Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bad Iraq News Worries Some in G.O.P. on '06
NY Times ^ | 8/18/05 | Adam Nagourney and David D. Kirkpatrick

Posted on 08/18/2005 10:06:04 AM PDT by Crackingham

"There is just no enthusiasm for this war," said Representative John J. Duncan Jr., a Tennessee Republican who opposes the war. "Nobody is happy about it. It certainly is not going to help Republican candidates, I can tell you that much."

Representative Wayne T. Gilchrest, a Maryland Republican who originally supported the war but has since turned against it, said he had encountered "a lot of Republicans grousing about the situation as a whole and how they have to respond to a lot of questions back home."

"I have been to a lot of funerals," Mr. Gilchrest said.


Republicans said they were losing hope that the United States would be effectively out of Iraq - or at least that casualties would stop filling the evening news programs - by the time the Congressional campaigns begin in earnest. Mr. Bush recently declined to set any timetable for withdrawing United States troops.

Grover Norquist, a conservative activist with close ties to the White House and Mr. Bush's senior adviser, Karl Rove, said: "If Iraq is in the rearview mirror in the '06 election, the Republicans will do fine. But if it's still in the windshield, there are problems."


"Any effort to explain Iraq as 'We are on track and making progress' is nonsense," Newt Gingrich, a Republican who is a former House speaker, said. "The left has a constant drumbeat that this is Vietnam and a bottomless pit. The daily and weekly casualties leave people feeling that things aren't going well."

Republicans, Mr. Gingrich said, should make the case for "blood, sweat and toil" as part of a much larger war against "the irreconcilable wing of Islam."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Maryland; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 109th; 2006; gop; grovernorquist; iraq; waynegilchrest; wishfulthinking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last
To: Borges

It who they selected to quote. Yes, I believe the NYT is a biased paper - you don't.

21 posted on 08/18/2005 10:16:55 AM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Don't give me that crap. John Duncan is a staunch conservative. So is Newt Gingritch. Unless you think they manufactured quotes my point stands.

22 posted on 08/18/2005 10:18:15 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jennyjenny

By 2006, if there is no denouement regarding Iran...the prescient American citizen would be wanting to get rid of the Republicans for not securing the Middle East fast enough after 9-11 or not telling us that the reason they basically "stopped" the war and started playing defense in Iraq two years ago was because of a credible nuke threat in an American city.

What ticks me off about the continuing insurgency and MSM that it seems to be happening because the President doesn't want to say we're being blackmailed by nukes.

He needs to deal with Iran or Syria. That would, in fact, get him votes back. If he thinks it won't, then he is like his father...who could have saved himself in the 1992 election by finishing off Saddam.

23 posted on 08/18/2005 10:22:23 AM PDT by GermanBusiness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Borges

You kiss your mother with that mouth?

Newt, lets see, his is elected to what now?

24 posted on 08/18/2005 10:23:18 AM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

I said he was a staunch conservative not that he currently holds elected office.

25 posted on 08/18/2005 10:25:10 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

New management in 06? Think you have the wrong election.

26 posted on 08/18/2005 10:25:39 AM PDT by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

If Grover's worried, I'm worried. He usually drips with confidence.

27 posted on 08/18/2005 10:27:01 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

When the NY Slimes or any of the other MSM outlets start worrrying about the Republicans, I know we are OK.

Having said all of that I must add: "Secure the Borders, Secure the Borders, Secure the Borders!!!!"

28 posted on 08/18/2005 10:27:55 AM PDT by The South Texan (The Democrat Party and the leftist (ABCCBSNBCCNN NYLATIMES)media are a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Disagree with Gilchrest if you must ... but aint no "sissie" - he saw the elephant in Nam.

29 posted on 08/18/2005 10:27:59 AM PDT by Seajay (Ordem e Progresso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Life is too short to pay attention to anything from the NY Times.

30 posted on 08/18/2005 10:28:44 AM PDT by manwiththehands (Oh, a tagline ... cool!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness
What ticks me off about the continuing insurgency and MSM that it seems to be happening because the President doesn't want to say we're being blackmailed by nukes.

Huh? You have any proof for that? Seems to me that if our foe were in a position to use Nukes it would do so.

Has it occurred to you that major military action before the Iraqis vote on their constitution might not be all that helpful?

I also do not recall any promise to get the troops out by the 06 elections.

The GOP would be better served by ignoring the MSM and take their case back to their own constituents.

31 posted on 08/18/2005 10:30:10 AM PDT by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

LOL. I accidentally picked one up the other day. It burst into flames right in my hand!
32 posted on 08/18/2005 10:31:34 AM PDT by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: msnimje; Cobra64
This is a stupid statement. Of course it worries the GOP. They want Iraq to be secure and sovereign.

And the plan is for troop reductions in 2006. Obviously people are anxious and want to see the troops return home safely when their job is done.

33 posted on 08/18/2005 10:32:13 AM PDT by JohnnyZ ("I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country." -- Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness

Bush is playing russian roulette. The open borders policy, handling Iraq with far too much restraint and stabbing Israel in the back today isn't going to help matters much. Conservative my *ss...

