Go Mitt!
We need our next President to be someone unafraid of political fallout from taking a risky stand for what he believes is necessary to protect our country. Dare I say, we need someone like George W. Bush.
Posted by: Morris at January 10, 2007 05:37 PM
Norm Colmann (R- MN) just about 3 weeks ago decided W's troop surge is not a good idea.
gee ya think?
---
oh i'm sorry i almost forgot anthother republican's dissension just earlier today. Well let's just see what the fine republican of Kansas, senator Brownback (R-KS) has to say about Bush's Brave New Agenda:
“I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer,” said Brownback. “Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution."
http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=267419
---
must be something in the air. More and more of the republican "stay the cours'ers" are beginning to see the reality of a failed war, failed president, AND his failed atmepts to lie to the American people.
Boy- Is Barney and Laura still on W's side?
hey anyone on the right- feel like saving face and moving America forward? Seems like there is always time to turn the radio off and tune- out. You know face reality and save some troops live's. Not to mention a few $B while we are at it.
i don't think the senators i mentioned would disagree with me there. But boy, they sure disagree with W. Maybe they are on to something??
wow!
Posted by: Bill Stensin at January 10, 2007 05:37 PM
Morris,
up until December we were winning the war in Iraq. At least according to W. What now we are not winning? Please explain to me, the rest of this forum, the 2 republican senators (among others) and the American people- WHY- i mean really WHY are we now losing the war and need more troops?
After all surely Bush did not wake up one morning after the elections and say to himself, "self, we are not winning , but we are not losing..."
hmm.. don't they offer psychological treatment in the health plan for the presidents?
Posted by: Bill Stensin at January 10, 2007 05:45 PM
BS writes:
"hey anyone on the right- feel like saving face and moving America forward?"
It's always been about saving face, about image, for this generation of Democrats. We have a chance to kill Osama? Um, no, I'm busy, but you can make the call. Sound familiar? And may I ask a simple question? If you Dems are moving America forward, then toward which values is this supposed movement taking our country? It's not equality, because you guys won't let Republicans play in your reindeer games. It's not justice, because your new investigating chairman got a slap on the wrist for misbehaving. It's not protecting our country, because you guys want to cut off the the funds for our troops. It's not compassion, because you guys think Americans given a hand out will wise up, but continuing to aid Iraqis keeps them from helping themselves (meaning they're not as smart and capable of wising up as Americans, not exactly a charitable view).
Posted by: Morris at January 10, 2007 05:48 PM
Mitt is direct in his speaking, and doesn't wait to see 'which way the wind(or polls) are blowing.
I like that in a politician as he doesn't have to
wait for advisors or attorneys(in Kennedy's case) before making a committment. This, IMO is the guy to watch. We in bloggerland, need to watch out for the pitfalls in ONLY wanting a person who is anti-abortion. THIS SUBJECT SHOULD BE LEFT OUT
OF POLITICS. IT IS A PRIVATE MATTER, AND A POLITICAL FOOTBALL, THAT IN THE PAST, HAS RUINED
GOOD POSSIBILITIES. WE need to rethink passing over qualified people, because of "one issue politics". There are many issues at stake in our country, and granted it is important to protect the future race, but again, should this be private
or not? I personally think it should be OUT OF POLITICS.
Posted by: Jo at January 10, 2007 05:59 PM
BS writes:
"up until December we were winning the war in Iraq. At least according to W. What now we are not winning? Please explain to me, the rest of this forum, the 2 republican senators (among others) and the American people- WHY- i mean really WHY are we now losing the war and need more troops?"
You Dems claim to be so sophisticated but are truly so one dimensional. This is a political solution in the form of a military solution. This troop surge tells those who continue to oppose the government that they do not face a weak foe who will cut and run like we did in Somalia. Remember Somalia? That's where our soldiers died and those who survived got pulled out, making clear they had died for nothing worth fighting for. Somalia's where Osama claims to have gotten the idea we could be beaten.
When we win in Iraq, and we will win if we stand together, then suddenly those soldiers who died in Somalia died for something, they sacrificed their lives so we could learn from their loss that running away emboldens our enemies. Their loss and the attacks that followed were necessary to remind us that weakness in the face of terror is more than its own punishment.
As the Bard said, a coward dies a thousand times, and for letting the soldiers who died in Somalia die for nothing, we lost a thousand Americans, for our national cowardice. This is the way we negotiate, by doubling down. Just as when there's a riot police increase their numbers to bring back peace and order and safety to those innocent bystanders who inevitably are the ones who die, we're bringing in more troops for now. This is not just so they can protect, but also so that when we bring our troops home they know we stood with them, and our enemies know we stood with them. Since Gaul was taken in three parts, divide and conquer has been an effective way to fight a war. They're fighting us. Do we really want to fall as a house divided?
