On the Tuesday edition of "Good Morning America," the ABC program used the fourth anniversary of President Bush’s "Mission Accomplished" speech to slam the "Bushian bravado" of an event that "this administration will never live down."
Correspondent Claire Shipman marveled at "how naive that banner looks four years later." The day after the President landed on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier, however, GMA wasn't so prescient. ABC Anchor George Stephanopoulos labeled the speech an "A++," "well done" and seemed impressed with the "small poster that said ‘Mission Accomplished.’"
On the fourth anniversary of the event, anchor Diane Sawyer introduced a segment that looked back on the "confident architects" of the Iraq war. Reporter Shipman then used the "Mission Accomplished" speech as a segue to attack familiar media targets:
Claire Shipman: "Good morning, Diane. How naive that banner looks four years later, and that is being charitable. And it is striking when you look at it how circumstances have changed for all of the President's men behind the war effort. It was a moment of Bushian bravado that this administration will never live down."
President George W. Bush: "Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment."
Shipman: "Four years later, the mission a disaster. And the once-indestructible architects in profound disarray."
Cokie Roberts (ABC News): "The reputation of all of the people who were the architects of this war is shot."
Why, exactly, is ABC using Cokie Roberts, one of its veteran journalists, to make a partisan, liberal point?
Shipman concluded her brief report, which aired at 7:09am on May 1, by reminding viewers that Donald Rumsfeld has resigned, that former CIA Director George Tenet has split with the President and of the troubles that Paul Wolfowitz finds himself in. As for Vice President Cheney, the ABC correspondent claimed that the conviction of his former top aide Scooter Libby "was read by many as a warning of his unchecked power."
However, as noted in the CyberAlert on May 2, 2003, George Stephanopoulos, appearing on "Good Morning America" to comment about the aircraft landing, seemed impressed:
For those who grade presidential photo-ops, this was an A++. I mean, look at the pictures of the President on the flight deck. He looks like one of the pilots -- I'll say one thing, he was very careful to take that helmet off before he got out on the flight deck. Nobody wants a picture in a helmet looking like, remember back in 1988, Michael Dukakis in the tank. But this was well done, you had all of the troops just surrounding him with joy and even, I don't know if we have the picture, but if you look when the President gave the speech last night, even up on the tower of the aircraft carrier, they had a small poster that said 'Mission Accomplished,' in case any photo just looked up that high.
Is the reputation of Mr. Stephanopoulos shot for providing such a positive take? Finally, as mentioned previously in NewsBusters, media reports often leave out relevant parts of the May ‘03 speech Bush gave on the deck of the USS Lincoln:
We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools....The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
Now, quoting this section of the speech may not be as simple and easy as repeatedly showing a banner, but it does provides some context.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Stephanopoulos was correct:
May 1, 2007 - 12:43 ET by ding7777Stephanopoulos was correct: For those who grade presidential photo-ops, this was an A++.
Dinger
May 1, 2007 - 12:50 ET by JimboHaving worked for Clinton, he is someone who would know.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
...liberal leadership at it's
May 1, 2007 - 12:52 ET by TruthMonger...liberal leadership at it's finest...the great hopes and dreams of the left...
Ad nauseum lying about a photo op...
Lead us boldly into the future, libs...
For a whiny Socialist
May 1, 2007 - 17:23 ET by UnsaneBut, my whiny Socialist, the mission was in fact accomplished.
Unless, of course, I missed that headline where Baghdad was entering its fourth year under siege with Saddam Hussein still safely entrenched in power.
(What is laughable is that you clearly have zero ideas of your own, or else you'd be discussing your own ideas...)
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Therein lies the problem
May 1, 2007 - 17:44 ET by Mr. BishopThat is the problem Unsane. Those on the left, like ding, think that major combat operations are only over when there is no more shooting, and that everyone is home safe and sound. If this were true, then I suppose the Korean War, World War II and the first Gulf War were never over -- to say nothing of Kosovo and Bosnia.
The fact is, the mission was accomplished. The Iraqi people are free to choose their own leadership, and decide their own future. This portion of reality can only be changed by bailing on them now, before they can fully defend themselves. The WMDs have been found, though not in as great a number as what was originally anticipated -- the fact is, we have found some (of course, there were some that were moved to Syria by the Russians, but that is another matter entirely). Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, in fact -- he is dead. He was executed in accordance with the will of the [Iraqi] people, after he was found guilty of crimes against humanity. His sons are dead.
What is occurring now, is the security and defense of Iraq, until they are able to defend themselves -- something they are on the way to being able to do now. Even if the banner referred to the mission of Iaq being accomplished, it would be accurate.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
1,000 Cuts
May 1, 2007 - 12:49 ET by JimboI debated this yesterday and don’t think I have the strength to do it again today.
