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

Skip to comments.

Abizaid: World Could Abide Nuclear Iran
AP ^ | Sept 17 2007 | AP

Posted on 09/17/2007 10:29:06 PM PDT by freedomdefender

Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.

John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.

"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.

"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.

"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."

He stressed that he was expressing his personal opinion and that none of his remarks were based on his previous experience with U.S. contingency plans for potential military action against Iran.

Abizaid stressed the dangers of allowing more and more nations to build a nuclear arsenal. And while he said it is likely that Iran will make a technological breakthrough to obtain a nuclear bomb, "it's not inevitable."

Iran says its nuclear program is strictly for energy resources, not to build weapons.

Abizaid suggested military action to pre-empt Iran's nuclear ambitions might not be the wisest course.

"War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it — in my mind — to every extent that we can," he said. "On the other hand, we can't allow the Iranians to continue to push in ways that are injurious to our vital interests."

He suggested that many in Iran — perhaps even some in the Tehran government — are open to cooperating with the West. The thrust of his remarks was a call for patience in dealing with Iran, which President Bush early in his first term labeled one of the "axis of evil" nations, along with North Korea and Iraq.

He said there is a basis for hope that Iran, over time, will move away from its current anti-Western stance.

Abizaid's comments appeared to represent a more accommodating and hopeful stance toward Iran than prevails in the White House, which speaks frequently of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions. The administration says it seeks a diplomatic solution to complaints about Iran's alleged support for terrorism and its nuclear program, amid persistent rumors of preparations for a U.S. military strike.

Abizaid expressed confidence that the United States and the world community can manage the Iran problem.

"I believe the United States, with our great military power, can contain Iran — that the United States can deliver clear messages to the Iranians that makes it clear to them that while they may develop one or two nuclear weapons they'll never be able to compete with us in our true military might and power," he said.

He described Iran's government as reckless, with ambitions to dominate the Middle East.

"We need to press the international community as hard as we possibly can, and the Iranians, to cease and desist on the development of a nuclear weapon and we should not preclude any option that we may have to deal with it," he said. He then added his remark about finding ways to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Abizaid made his remarks in response to questions from his audience after delivering remarks about the major strategic challenges in the Middle East and Central Asia — the region in which he commanded U.S. forces from July 2003 until February 2007, when he was replaced by Adm. William Fallon.

The U.S. cut diplomatic relations with Iran shortly after the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Although both nations have made public and private attempts to improve relations, the Bush administration labeled Iran part of an "axis of evil," and Iranian leaders still refer to the United States as the Great Satan.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: abizaid; ahmadinejad; appeasement; capitulation; nevillechamberlain; spartansixdelta; surrender
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 09/17/2007 10:29:08 PM PDT by freedomdefender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

damn


2 posted on 09/17/2007 10:30:18 PM PDT by advertising guy (If computer skills named us, I'd be back-space delete.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

Glad he is retired.


3 posted on 09/17/2007 10:31:06 PM PDT by pissant (Duncan Hunter: Warrior, Statesman, Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

sounds like he’s out of the loop


4 posted on 09/17/2007 10:31:30 PM PDT by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Hey, I thought only Moveon critizes U.S. generals.


5 posted on 09/17/2007 10:32:00 PM PDT by freedomdefender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fitzcarraldo

senile is more like it.


6 posted on 09/17/2007 10:32:49 PM PDT by KantianBurke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

He’d probably feel welcome back in Lebanon, Italy, or someplace like that.


7 posted on 09/17/2007 10:35:16 PM PDT by familyop (U.S cbt. engr. (cbt.)--has-been, will write Duncan Hunter in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

Does he have as many stars as Petraus?


8 posted on 09/17/2007 10:36:24 PM PDT by freedomdefender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

Did I criticize him? He’s entitled to his opinions, which that is. And he served honorably. That does not make me not thankful that such an opinion is coming from a retired general as opposed to an active duty one.


9 posted on 09/17/2007 10:38:50 PM PDT by pissant (Duncan Hunter: Warrior, Statesman, Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

He did.


