Bush says `no debate' about his keeping US safe

I don;t see a single warrant for any of your analogies.’

No one supported President Bush’s surge in 2006. The man stood alone and prevailed on a question that all Bush reactionaries by the millions feasted upon his foolishness to not admit that Saddam Hussein was a fantastic leader and good for all of humanity.

Ultimately, his decision decisively defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda claimed throughout the conflict that Iraq was their decisive victory over the United States. It would be America’s second Vietnam. Had that proven true, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Shia Iran, and the entire network of Islamic Fascism would be profoundly propelled forward in its capacity to attack our homeland. It is unlikely that major attacks would have failed to escalate and that hordes of delighted militants and even dreadfully reluctant recruits within Iraq would have militarized for further annihilations of allies such as Israel.

Your denunciation of the “Bush Bull” is the height of preposterous and without question— an American soldier killer.

The Constitution clearly specifies the role of Commander in Chief as among the most defined of President’s power— as opposed to budgetary issues and a slew of obviously Congressional responsibilities faux conservatives love to foist upon President Bush. Your sloppy list of analogies is devoid of any Constitutional sense. Filled with bogus rage at some allegedly authentic conservative view, you lash out at one of our greatest leaders who indeed stood tall at a Global Gettysburg and has ushered in the OPPORTUNITY to defeat one of the most dangerous social movements humanity has ever known.

Your comments are utterly contemptously foolish but sadly typical of this Nation.

It is true no terrorist attack has been reported to have occured in the US since 911. Although, we did have some suspect events occur where terrorism was immediately ruled out. Ruled out before any investigation was began much less concluded.

The fact is Bush was so focussed on defending Iraqi freedom err...I mean fighting terrorism in Iraq, that he left our back door wide open to illegal immigrants. Negligence of this magnitude cannot possibly be viewed as keeping the US safe Mr. Presidente.

We must guard the back door as well as we guard the front door. But even that doesn’t protect us from the legal immigration of potential terrorists. The 911 terrorists arrived here with the proper paperwork. How many more of them have arrived since? I doubt anyone knows since we are too busy defending Iraqi freedom...err I mean fighting terrorism in Iraq.

If/when we are attacked again the first thing I will want to know is if they came in over our open borders. If so, the blame will lie quarely on a president who refused to close our borders at a time of war.

Then you would have to lay the blame on every President we have ever had including Reagan, who not only didn't close the border but gave amnesty as well. I loved Reagan but he didn't close the borders, or really control them, neither did Bush I or Bush II, nor Kennedy or Lyndon B, or Nixon or Carter. So trying to lay the blame solely on W is just a tad sh**ty to say the least.I didn't like his border policy, still don't, didn't like his spending and still don't, but to say he is the sole cause of the open borders, especially when our congress wouldn't stand for enforcing the laws either and in fact wanted to give amnesty to every illegal in the country, is, as I said, just a tad sh**ty.

Several responses:

1. President Bush’s decision to rhetorically divide Islam between pro-terror and anti-terror elements was brilliant and decisively successful. His critics are again foolish on this point. A global total denunciation of all Islam would have resulted in an outright global conflagration that would have already destroyed several major European cities and toppled major governments we need around the world.

2. The terrorists undoubtedly have an interpretation of Islam. It is foolish to miss this point. Whether theirs is the dominant or singular view is utterly irrelevant. That view must be defeated. All means— including division— are rhetorically shrewd. If only one muslim disagrees with violence interpretations of the Koran— so what if this is appealed to? No one really knows. It is most assuredly a rhetorically shaped result.

3. I think a good and reasonable case could be made that President Bush is principally responsible for the deaths of more Islamic bad guys than you or the some of Bush’s critics agreeing with you on this point. Because this is true and it is a war, it is fair to point out that unreasonable criticism— which yours is far short of— is contributing to the deaths of good guys fighting the Islamic bad guys. In short, Bush has results, his critics have less than none.