I will repeat on of my final points of yesterday though. At the end of the day, after all the arguing about what was really meant by it, what does this really mean??
Are the liberals looking at the banner and saying “Look! There is the proof we need! We need to cut and run!!” Or is it “Look! There’s the proof that the war is lost!” No. Of course not.
This is just another example of the desire of the MSM and the liberals to continue to chip away at the President and his desire to win the war. It is a coordinated and deliberate effort to kill him by 1,000 cuts.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
The mission to depose the Hus
May 1, 2007 - 12:59 ET by Gat New YorkThe mission to depose the Hussein regime was accomplished. Or did we miss something?
And he did say in that very same speech that it was not over and a new government was going to take a lot of work and time. The media just chose to ignore that little fact.
We didnt miss anything
May 1, 2007 - 14:12 ET by JimboNo, we didn’t miss anything. My point was that even if the MSM refuses to accept the facts, so what? So the President made an overzealous statement. What does that change? Nothing. So why do they raise it? To undermine him.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
WHAT President Bush said
May 1, 2007 - 17:15 ET by acumenJimbo - I know you support the war on terrorism and President Bush. That said, maybe I'm the one missing something Jimbo. What was the "overzealous statement" the President made?
Was it "we have difficult work to do in Iraq" or "the transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time" or "our mission continues" or "al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed" or "the enemies of freedom are not idle" or "the war on terror is not over" or "we do not know the day of final victory".
All of the above were STATEMENTS made by President Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in front of the banner that stated "mission accomplished". Bush never STATED "mission accomplished". That is what the demediacrats would like us to believe, but it just was never said by the President that day.
As you will see in the following paragraph, the USS Abraham Lincoln and her crew were returning from the longest Aircraft Carrier deployment in recent history and the crew of that vessel hoisted the banner themselves to justly acknowledge that their assigment had been completed:
"Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home. And that is your direction tonight. After service in the Afghan -- and Iraqi theaters of war -- after 100,000 miles, on the longest carrier deployment in recent history, you are homeward bound. Some of you will see new family members for the first time -- 150 babies were born while their fathers were on the Lincoln. Your families are proud of you, and your nation will welcome you."
Remarks by the President from the USS Abraham Lincoln
At Sea Off the Coast of San Diego, California
AC, you nailed it. And Sc
May 1, 2007 - 19:39 ET by botgAC,
you nailed it.
And Scott great article, cuts right to the "mission" of Newsbusters
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, my litmous test for President. BT(adapted)
Acumen
May 1, 2007 - 20:08 ET by JimboAcumen – of course the liberal position on this is incorrect and ridiculous. What I was trying to convey (unsuccessfully apparently) that even if one tries to see it from the liberal point of view, what does it all mean?? In the scope of the war, in the scope of the need to support our troops, in the need for a clear path to victory supported by all…. The statement means nothing, other than another swipe at the president. The whole liberal argument on this, at its base, is in fact baseless!
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Of course President Bush also
May 2, 2007 - 13:37 ET by j. frank wilsonOf course President Bush also said:
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”
Why didn't you quote that, as well?
And the President was correct, j. faux wilson
May 2, 2007 - 13:46 ET by RJAnd the President was correct, j. faux wilson.
Mission Accomplished was hang
May 1, 2007 - 13:40 ET by JayTeeMission Accomplished was hanging on the AIRCRAFT CARRIER.....not around Bush's Neck. The Aircraft Carrier completed it's mission.....one of several missions, Deployments by Navy /Airmen.
How can you overlook a AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER in the Pic ? I guess it's bad news when a Carrier returns after months of deployment, with No Bombs, and outta Ammo and outta Jet fuel ?
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
You are correct, JayTee. Th
May 1, 2007 - 14:06 ET by RangerTomYou are correct, JayTee. That sign was for that Carrier and its sailors. The left has always liked to make the point that the mission has not been accomplished what Bush and this country started out on, regime change which is what the Clinton Administration made a policy of. The war lasted about 17 days when we ran off Saddam and the Baathists. Mission accomplished. The left only likes to report as to the ongoing activities as how they want one to perceive these activities, no matter how wrong it is so long as it fits their agenda. Just ask Reid or Pelosi, they're a couple of know-it-alls.
Screw diversity, celebrate competency
So all aircraft carriers ha
May 1, 2007 - 16:36 ET by balboaSo all aircraft carriers hang banners like that after completing a mission?