34 posted on 08/18/2005 10:35:18 AM PDT by eddiemunster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
The times is hurting...if they can't report good news, let's make up our own bads news.


35 posted on 08/18/2005 10:36:56 AM PDT by Doogle (8th AF...4077thTFW....408MMS....Ubon Thailand "69"..Night Line Delivery ..AMMO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

This is an attempt to divide the Republican base or at least take a chunk or two out of it. Of course we're all concerned about Iraq but for different reasons: we want to win and they want Republicans out of power. It's a continuing strategy: report bad news everyday, use bogus polls so everyone thinks support is slipping, use people like Cindy Sheehan, chip away at the Republican base. It's not working like they think it should but they will keep trying.

36 posted on 08/18/2005 10:47:54 AM PDT by sydbas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges

The American people are basically so stupid that they cannot understand that sometimes it is better to have a long ten year guerilla war than a short hot war. This is because a long war can totally destroy an enemy (economically and in terms of the loss of a generation of young men) where a short war might just get the enemy to "surrender" and get treated "nicely" while the society remains intact and the sons remain alive. A quickly surrendered enemy may not really mean it. An enemy that has gone through 10 years of war with you, respects you and never wants to fight you again!! Look at Vietnam. Take China, our main protagonist in Vietnam. China remembers Vietnam. They surrendered to Nixon in 1972 because of it (saying "please let us be your factory"). In the current war...we never gave the Sunni Arabs a chance to surrender and make nice. Instead we've given them plenty of rope to say on CNN and the BBC that they support the insurgency. We are letting them secretly send their sons to Iraq to die at 100:1 ratios. That is why, everytime I hear of an American soldier having died, I think of 100 dead terrorists near where the soldier was killed.

Smart people understand that the Flypaper Strategy is working. Every month of this "quagmire" brings another 2000 dead enemies (terrorists). This is the kind of quagmire you want to have. Bring it on. Month after month after month at 100:1 kill ratios. The Sunni Arab world is getting the message with more than 100,000 less fighters available to field than 3 years ago.

That Americans "don't have the stomach for a long war"...I think this is leftist, defeatist drivel, if there isn't an alternative plan put forth on how to stop another 9-11 (leaving them alone with their hate is not an option). We basically cannot and will not extricate ourselves from the Middle East until the Shiites are declawed nuclear-wise but otherwise powerful and pro-American enough to keep the Sunnis vying for position as America's better buddy. After 9-11, we don't want to leave the Middle East with any major enemies still in power, because they would only be regrouping and rearming properly and getting those nukes into American cities (we cannot protect the border, no way nohow - Bush is correct on this. We have no choice but to take it to the enemy). Right now, we have the Iranian hardliners in power. Not good. Another 10,000 American soldiers can die solving this problem...that would sure beat 200,000 dead Americans in a nuclear blast 3 years from now. Soldiers will tell you this.

Also...conservatives should NOT help leftists by strengthening them on the anti-war issue. Think about it...every time an isolationist conservative implies the war in Iraq is even going badly (it isn't if you read which I trust more than the NYT), they are feeding not only into the defeatist anti-American cause of the leftists...they are also guaranteeing abortion rights and gay marriage and continued liberalism and leftism into the new century. They are guaranteeing more Dan Rathers because they are saying that Dan Rather was right.

So like it or not, conservative opposition to the Iraq War can only strengthen everything about liberals that you may pretend you dislike. You have no choice. You must be pro-war or you help the leftist cause. I mean this. You don't have a choice. That is American politics. This war issue is the Republican's strongest suit. Abandon us on it and I mean it, all hope is lost for conservatism.

Like it or not, the liberation of Iraq must go down in history as a total plus, wonderful thing...or conservatism goes down the sewer drain. You can take that to the bank.

So get on board and at least ask the rest of us at FR why we went to war in Iraq. Keep your mind open on the subject. If you don't, then be happy as a liberal. Because that is the side you will be on as the liberals take back power in 2006.

You simply ain't gonna take the Republican Party back from the neocons!! It ain't gonna happen!! If you are anti-war will only leave things open for a hawkish Democrat who wins all 50 states from a badly weakened, backbiting, backstabbing Republican Party.

Those conservatives who were against the Vietnam War ended up doing the same thing. They were responsible for bringing in the modern post-1968 liberalism by voting for Nixon as President in 1972 but, like MORONS, voting for Democrats as Senators and Congressmen. So Nixon voters who put Democrats in Congress guaranteed Nixon's ouster, guaranteed that we betrayed our Southeast Asian allies to the tune of 2.5 Million dead, and guaranteed the new generation of arrogant liberals who don't want a strong army and don't want American interests to be protected abroad, and certainly don't want any US superpower status.