10 posted on 09/17/2007 10:39:20 PM PDT by familyop (U.S cbt. engr. (cbt.)--has-been, will write Duncan Hunter in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender
Hey, I thought only Moveon critizes U.S. generals.

Only Moveon calls them traitors.

11 posted on 09/17/2007 10:41:48 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

“Iran is not a suicide nation,” he said. “I mean, they may have some people in charge that don’t appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon.”

I agree, I doubt Iran intends to attack us with a nuke.

It’s Israel they will attack.


12 posted on 09/17/2007 10:43:31 PM PDT by SaxxonWoods (...."We're the govt, and we're here to hurt."....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender
Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran...

This first sentence is beyond shizo. "Every effort" means pulling out all the stops, including bombing them back beyond the stone age. But obviously the author doesn't mean he wrote, or he forgot what was written just after finishing the sentence. Or...

I can't figure out this diplomatic double-speak.

13 posted on 09/17/2007 10:50:55 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SaxxonWoods
"I agree, I doubt Iran intends to attack us with a nuke.

It’s Israel they will attack.
"

Being fed-up with anti-defense attitudes, I agree! Everyone, go back to sleep.

S. Korea, U.S. verifying reports on test of new N.K. missile in Iran: source
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1834307/posts
(4,000 kilometer range—will reach London and the Vatican—May 16th, 2007)

Israel: 'Arrow now gives full protection against Iran'
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1809063/posts
14 posted on 09/17/2007 11:00:01 PM PDT by familyop (U.S cbt. engr. (cbt.)--has-been, will write Duncan Hunter in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender
Seems Abazaid gets around
15 posted on 09/17/2007 11:01:21 PM PDT by KTM rider (the Socialist Oligarchy of Mexican Occupied States of America welcomes you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

let’s not piss em off right? I mean they already wants us dead, if we oppose them, they might wants us double dead!


16 posted on 09/17/2007 11:06:02 PM PDT by Cinnamon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender
"I believe the United States, with our great military power, can contain Iran — that the United States can deliver clear messages to the Iranians that makes it clear to them that while they may develop one or two nuclear weapons they'll never be able to compete with us in our true military might and power," he said.

Well, of course, the question is, will our superior military strength in fact be sufficient to contain a maniacal, suicidal atomic Iran? General Abazaid's four stars do not necessarily give him any greater insight into this question then I enjoy, or any reader possesses for that matter. He says they will not use the bomb against us and we all pray he is right, but how does he know? If he is wrong with the downside is intolerable, therefore, why should we base our foreign policy on his opinion?

The whole problem with Iran coming in to possession of the bomb is that they may not be deterable because they are fanatic and even suicidal in their lust for Armageddon. We cannot rely on general Abazaid and we cannot rely on the CIA because they have gotten everything wrong so far. We have to err on the side of prudence.

If we are having difficulty waging a asymmetrical warfare against a ragtag guerrilla in Iraq because we have not yet demonstrated, even with the surge, that we can defeat such an insurgency at a price Americans are willing to pay, why in the world would you believe that we could successfully wage a cold war with Iran? One suitcase bomb in one American city spells defeat for us. That is the very nature of asymmetrical warfare and we are simply not prepared to slug it out with atomic weapons.

If general Abazaid wants to lecture me about the strategic implications to, for example, the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz, or potential civil wars spreading to neighboring countries, in the event of an American strike to interdict Iran's nuclear program, I will listen with a thirsty ear. But I would also expect him to devote an equal time in his lecture to the strategic implications for upsetting the precarious balance of power in the Gulf region should the Iranians achieve the bomb.


17 posted on 09/17/2007 11:07:18 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

Love those liberals.

“I mean I doubt...........”

What the heck.. it must be nice to live in fantasy land.

I really doubt that someone would want to kill 6 million Jews.

I really doubt even a dictator would kill over 10 million of his fellow countrymen.

I really doubt that a (teacher-preacher-enter your favorite position here) would ever want to take advantage of their position with young children.