And I don't see the relevance of comparing Stephanopolous' opinion at the time to someone else from the same network's opinion now. They don't have to match up.Pretty much
May 1, 2007 - 16:40 ET by Mr. BishopYes, for the most part, they do. So do submarines when they come in from 6-month movements. Basically -- it is the way it is. The aircraft carrier is a mssive city in the middle of the ocean. They have thousands of sailors and pilots aboard, that always have a mission, when they are out for great periods of time (which an AC is out for months at a time, I think close to a year). Upon their return, they fly banners such as that -- at least, that is what I saw growing up in the Navy with a father on a submarine -- banners for subs, banners for aircraft carriers.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Any other questions balboa?
May 1, 2007 - 16:42 ET by MightyMouthAny other questions balboa?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
One more clarification MM
May 1, 2007 - 16:49 ET by acumenWe might need to clarify that "long, hard slog" phase the left seems to keep forgetting MM.
I'm not holding my breath we will be seeing the anniversary of that phrase touted by the demediacrats.
Hey I don't know what happe
May 1, 2007 - 16:56 ET by balboaHey I don't know what happens on aircraft carriers! Cut me some slack!
My other question is Does the Bermuda Triangle actually exist?
Ok and Yes! "There ar
May 1, 2007 - 16:58 ET by MightyMouthOk and Yes!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Yes
May 1, 2007 - 17:31 ET by Mr. BishopYes, the Bermuda Triangle actually exists. What causes the weird things to happen, is up for speculation. I prefer to think of the Bermuda Triangle as being caused by a primordial blackhole... like L. Ron Hubbard said in Mission Earth. Works for me...
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Since the sign came from the
May 2, 2007 - 13:35 ET by j. frank wilsonSince the sign came from the White House - and since nothing gets put up around the President without the permission of his political handlers - your post doesn't make sense.
Then why don't you get OFF
May 2, 2007 - 13:39 ET by MightyMouthThen why don't you get OFF the president and start raggin on his "political handlers"?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I'm not ON the President. I
May 2, 2007 - 15:07 ET by j. frank wilsonI'm not ON the President. I'm not a Congressman from Florida. And if President Bush is an adult he will accept responsibility for the actions of those who work for him. That's the way it works in the real world.
That's my point. The politi
May 2, 2007 - 15:11 ET by MightyMouthThat's my point. The political handlers didn't do anything wrong. You and goof balls like you, have made a controversy over NOTHING! But you are too freakin stubborn to admit it.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Accept what actions?
May 2, 2007 - 15:18 ET by Mr. BishopWhat are you talking about? An Aircraft Carrier displays those banners all the time when they come into port, so do submarines, and I am sure quite a few other surface ships as well (I only ever saw subs and carriers on the Navy bases). Why does Bush have to accept responsibility for anything, since there was nothing done wrong?
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Why to quote only part of the
May 1, 2007 - 14:41 ET by j. frank wilsonWhy to quote only part of the speech to give a misleading impression of the speaker's intent would be as unfair as - well, quoting Sen. Harry Reid saying
"This war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday" without also including "...more people have to start telling George Bush what he needs to hear, not what he wants to hear. I did that. My conscience is clear, because I believe the war, at this stage, can only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically."
Which, by the way, is pretty much word for word from the US Military's new (fall 2006) counter-insurgency field manual...
yo dude...If the "war is
May 1, 2007 - 14:58 ET by TruthMongeryo dude...
If the "war is lost" then how can it "be won diplomatically, politically, and economically...?"
A very reasonable question.
May 1, 2007 - 15:11 ET by j. frank wilsonA very reasonable question. I don't think Sen. Reid made his point very artfully - although selectively quoting only one line doesn't help make his ideas clear.
His point is: There isn't a military only solution to Iraq. It also requires a diplomatic, political, and economic solution as well as stability. I would add the "information overlay" as explained by David Kilcullen. Check out The New Yorker article by George Packer - Knowing the Enemy. Fascinating.
...yeah, let's cut Harry a t
May 1, 2007 - 15:47 ET by TruthMonger...yeah, let's cut Harry a ton of slack - just like the MSM is doing with Bush and this whole "mission accomplished" thingy...
...now if only we had something like a "state department" doing this "diplomacy" for the last several decades...
Maybe we should clue Condi Rice in on this!?
"Counterinsurgency is mi
May 1, 2007 - 16:42 ET by j. frank wilson"Counterinsurgency is military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychological, and civic actions taken by a government to defeat insurgency." Perhaps you don't believe in MOOTW. But until you talk the DoD into withdrawing FM 3-24, that's the official position of our nation.
Except that, according to som
May 1, 2007 - 17:27 ET by UnsaneExcept that, according to some schools I attended as an logistician some years back, the term MOOTW isn't used anymore.