Posted by: Morris at January 10, 2007 06:04 PM
Morris, et. all. I say this with sincerity. I hope for your sake there is a GOD. Because, you know it, i know it, we all know this is escalating into something much bigger. And it's NOT just repulcians denouncing Bush's plans. The joint Chief's of Staff are reluctant about Bush's plans.
Look, in almost 4 years things haven't died down- THEY ARE INCREASING. There is a message in there somewhere. WW2 was not as long as this war.
Again, i say this in earnest, i really do hope there is a GOD that will offer salvation to those supporting this war and the deciept that is woven into it. Because things are just getting worse, people on both sides of the aisle, and the military knows it.
And gang, when Bush decides to add 50,000 more men and women, what will you say then? i am not being sarcastic here. Seriously, what will be your thoughts upon increasing escalation? Because it doesn't look good as the clock ticks to 4 years next spring.
disagreement by us is getting us no-whre. The reality is things are lookig worse day after day, month afte month, year after year. Come on guys- we have been at war nearly 4 years. And we are NOW increasing troop levels?
how has your life changed over teh course of 4 years? Mine has changed a lot. That is so distant to me. And for many troops and their families, sadly their lives are changed as well.
Posted by: Bill Stensin at January 10, 2007 06:23 PM
BS,
Weren't you the one who posted the poll here recently that said how the troops disagreed with the way the war was being handled. In that very poll, almost half the troops said we needed more troops in Iraq, that's why they disagreed with how it was being handled. You can act like this is going badly and we'd better brace for eternity, but if the troops (sampled more officers than enlisted in the poll) think we need more soldiers on the ground, let's give them what they want. They're the ones willing to take the risk, and they're the ones, the only ones, in a position to know.
Posted by: Morris at January 10, 2007 07:27 PM
Posted by: Bill Stensin at January 10, 2007 07:51 PM
"For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war than approve of it, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll....
Almost half of those responding think the United States needs more troops in Iraq."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-29-poll-iraq_x.htm?csp=34
Posted by: Morris at January 10, 2007 11:36 PM
Wasn't doug flutie- 80 or something when they finally told him he needed to go to a rest home? ;-)
Posted by: Bill Stensin at January 10, 2007 11:51 PM
well- that went to the wrong thread.
--
any way- no morris i don't recall that post. But then again Reagan didn't recall much either. seriously if i did i don't recall it. LOL
Posted by: Bill Stensin at January 10, 2007 11:55 PM
Go Mitt!
We need our next President to be someone unafraid of political fallout from taking a risky stand for what he believes is necessary to protect our country. Dare I say, we need someone like George W. Bush.
Norm Colmann (R- MN) just about 3 weeks ago decided W's troop surge is not a good idea.
gee ya think?
---
oh i'm sorry i almost forgot anthother republican's dissension just earlier today. Well let's just see what the fine republican of Kansas, senator Brownback (R-KS) has to say about Bush's Brave New Agenda:
“I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer,” said Brownback. “Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution."
http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=267419
---
must be something in the air. More and more of the republican "stay the cours'ers" are beginning to see the reality of a failed war, failed president, AND his failed atmepts to lie to the American people.
Boy- Is Barney and Laura still on W's side?
hey anyone on the right- feel like saving face and moving America forward? Seems like there is always time to turn the radio off and tune- out. You know face reality and save some troops live's. Not to mention a few $B while we are at it.
i don't think the senators i mentioned would disagree with me there. But boy, they sure disagree with W. Maybe they are on to something??
wow!
Morris,
up until December we were winning the war in Iraq. At least according to W. What now we are not winning? Please explain to me, the rest of this forum, the 2 republican senators (among others) and the American people- WHY- i mean really WHY are we now losing the war and need more troops?
After all surely Bush did not wake up one morning after the elections and say to himself, "self, we are not winning , but we are not losing..."
hmm.. don't they offer psychological treatment in the health plan for the presidents?
BS writes:
"hey anyone on the right- feel like saving face and moving America forward?"
It's always been about saving face, about image, for this generation of Democrats. We have a chance to kill Osama? Um, no, I'm busy, but you can make the call. Sound familiar? And may I ask a simple question? If you Dems are moving America forward, then toward which values is this supposed movement taking our country? It's not equality, because you guys won't let Republicans play in your reindeer games. It's not justice, because your new investigating chairman got a slap on the wrist for misbehaving. It's not protecting our country, because you guys want to cut off the the funds for our troops. It's not compassion, because you guys think Americans given a hand out will wise up, but continuing to aid Iraqis keeps them from helping themselves (meaning they're not as smart and capable of wising up as Americans, not exactly a charitable view).