I really doubt anyone would ever kill someone just for a few dollars.

Sorry General.. Heaven on Earth hasn’t arrived yet... hate to break it to you.


18 posted on 09/17/2007 11:12:46 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

Another Clark.


19 posted on 09/17/2007 11:45:40 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy

What an idiot he is. Yes, we could survive such a scenario. This doesn’t mean it’s the scenario most likely to ensure peace or is even in the top 100 abidable scenarios.

Yeah, you can survive a car wreck, a gunshot wound, a gun pointed at your head by a crazed ex-employee, a would-be suicide bomber. Sure, you can abide it all, possibly, by toughing it out, slicking your way through it, or convincing an assailant to set your differences aside and shake hands.

OH yeah, no problem. It’s been done-—>As a last resort, general, you moron, after everything else, including combat with the assailant when YOU have the advantage, has failed.

Now apparently he figures we can wait until the gun is pointed at our heads and then reduce it to a previously solved problem: the Cold War, expecting the same result.

This guy is the biggest @ss clown the military has produced since John Murtha. He’s going to cause is great grief with this nonsense by giving people an excuse to sit idly by.


20 posted on 09/17/2007 11:51:17 PM PDT by kbingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
Sorry General.. Heaven on Earth hasn’t arrived yet... hate to break it to you.

Amen. I hate to say it, but the reason we knew that we could "live with" a nuclear Soviet Union or China is precisely because we understood that their leaders we self-aggrandizing, "more equal than others" Bolshevik atheists who were far more concerned with preserving their power (and staying alive to enjoy it) than, say, hastening the arrival of the 12th Imam. I think General Abizaid's ethnicity (I know, he's of Arab, not Persian, extraction, but from the Mid-East nonetheless) is playing him false on this one. I've seen more than one General Officer miscalculate what the enemy would do based on his perception of what he would do in a similar situation; sometimes you really do have to examine the "worst case scenario".

21 posted on 09/18/2007 12:00:02 AM PDT by pawdoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender
Evidently none of these idiots have learned any lessons from Patton.

Fight the war and keep your opinions to yourself.

Any general that doesn't understand that is probably not a very good general.

22 posted on 09/18/2007 12:04:49 AM PDT by Rome2000 (Peace is not an option)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kbingham

Total idiot!


23 posted on 09/18/2007 12:16:02 AM PDT by caffe (please, no more consensus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender
...but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."

With all due respect Mr. Retired General, I do not concur.... having said that, I must add my disclaimer that the opinion expressed by me, is my PERSONAL opinion, and may or may not reflect the opinion of the U.S. Governement Officials(NOT-RETIRED)

24 posted on 09/18/2007 12:38:51 AM PDT by davidosborne (http://DuncanHunter.meetup.com/1 - GrassRoots Organization(s) to elect Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: politicallyincarrect; /\XABN584; 3D-JOY; 5Madman; <1/1,000,000th%; 11B3; 1Peter2:16; ...

personally I am very surprised to hear this from Retired General Abizaid, I have had great respect for him in the past..


25 posted on 09/18/2007 12:41:38 AM PDT by davidosborne (http://DuncanHunter.meetup.com/1 - GrassRoots Organization(s) to elect Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender
Abizaid: World Could Abide Nuclear Iran

Of course we could. I just don't want to be downwind of the fallout.

26 posted on 09/18/2007 12:47:03 AM PDT by william clark (DH4WH08 - Ecclesiastes 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

In his defense, we should note that the world lives with a nuclear armed Pakistan, despite their shelter of extremist elements, despite their non-democratic government, and despite the fact that Pakistan has passed nuclear materials to other regimes including North Korea.

This is meant to be good, because Pakistan is our “ally” in the war on terror.


27 posted on 09/18/2007 12:49:19 AM PDT by BlackVeil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BlackVeil

I understand the “thought process” I just disagree with the conclusion... PERSONALLY that is...