The isolationist conservative of now an extremist left wing zealot for all that he or she is going to achieve politically. Every time they open their mouths on the war, they are sending someone like Michael Moore to Congress. They are feeding liberals morons at CNN and the BBC with juicy grist for the nighttime feeding of the zombies in TV land. They and the liberals really belong together as they have so much more in common. Basically, these old anti-war conservatives are the poodles and slaves of the liberals. They may think they don't like liberals but they choose to help the wackiest liberals on the most important issue: national defense or national treason. They can catapult the liberals into power in 2006 by protesting the only good thing Bush has done...which is to keep us safe while democratizing much of the Muslim world (just not enough of the Muslim world and fast enought for my liking).

And what are FReepers doing watching the leftist television programs?? Why would any Republican see bad things about Iraq on TV and bat an eyelid?? Of course these moron journalists will show you the 21 dead Marines instead of the 1200 dead terrorists that lie 2km down the road on the north side of the Euphrates.

How would you have dealt with traitor journalists in WW2?? The same way?? I forgot, in WW2 the anti-war activists were the arch-conservatives. Nice gang. Stabs us in the back in every war. :-0

37 posted on 08/18/2005 10:55:24 AM PDT by GermanBusiness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham


Because of the cowardice of these same GOP House members, we do not have Social Security private accounts to look forward to in our future. Well you know what, we're not going to indulge those same assinine fears and anxieties and lose a war because of your similarly ridiculous angst. Get out and explain this to your constituents if it worries you so much you idiots! Be leaders instead of being lead by ignorant people deceived by a co-opted left-wing press. If your people don't understand the war and we it needs to be fought, then it's because of a lack of leadership by people who claim to be leaders in the Congress!

MY god, can we get one Republican Congressman with a set of balls???

38 posted on 08/18/2005 10:57:18 AM PDT by MikeA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges

You are just falling into the liberal trap the NYT put. They are anti-war and they say that is why republicans are going to have a problem. The fact is, republicans will have big problems due to their own actions.

The core republican party stands for lower taxes, smaller government, indivual rights and Constitutional freedom. Republicans by each's own actions, not the president have failed in all those areas from budget busting, port laden legislation they each voted for. Government has grown faster and farther and more out of control then ever in our history under this "republicans" and like my, core conservatives have stopped donating to their campaigns to let them know how disappointed we are of them. I used to donate a great deal now I tell them I have not renewed by support or money to any of them due to Frist in the Senate and the leadership in the house. Not one single government program, no matter how many years of proven failure has been reduced or removed. Little tax burden has been removed, huge debt burdens on our children for generations has been added.

8 months ago, this country voted for Bush to take the war to them and most Americans and a vast majority of Republicans still support this so, republicans supporting the war still support the legislators - this is not the issue the NYT wants to discuss, it has you, Newt and others blaming the war and Bush for their own problems.

You cannot let liberals control the conversation like the NYT did and you believe simply because it is not true. The NYT has fired hundreds of reporters for fake stories and lies they fill their paper with.

Face the real problem and don't fall into the trap - that was my only point.

39 posted on 08/18/2005 11:05:31 AM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

[Obviously people are anxious and want to see the troops return home safely when their job is done.]


No true conservative believes CNN or the NYT. If you get anxious over what THEY report, you are a liberal at heart.

When 21 Marines dies two weeks ago, I knew it was in a major operation like the second battle of Fallujah where 71 Marines gave their lives for freedom. Why? Because I live in Russia and don't have to listen to the leftist crap spewing from American television sets!!

If you get anxious, stop watching the leftists and believing them. This is common sense. 4000 troops died on DDay in one morning. The liberals played this up as heroism. The liberal newspapers all said "what a wonderful day this has been!"

The word "anxious" helps the leftists. They are probably coming over from DailyKOS and reporting about how the conservatives are getting "anxious."

Or the KOSsites have infiltrated FR which I strongly believe.

I am convinced that half of the anti-war FReepers are really KOS and DU people who are trying to be "well-behaved" while feeding FR with a steady diet of "anxious" and "bring the troops home safely"...although JohnnyZ is probably not one of them because he said "after the job is done".

But still, maybe JohnnyZ is a brilliant KOSsite who says "after the job is done" to keep himself a FReeper in good standing while letting the word anxious and troops out of Iraq (no permanent bases) filter through and split everyone.

Speaking of "bring the troops home safely"...why?? We are still in Germany. Why not a permanent Middle East base?? That would make them mad? Not if we've caused them to need us to keep the Shiites at bay. There are plenty of scenarios where the USA keeps bases in Iraq for 60 years +.

And the word "safely" in reference to the troops...that can be a leftist word post 9-11, because it implies we shouldn't use them but keep them on display in Kansas. I still remember the bodies thudding to the ground outside the WTC on 9-11. We don't need to look forward to our troops being "safe" at Fort Riley Kansas washing trucks.

We need to know that our civilians are home "safely" without nukes being smuggled into their cities while they sleep.

Until our civilians can be sure that is not happening, I see ZERO GOOD in "having our troops home safely."

And a ton of the troops feel the same way.

40 posted on 08/18/2005 11:16:10 AM PDT by GermanBusiness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 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
Topics · Post Article

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