Nov 16 2006
Continuing Forward In Iraq
As I said before, Bush and Lieberman are now the best hope for America and a success in Iraq. I echo Mac Ranger’s thoughts – thank goodness for Bush. Since I am not an angry lefty or righty, I still hold the man in high esteem. I learned with Reagan – who was incredibly unpopular while in office – not to listen the parties and just keep my own sense of what is happening. Reagan made me a conservative. The nastiness of the two parties made me an independent.
Anyway, Bush is not diverting from success in Iraq. He is out to succeed. No phased retreat like the Dems want. And if they Dems try and cut off funding to our troops, then they will pay a heavy price. America has one big fear right now, and that is the Democrats would screw up with the power they were given. It is no wonder the Clintonistas are trying to purge Dean and the netroots crowd. They are the force for surrender and impeachment in the Democrat ranks. And if they have their way, they will pave a path back for the Reps in 2008. Either way, Bush is standing tall – as usual.
24 Responses to “Continuing Forward In Iraq”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Pres. Gwb has always said he is a Reaganite and not his father. And so far he has not disapointed me. Every Pres. makes some mistakes but we are human. When Pres. Bush came to office the partisianship by the Dem. party was extreme yet he was able to pass all of his agenda. The man has a steel backbone . He sticks to his princiables and never wavers, if anyone would have said that after 9/11 that we would not be attacked on our soil is full of crap, but as Pres. Reagan his goals were a strong national security, tax cuts for a great economy and low and behold that seems like this is what we have.
Kudos to all the comments about Bush. My concern is the so-called “Final Push”. I hope it will not be a final push but a means of achieving real victory against the terrorists.
I wonder what the consequences of inaction towards Iran will be for the future of this country.
I am with you, and with President George W. Bush. In my view, GWB only increases in stature — with every barb, absurd accusation, media-manufactured meme, and especially with attacks from his own team.
My husband keeps cautioning: enjoy every single second of GWB’s term, because you will not see the likes of him again in your lifetime. I am taking his advice to heart and it’s amazing how much peace and calm it brings. Thank God for W. Thank God for strong men & leaders like W, my husband, and AJ Strata. I hear you and I am right behind you.
I hadn’t really thought of myself as “independent” before now. That may change. For six years now, President Bush has never really done anything that clearly struck me as over the line or the last straw. Yet every six months or so, the people who are (theoretically) on Bush’s side of the political aisle start screaming about the horribleness of some decision Bush has made.
When he proposed Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, his “allies” promptly accused him of cronyism, and on top of that when we said we wanted Miers to get a fair chance, we were told that we were Kool-aid drinkers and that if Miers ever managed to get in front of the Senate, it would be too late to avert certain disaster.
And that was just the beginning. There was also the Dubai Ports World affair, Katrina, the illegal-immigration thing (after which we started hearing about the “treason lobby” on a regular basis), and now Mel Martinez. (You could throw in Terry Schiavo as well, but it was after Harriet Miers stepped down, citing the screaming from the right, that it hit me fully that there was something truly, deeply wrong with some of the people among us conservatives.)
It was in reading some of the reaction to Mel Martinez that I hit another milestone. I was dismayed by the reaction to Harriet Miers, but now I’m just shaking my head at the reaction to Martinez. I no longer feel like I’m part of the group doing the complaining, so I no longer really care. Now it’s like listening in on a clique of catty cheerleaders from a different high school.
And on top of this, now the commenters on the right are starting to come around to the idea that maybe this whole Iraq thing wasn’t such a good idea after all. Maybe it’s just post-election doldrums talking, but I really think that, while President Bush hasn’t changed his position and has been true to his vision, most of the people supposedly behind him are throwing in the towel. **I** don’t think the Iraq thing is ending in disaster; shouldn’t we be hearing more about morale problems in the military if that’s the case? Whenever we hear anything from the rank and file in the military (as opposed to generals who are virtually political figures), we hear that they feel that the mission is important, that they are doing good things. Has everybody already forgotten that wonderful bit of mockery of John Kerry when he implied that people who were lackadaisical in school ended up stuck in Iraq (a photo of soldiers holding up a huge banner saying something like “HALP US JON CARRY WE R STUCK HEAR N IRAK”)? Do soldiers demoralized by missions gone bad react that way? I don’t think so. No, it’s the people over here, the people NOT getting shot at, who want to retreat. It’s always been that way on the left since before we even went into Iraq, but now the right is mad at Bush and upset about losing Congress, so now they’re saying it’s time to “admit” that we’re “failing” in Iraq???