28 posted on 09/18/2007 12:52:46 AM PDT by davidosborne (http://DuncanHunter.meetup.com/1 - GrassRoots Organization(s) to elect Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

BTTT


29 posted on 09/18/2007 2:55:52 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

This is a great example of the narrow vision of many military commanders...especially those who forgot how to deal with guerilla tactics after arriving in Iraq.

If Abizaid does not understand that the threat is not from a nuclear Iran, but the transfer of technology by Iran to terrorists organizations, then he deserves all the criticism that can be hurled his way.


30 posted on 09/18/2007 3:06:01 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (The Democratic Party will not exist in a few years....we are watching history unfold before us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

This is exactly why we need a President with a military background in the coming decade. One who is not afraid of anyone, and has the guts to say what needs to be said, and do what needs to be done.


31 posted on 09/18/2007 3:22:40 AM PDT by buckeye49 (DUNCAN HUNTER FOR PRESIDENT '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: buckeye49

Amen !


32 posted on 09/18/2007 3:34:18 AM PDT by davidosborne (http://DuncanHunter.meetup.com/1 - GrassRoots Organization(s) to elect Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender
Somehow or other, the Islamic nutbags are going to get a nuclear weapon. It will either be from North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, or on the black market. They will be likely to use it. They have expressed a desire to use it.

Iran, as well, has expressed more than just a desire to use nuclear weapons. The difference, they are a state actor, not an international movement without the internal resources to build one. Iran has expressed their direct intentions to use nuclear weapons against both Israel and us. Unless there is a regime change, the clock is ticking closer daily to that horrendous moment when Iran acquires them and they empoly them against us at their leisure. We either stop it by changing their regime or we stop it by destroying their program. Anything short of that is playing with our national survival and the survival of millions of our citizens.

"Living with it" means the odds are almost 100% that one day we will be on the receiving end of it. Can we survive it? Perhaps. Should we take the chance basing it on the hope they will act rationally? No.

Iran is already killing American troops in Iraq and doing all it can to destabilize the region and institute a new caliphate. For Abazaid to ignore the stated intentions and ongoing actions of a mortal enemy like Iran is nothing short of shocking. He is falling into the same diplospeak as the handwringers at the UN, the EU, and the worldwide Left.

33 posted on 09/18/2007 5:47:56 AM PDT by Gritty (A world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

Someone didn’t get the memo.....

Iran threatens missile attacks on US targets

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1898288/posts


34 posted on 09/18/2007 6:02:07 AM PDT by RasterMaster (Rudy McRomneyson = KENNEDY wing of the Republican Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

I kind of agree with the guy, and have said as much in the past. Once you go Nuclear, you are now in the MAD party with all the rest. A Nuclear Iran invites itself to be completely annihilated if they did anything stupid. No rational people would do anything stupid.... but.. and a BIG but.. Alot of those folks are irrational, by our standards anyways. That, and I dont trust them to not let some other nutbags have The Bomb. So all in all, I’d rather NOT have a nuclear Iran out there.


35 posted on 09/18/2007 8:05:11 AM PDT by Paradox (Politics: The art of convincing the populace that your delusions are superior to others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: caffe

Friends, there’s only way to counter this, “Hope is not a foreign policy.”
The very problem with a nuclear Iran is that they don’t pose the same risk as the Soviets who wanted to enjoy life as the elite.

The elite in Iran, the inspired mullah zealots have a completely different concept of themselves and the world and what it should be. They’ve made it completely clear what that amounts to in terms of the world.

It’s hardly reassuring. I respect the general for his service but I disagree.


36 posted on 09/18/2007 9:21:20 AM PDT by romanesq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: All; freedomdefender

I don’t think General Abizaid understands Jihad.


37 posted on 09/18/2007 9:44:08 AM PDT by Sun (Duncan Hunter: pro-life/borders, understands Red China threat! http://www.gohunter08.com/Home.aspx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buckeye49
This is exactly why we need a President with a military background in the coming decade.

This general has a military background. What he said sort of takes guts, because it's so out of line with the mainstream thinking that a nuclear Iran would be a catastrophe we couldn't handle. By saying that this isn't necessarily so, this general had to know he'd be called the kind of names ("senile," etc) that are being hurled against him on this post. So expressing independent thought took courage, in a sense.

