.
So sure, the President could have struck fear into you and me with his expression and comments. I believe it didn't have that effect on the enemy. Maybe even quite the contrary.
Exactly.
--Yes it is very sad that some conservatives and despite all the proof in the captured Iraqi documents still believe that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism and he did not have any secret WMD programs and thereofre we should not have gone into Iraq.--
That depends on the definition of conservative...such people either are unwilling to study the issues in depth, or are merely "social" or "fiscal" conservatives like Pat Buchanan or Ben Stein, who simply don't get it on post-9/11 foreign policy.
BRAVO! APPLAUSE! FREEP'IN STANDING OVATION! BUMP!!!
I guess those were imaginary rounds hitting my Slick?
Those 58,000+ names on the Wall - - not names of real people?
We jokingly called it The SE Asian War Games, but I thought it was real.
How easily you dismiss 5 years of no further attacks. Boggles the mind joesbuck, but you are very good at denying success while always armed with Bush-criticism, no matter how far you have to reach forward or backward to try to justify it. Quite laughable but also pathetic.
Oh, and here's a tip for you. Saddam was sedated before his hanging. Or hadn't you figured that out...?
Why am I so not surprised that you are posting admiration for Saddam over Bush....
I'm afraid it's more complicated than that. Yes, victory in Iraq is necessary to maintain the credibility of the West; however, it is not the end of the matter. Iran is a wellspring of terrorism; the madrassas in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia spew hatred.
Defeat of the Islamists will take a long time, because it requires more than military victory - their ideas must be proven failures. We can take steps towards this - we should win in Iraq, yes, but additionally, we need to stop being dependent on the Middle East for energy. A sensible policy of building nuclear power stations and reducing consumption of petrol by encouraging the use of diesel is a start towards this. The long term effect would be to rob Islamists of the money to wage war and to show that Islamism provides neither prosperity nor stability.
The one final comment I would add: FreeRepublic has had a lot of bitterness and anger lately. People need to shake off their grudges, be calm and unite - we can be sure that in their lust for power, the Democrats will come together - a fractured conservative movement will not help.
Regards, Ivan
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.