Mitt is direct in his speaking, and doesn't wait to see 'which way the wind(or polls) are blowing.
I like that in a politician as he doesn't have to
wait for advisors or attorneys(in Kennedy's case) before making a committment. This, IMO is the guy to watch. We in bloggerland, need to watch out for the pitfalls in ONLY wanting a person who is anti-abortion. THIS SUBJECT SHOULD BE LEFT OUT
OF POLITICS. IT IS A PRIVATE MATTER, AND A POLITICAL FOOTBALL, THAT IN THE PAST, HAS RUINED
GOOD POSSIBILITIES. WE need to rethink passing over qualified people, because of "one issue politics". There are many issues at stake in our country, and granted it is important to protect the future race, but again, should this be private
or not? I personally think it should be OUT OF POLITICS.
BS writes:
"up until December we were winning the war in Iraq. At least according to W. What now we are not winning? Please explain to me, the rest of this forum, the 2 republican senators (among others) and the American people- WHY- i mean really WHY are we now losing the war and need more troops?"
You Dems claim to be so sophisticated but are truly so one dimensional. This is a political solution in the form of a military solution. This troop surge tells those who continue to oppose the government that they do not face a weak foe who will cut and run like we did in Somalia. Remember Somalia? That's where our soldiers died and those who survived got pulled out, making clear they had died for nothing worth fighting for. Somalia's where Osama claims to have gotten the idea we could be beaten.
When we win in Iraq, and we will win if we stand together, then suddenly those soldiers who died in Somalia died for something, they sacrificed their lives so we could learn from their loss that running away emboldens our enemies. Their loss and the attacks that followed were necessary to remind us that weakness in the face of terror is more than its own punishment.
As the Bard said, a coward dies a thousand times, and for letting the soldiers who died in Somalia die for nothing, we lost a thousand Americans, for our national cowardice. This is the way we negotiate, by doubling down. Just as when there's a riot police increase their numbers to bring back peace and order and safety to those innocent bystanders who inevitably are the ones who die, we're bringing in more troops for now. This is not just so they can protect, but also so that when we bring our troops home they know we stood with them, and our enemies know we stood with them. Since Gaul was taken in three parts, divide and conquer has been an effective way to fight a war. They're fighting us. Do we really want to fall as a house divided?
Morris, et. all. I say this with sincerity. I hope for your sake there is a GOD. Because, you know it, i know it, we all know this is escalating into something much bigger. And it's NOT just repulcians denouncing Bush's plans. The joint Chief's of Staff are reluctant about Bush's plans.
Look, in almost 4 years things haven't died down- THEY ARE INCREASING. There is a message in there somewhere. WW2 was not as long as this war.
Again, i say this in earnest, i really do hope there is a GOD that will offer salvation to those supporting this war and the deciept that is woven into it. Because things are just getting worse, people on both sides of the aisle, and the military knows it.
And gang, when Bush decides to add 50,000 more men and women, what will you say then? i am not being sarcastic here. Seriously, what will be your thoughts upon increasing escalation? Because it doesn't look good as the clock ticks to 4 years next spring.
disagreement by us is getting us no-whre. The reality is things are lookig worse day after day, month afte month, year after year. Come on guys- we have been at war nearly 4 years. And we are NOW increasing troop levels?
how has your life changed over teh course of 4 years? Mine has changed a lot. That is so distant to me. And for many troops and their families, sadly their lives are changed as well.
BS,
Weren't you the one who posted the poll here recently that said how the troops disagreed with the way the war was being handled. In that very poll, almost half the troops said we needed more troops in Iraq, that's why they disagreed with how it was being handled. You can act like this is going badly and we'd better brace for eternity, but if the troops (sampled more officers than enlisted in the poll) think we need more soldiers on the ground, let's give them what they want. They're the ones willing to take the risk, and they're the ones, the only ones, in a position to know.
not me
"For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war than approve of it, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll....
Almost half of those responding think the United States needs more troops in Iraq."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-29-poll-iraq_x.htm?csp=34
Wasn't doug flutie- 80 or something when they finally told him he needed to go to a rest home? ;-)
well- that went to the wrong thread.
--
any way- no morris i don't recall that post. But then again Reagan didn't recall much either. seriously if i did i don't recall it. LOL