I just don’t understand these people. And I guess that if I don’t understand these people, I can’t very well be one of them. So maybe I should start thinking of myself as an independent (who still leans right).
Sorry if my last post seems a little self-indulgent. I meant it as an explanation for why I agree with you all about President Bush, but just want a vacation away from Bush’s self-described “base.”
SallyVee, I repeat what your husband said to everyone I know as I feel the same, as you know!
George W. Bush is the best president we have had in 100 years, if not ever. Time will tell and he is a man of conviction and a man of courage-we are truly blessed to have him…and AJ!
A place of sanity here.
Karig Pres. Bush”s base is all of the Rep. base remember it still is one big tent and while we may not agree on all issues ,we are still the party
that will debate each other while the other parties rules are do as we say or the leadership will throw you under the bus!
Karig: not self-indulgent, but spot on. I have also completely detached from “them” and am able to see with far more clarity and immediately perceive the egotistic, gossiping, self-aggrandizing ways of the misguidede purists. Heck, I rode a long way down the road with them and almost drove off the bridge myself. Harriet Miers shook me out of the stupor, and Dubai Ports put me on highest alert. Immigration sealed it up in shrink wrap and turned me into a “George W. Bush Republican.” I may well join the ranks of Independents after Election ‘08.
Ivehadit: we’re finally coming down to the AL Shakespeare festival in December. Where should we have dinner?
AJ: Sorry to use your sphere for chat but this is a risk you assume by allowing chicks in the mix. I’ve been trying to connect with kindred spirit Ivehadit, and this is my latest effort — on your nickel.
Sally Vee,
no problem
Thank you,AJ,andeveryone else for reaffirming my beliefs.President Bush is a good man and a strong President who has had to stand up to adversity practically alone. Two weeks ago he was a talk show icon;now he and Carl Rove are responsible for the loss of Congress.THE REUBLICANS LOST CONGRESS ALL BY THEMSELVES. Furthermore, if they don’t wise up,it’s going to happen again!I will support this President,because I believe in him. I no longer feel a part of the Republican party.Thank you for allowing me to vent—on only one cup of coffee.
I suspect a lot of you are setting yourselves up for a letdown by pinning your hopes on one or two individuals. Leiberman seems to have been anointed as the conservative savior, despite being liberal on nearly every subject other than Iraq. By the way, remember during the 2000 elections when the Gore/Leiberman ticket attempted to get the votes of service members nullified? That was that Joe Leiberman, right?
As to Bush, he has repeatedly failed to make the case in Iraq, despite having the bully puppet and every other advantage in the debate.
Bottom line, folks- I’m independant. I have no use for either party, and firmly believe that nothing gets better for this country until a viable 3rd party and/or 3rd party candidate becomes a reality.
Drawing That Line In The Sand…
We have a bunch of Neville Chamberlain’s and not enough Winston Churchhill’s in this argument. Churchill understood you could not negotiate with evil. You cannot negotiate with those who wish to make you submit or die as the terrorists inside Iraq …
I agree with most of the posts above, but what’s the use of being an independent if you refuse to vote for one party or the other. You might as well join the party most like your ideals. In my case I do not like some of the agenda of the republicans but dislike all the agenda of the democrats. I joined the repubican party strictly to have a say in the primaries. And that did not work because my congresswoman holds the same ideals I do. I agree with her on just about everything except the Dubai port deal. She was too shrill about that.
Bush will go down in history as the president who succeeded in portecting this country from its most dangerous enemies in spite of the overwelming obstacles put in his path by his opponents. Lincoln is regarded as one of our greatest presidents but he was extremely unpopular during the civil war. And remember the country’s attitude about Harry Truman. Everyone felt he was ineffective after Roosevelt and feared he was not strong enough to win the war. The press kept calling him “that haberdasher from Missouri”.
We must win in Iraq and we must do something about Iran and North Korea. These nut jobs cannot be allowed to have nukes. They are a danger to world. We need to be more aggressive in Iraq and finish this job quickly. If we fail in this endeavor we will lose more than just a small war. We will become the laughing stock of the whole world. I do not understand why the democrats do not understand this. And another thing is in my opinion we have given the media permission to control our actions. We have given them too much power and they have abused it for their own agenda.
Barbara – I vote! I just don\’t align my good name with either party.