38 posted on 09/18/2007 10:57:08 AM PDT by freedomdefender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender
"saying that this isn't necessarily so, this general had to know he'd be called the kind of names ("senile," etc) that are being hurled against him on this post. So expressing independent thought took courage, in a sense" Abazaid is a darling poster child of the "anti war" movement.... he has a long history iof this, add to that he is of questionable patriotic character in my book, seeing he is a first generation import from Saudi Arabia !

a fellow like Abazaid getting to that level is just plain bizzarre

39 posted on 09/18/2007 11:31:02 AM PDT by KTM rider (the Socialist Oligarchy of Mexican Occupied States of America welcomes you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender
"saying that this isn't necessarily so, this general had to know he'd be called the kind of names ("senile," etc) that are being hurled against him on this post. So expressing independent thought took courage, in a sense"

Abazaid is a darling poster child of the "anti war" movement.... he has a long history iof this, add to that he is of questionable patriotic character in my book, seeing he is a first generation import from Saudi Arabia !

a fellow like Abazaid getting to that level is just plain bizzarre, All arabs are smiling backstabbers and that is not "racism" it is a demographic reality

40 posted on 09/18/2007 11:33:23 AM PDT by KTM rider (the Socialist Oligarchy of Mexican Occupied States of America welcomes you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider
Abazaid is a darling poster child of the "anti war" movement.... he has a long history iof this, add to that he is of questionable patriotic character in my book, seeing he is a first generation import from Saudi Arabia !

He's a general in the same military as Petraeus. Why is it ok to call him names, but it's unpatriotic to call Petraeus names? Actually, I believe it's not "unpatriotic" to question ANY military man, including Petraeus. They're government workers, and I don't take any government employee's word as gospel without independent verification.

41 posted on 09/18/2007 11:38:45 AM PDT by freedomdefender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender
sorry, I apologize to you and Gen Abaziad, my information was false here is a link to the abazaid profile ....... john abazaid

however, it still makes me paranoid

42 posted on 09/18/2007 11:45:01 AM PDT by KTM rider ("global warming": the greatest socialist toll since " the children")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

What world is he talking about? surely not this one.


43 posted on 09/18/2007 12:54:05 PM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

Only Moveon calls them liars and traitors. Big difference.


44 posted on 09/18/2007 12:59:31 PM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy

Excellent post.


45 posted on 09/18/2007 1:02:14 PM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

This guy was the man in charge for four years......maybe he’s a big reason why we haven’t finished the job yet!!


46 posted on 09/18/2007 1:08:50 PM PDT by kenmcg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
Only Moveon calls them liars and traitors. Big difference.

Moveon called Petraeus a juvenile name, like some of the posters here are doing with this general. Different ideologies, same tactic.

47 posted on 09/18/2007 1:45:36 PM PDT by freedomdefender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider
Thank you for correcting the original information. Far too often misinformation is left to fester and/or float through the information channels causing huge problems.

Since I am on the thread,I would like to ask fellow Freepers to try to recall the last time any sane person or even more to the point,group of same persons,almost to a man believed that any ugly,miserable situation was the fault of one person or one side exclusively.

Reading articles and comments from Israeli-Jews in Israel sources,demonstrate that there is much more diversity of thought vis-a-vis the Mideast situation over there than over here. I would think that should cause some serious revisiting of the state of affairs.

48 posted on 09/18/2007 2:33:24 PM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender

I’m sorry,since you posted the thread I should have pinged you to my comment #48. Consider yourself pinged.


49 posted on 09/18/2007 2:35:23 PM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender
“Hey, I thought only Moveon critizes U.S. generals.”

There is nothing wrong with criticizing retired generals who are giving personal opinions. What Moveon did was call the general in charge of a current war a traitor. There is a big distinction.

50 posted on 09/18/2007 4:12:04 PM PDT by HwyChile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 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