4. We have Islamic allies in the War on Terror whether we care to admit it or not. They are useful and perhaps even necessary. A President is not Philosopher King, it is not his role to divine the content of religions. It is his foremost task to protect the nation. Game set match he has. When will the mindless chatter stop?

You are an irrational Bush hater. You choose to condemn him for what might occur in the future yet you are unwilling to give him credit for what has actually occurred. You belong on DU or dailyKos.

IF an attack occurs due to a terrorist crossing the border-something which has not occurred in 8 years you may then attack President George Bush for that failure, but there is no failure until that eventuality, only projection from your hate-twisted, petty little mind.

The fact remains, America has been kept safe from terrorist attacks through the efforts of President George W. Bush, the Department of Homeland Security, and tens of thousands of highly effective agents whom President Bush empowered through his actions.

Take your BDS back to DU and dailyKos where spiteful little girls like you belong.

What are you smoking Tex? Loco week? John McCain and the Pentagon had to literally drag Bush away from the Rumsfeld "Limited Warfare" strategy click here to get the surge started ... Bush resisted every early call!

Your denunciation of the “Bush Bull” is the height of preposterous and without question— an American soldier killer.

Your ignorance and denial of fact is indicative of the old axiom that when you kick the BS out of a Texan you can use a matchbox for their coffin!

I generally disregard such moronic posts as yours. But I'm in a playful mood today so I'll respond one last time.

It's not irrational to believe the world has changed since 911. It's not irrational to believe we are being left vulnerable by our open borders. It's not irrational to believe this failure of a president, one who has nearly singlehandedly destroyed the conservative movement and dismantled the Republican Party has beget us Obama. It is irrational to believe that the vulnerabilities he continues to ignore not only might but probably will result in our next attack. Pull your head out of the sand and you might see that. Then again, those of you who think he walks on water probably never will as you go on living in your make-believe world where we are supposed to be safe simply because we have YET to be attacked again. I just hope when and if we are attacked it is something we can blame Obama as stated in the first response in this thread. But as I said before and as is painfully obvious, if that attack comes from over the border it will be Jorge’s fault. That's not my opinion, it is a fact. Bye.

The war has always been here at home. convince the american public they cannot win and they will pressure the President to bring them home.

That is always the anti American warrior strategy. presidential naysayers like yourself are vital to this anti american strategy.

James Baker and other key players authored a major report in 2006 to help the President to accept his electorally determined exit strategy.

He refused to take the exit. he removed Rumsfield.

Rumsfield did not make mistakes. This was always a propaganda war from day one.

Senator Carl Levin said 10,000 US soliders would die at minimum in Bagdad in the first six months alone. rumsfeld and Bush have been extraordinarily succesful. Every critic of the war has been proven decisively incorrect.

I will reply one last time to your inane and irrational hatred of President Bush. I say irrational because you lay the blame for the destruction of the Conservative movement (your choice of words, not mine) and the dismantling of the Republican Party (again your words, not mine). Both claims are without basis and I defy you to cite a single example in which President Bush has "nearly singlehandedly" done either.

We all get that you are unhappy with President Bush. Most of us are disappointed with some of his actions. Of course you are so consumed with your abject hatred of everything Bush that you immediately assume that anyone who dares to disagree with you on any particular disagrees with you on all and thinks "he walks on water," an allegation which is both wrong and contemptible since it is a transparent attempt to villify or dismiss the arguments of anyone with whom you disagree.

Were you coherent enough to read what others have written rather than being blinded by your irrational hatred, you would have seen that I specifically mentioned his failures in controlling illegal immigration.

The difference between you and I is that I don't condemn everything because of his partial failures. I applaud and admire his judicial picks, I applaud and admire his stalwart stance on Iraq and Afghanistan. I applaud and admire his restoration of morallity and honesty to the White House after the travesty of the Clinton years. I applaud his strong defense of life and I enjoy having a President and First Family that represents the best in American families.

I pity your miserable, hate-filled, and narrow-minded existence. I hope one day you will grow up enough to see the world for what it is, not what you wish it was. Bye!

The war has always been here at home. convince the american public they cannot win and they will pressure the President to bring them home. That is always the anti American warrior strategy. presidential naysayers like yourself are vital to this anti american strategy.