Barbara- same with me as with AJ; I vote. I do not consider not voting to be an option. I voted for Bush, but have grown tired of casting my votes reluctantly for the lesser of two evils. I would never so much as consider voting for a democrat. But I see on this and other sites the same game being played- how to fix the GOP, with the same rehashed names mentioned as options. Again, the answer is coming up with other viable options, and throwing all of these self serving bums out on their asses, before they and their one or the other games get us all killed.
Strata—– links to a Guardian piece which says Bush is “in a state of denial about Iraq” then outlines a several point plan which shows Bush would not “succeed” in Iraq even on the outside chance it
would be implemented successfully, as it infers “axis of evil” member Iran holds key cards Bush never intended it to have at the outset!
Meaning AJ is in that state of denial along with dear leader. And having taken his measure on Bush, I seriously doubt Strata would admit Bush failed if the time period purportedly given Bush ended in failure which it will.
AMA055131
Bush never wavers? Sistani made Bush waver on the limited
caucas style phony election process Bush intended initially
for Iraq which would have left it as a US puppet state.And we
do not have a great economy but one which has continued to
replace good jobs with service industry jobs.
Karig
A private who talks out of line in Iraq gets used for fodder
on dangeorus missions. All anti-war soldier bloggers were
shut down two years ago. Orders were given by superiors not
to question the war effort. Most troops are ensconced in safe
quarters and rarely see the real anarchial Iraq. Still , multitudes
attend Murtha rallies.
Flopping Aces
Churchill lost the British Empire, the US picked up, unfortunately,
much of its slack.
Bush brought foreign insurgents TO Iraq and the insurgency has
only grown numerically in three and a half years. Then again,
America hasn’t tamed the streets of its own lawless metropoli
yet.
Barbara
We are already worse than the laughing stock of the world, we have
been voted the most dangerous nation in the world, the second
most dangerous being our albatross “ally,” Israel.
Ken,
We can all read. No need to give a recount!
A private who talks out of line in Iraq gets used for fodder
on dangeorus missions.
BRAVO SIERRA
Congressional Casualties via the Military…
How DARE she or any other politician think they “know more” about military operations than those that are on the ground, those that talk to the soldiers IN Iraq????
One has to wonder if Hillary has any clue as to what an ass she sounded like and how…
Ken, you said:”Churchill lost the British Empire”
would you please list the countries that were in the British Empire when Churchill took office that were not still in it when he left office?
See, I don’t think you know what you are talking about. So, list ‘em.
Ken, to save you a little time, Churchill was prime minister two times and the dates are:
may 40- july 45 and 10/51- 4/55
So just a quickie list of Empire members that bailed out during those two periods would be fine> Happy hunting.
Actually you probably have a complete list in your head, so just jot em down.
Ken
I know this is a lost cause, but I will try one more time. The Europeans don’t like us because they are jealous of our power and wealth. They are none of them and I repeat none of them afraid we will invade their countries. When they need us to save them they will come to us again knowing we will do our best to help them. And if you ask any of the Europeans if they would like to come to the US to live they would jump at the chance.
I have never heard of anyone so down on the US and it policies as you are. Do you like anything about this country?
And please, please, I beg of you, quit quoting the Guardian (bastion of the leftist world).. They are worse than the NYT. Can I be more insulting?
Churchill was an influential politician of the “no compromise with Hitler crowd” then an “unconditional surrender” demander.
Throughout his political career he made speeches asserting that if England warred with Germany it would not be at the cost of the loss of its Empire. Hitler of course made no secret of his Anglophile
leanings and opposed the “Left” in his Party which argued for
a permanent alignment with the Soviet Union against the “decadent
UK” (it was, it needed America to bail it out) These latter openly
called for a politics which would help reduce British influence
throughout the world. Hitler though admired the Empire and
considered the Brits racial kinsmen who should keep it.
The UK had a strong political contingent, right and left ,calling for
compromise with Germany which in retrospect would have helped
maintain their power in Egypt and India for example.
Churchill ’s anti-German biases harmed England, harmed
Europe, harmed Germany.
Barbara
The Europeans, conservative and liberal, generally rightly regard America as a nation purveying a “least common denominator/mass”
culture with undue emphasis on personal profit at the expense
of family, amd of quality (McDonald’s could have never sprung up
in France for example) .
Europeans test higher in knowledge about the world, eg
its geography, its political systems,its varying philosophies.
Even European countries with a reputation as decadent
(Holland and Sweden for example) have stronger family units
than America.
You are simply a comparatively uneducated, naeive Europhobe of the type which Europeans understand allows their government to intrude clumsily and dangerously throughout the world.