Keep telling yourself those who disagree with the original pre-surge "Limited War" strategy of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are "anti-Americans" and you'll probably eventually believe there is a Santa Claus. (BTW, I am a veteran who saw part of his 23 years in the Navy Reserve in Vietnam)

James Baker and other key players authored a major report in 2006 to help the President to accept his electorally determined exit strategy.

Yup, the same James Baker who served as his "Read My Lips" old man's trusted Secretary of State.

He refused to take the exit. he removed Rumsfield.

And I give him credit for both...only, he should have fired the hell out of Rumsfeld about 2 years prior than he did!

Rumsfield did not make mistakes. This was always a propaganda war from day one.

Rumsfeld was as hated at the Pentagon as much as Robert S. McNamara in the 1960s. He was arrogant and a recalcitrant fool who refused to listen to sound advice; preferring instead to invade Iraq with too few boots in relying on high-tech weapons and security which couldn't do the job. He and his puppet Amb. Bremer also disbanded a pretty good Iraqi Army (most of whom hated Saddam Hussein) instead of having them swear an oath of allegiance to their country. The result of his incompetence was jobless angry ex-Iraqi soldiers, looting, pillage, rape, the settling of old scores, resentment at token occupation that couldn't stop the lawlessness, and a building insurgency that sparked the needless deaths of American men and women!

...rumsfeld and Bush have been extraordinarily succesful. Every critic of the war has been proven decisively incorrect. I take it back...you already believe in Santa little boy!

I absolutely approve of your military service and every other member of American armed forces.

The problem in Vietnam was no different. Macnamara is a traitor in my estimation for going back on his conduct of Vietnam. Vietnam like Iraq was bathed in immoral anti-war rhetoric. All Anti War rhetoric is a complete moral fraud. Anti war folks do not oppose war. They oppose American military interventions— period. I am not pinning that on you but I am faulting you for going along with it. The anti war movement is a complete pro genocide leftist amoral project. The Vietnam war was fought well as was the Iraq war.

Pretending that Zarqawi and Bin Laden are just too smart or too principaled for our American pragmatists is playing into the hands of the anti American war movement. The anti war movement killed US soldiers in the Vietnam war as well. They probably killed more people than they did in Iraq.

Words are more potent than bombs. That is why it is foundationally important to grapple with the arguments underlying debates about war. I have nothing good to say about opponents of the Iraq war or the Vietnam war. I see no good fruit from their criticisms. Anti war is pro genocide.

Rumsfeld’s limited war strategy is based on a reality that killing large numbers of civilians inspires the anti war movement— which is the only way America ever withdraws from any location. We never have hard military logistical reasons to leave. Our adversaries need a public sphere rich in Anti American sentiment in order to defeat us.

I will not give anyone refuge on that problem.

Thanks again for your service.

Beg to differ on one point, Macnamara is no traitor, simply another old man looking for redemption from a hateful, anti-American, anti-military press...it's sad, because there is no redemption there, but falls short of treason.

Our failure in Vietnam was one of Congressional will. We were cursed, as we are now, with a strongly Leftist Congress who hated everything America stood for under Nixon. Had those treasonous scum-and I use the word "treasonous" with care and intent-not broken their word there might still be a free South Vietnam.

Part of the Paris Peace Accords was a commitment by the United States of continued logistical, economic, and military support to advance the existence of a stable self-sustaining South Vietnam. Congress in approving those accords committed themselves to those actions and then without any expressed remorse turned their backs on the Vietnamese people.

It is heartbreaking to speak to members of the ARVN who have come here to begin new lives. They will tell you to a man that they had the skills, the training (thanks to American soldiers), and the will to fight and win against the NVA. What they lacked was the "bullets."

Nothing has so wrenched my gut as hearing a man tell me that they fought and won for two years and then, as he said it, "We have no bullets for our guns. We want to keep fighting but we cannot."

That is why I will never forgive Liberals for what they have done to our nation and to those whom we sought to help.

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.