Besides, I love hearing a Socialist talk about the military when he in fact has an extreme, passionate hatred for the military (unless it is acting as an arm of the International Red Cross in operations in areas of the world that do not remotely serve America's national interests.)
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
I found the term in "The
May 1, 2007 - 19:55 ET by j. frank wilsonI found the term in "The Battle for Peace." If you don't like it, take it up with Gen. Zinni. I'm sure he will be most impressed with your military experience and other credentials.
I still don ot see y our poin
May 1, 2007 - 23:14 ET by BDI still don ot see y our point?
Is it that that the Statees are not doing their job? Or that USAID is not on point?
JFW - No. Reid said that the
May 1, 2007 - 16:13 ET by Gat New YorkJFW - No. Reid said that the war is lost. Period. Like stated his spin makes no sense. If it is lost then you have zero leverage to have a political solution. Thanks to the ingrates who intentionally want to lose this war so they can win more seats in Congress (another Reid idea) the enemy just has to wait us out.
I would suggest reading bin Laden's writing and his assessment of the West and his strategy to win. Based on Reid et al bin Laden is right and he the rest as well as the of the islamofascists can count on winning as long as people like Reid and Pelosi have any say about it.
j. frank,In the language of d
May 1, 2007 - 23:05 ET by Blondej. frank,
In the language of diplomacy.....
Qu'elle crap.
JFrank.......Mr. Reid continu
May 1, 2007 - 16:03 ET by JayTeeJFrank.......Mr. Reid continues to Misquote Gen. Pedraeus.....
Gen said something like.... "We need to Secure Iraq, have the Iraqi Security Forces in place and working, So that a Political Solution to the problelms can be effected."
All Reid says in his SPIN Quote...and he said it just yesterday....see the congressional Record...."Gen. P himself says there can only be a Political solution to Iraq".... Reid leaves out the preface, that FIRST we must Secure Iraq, then the Political solution can move forward.
Reid forgets that 90% of the American People are smarter, Braver, and more Rational about Winning Wars, than he is.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
No...
May 1, 2007 - 20:09 ET by Mr. BishopWord for word from FM3-24? Oh, I am sorry... pretty much word for word? No, it's not even close...
Section 1-2 of FM 3-24 states the following:
1-2. Insurgency and its tactics are as old as warfare itself. Joint doctrine defines an insurgency as an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02). Counterinsurgency is those political, economic, military, paramilitary, psychological, and civic actions taken by a government to defeat an insurgency (JP 1-02).
I have placed the area of interest, in bold letters because you didn't read them all (if at all). For you to believe, and thus quote, that Reid is correct, by only quoting part of the FM 3-24, would be somewhat of a horrible thing to do. If you take note, the third action listed for a government to defeat an insurgency, is military -- the fourth being paramilitary. As such for Reid to say you can only win without using the military as a solution, and for you to then say this is in FM 3-24 -- you would both be horribly wrong.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
What is the difference betwee
May 1, 2007 - 22:52 ET by j. frank wilsonWhat is the difference between your quote and mine? I quoted it correctly. If you want to quote the entire - what, 238 pages, go ahead. I certainly didn't change the meaning.
An underlying problem is that the situation in Iraq has gone far beyond insurgency. Now we have civil war (between two religious groups), inter-fighting between at least one of those groups, terrorists, thugs and common thieves taking advantage of the situation - and, of course, the insurgency.
There isn't a US military doctrine for resolving a civil war - other than taking one side against the other. And the logical steps one would take to remove the insurgency have the opposite effect in a civil war - I call it the AMT effect. Counterproductive.
It's a mess. But in order to resolve it there must be a multi-pronged approach. There is no doubt the US military alone can't do it.
Wow... I have
May 1, 2007 - 22:59 ET by Mr. BishopYou should try reading the post in which I responded to. I did not respond to your second post, in which you quoted a portion of FM 3-24, I responded to the one above it.
Secondly, I have read the entirety of FM 3-24, I have it in hard copy and in PDF format on my computer, so no problems there. The problem was not your second quote... it was your statement that Reid was saying what was basically in FM 3-24, pretty much word for word -- it is erroneous.
Third: Iraq is not in a state of civil war, so don't try to insist it is. Civil wars are much more "civilized" then this is. It is terrorism inspired violence, in an attempt to start a civil war.
Fourth, I never once, and I know that Bush has never said, this conflict as it is now, will only be solved through military force alone. I don't know why you might insist that he has, or that he ignores any other options. The situation in Iraq is using all the parts mentioned in FM 3-24, and Reid wants to ignore the military portions, and concentrate on kissing the @$$ of the enemy instead.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
I'm sure Secretary Gates woul
May 2, 2007 - 13:30 ET by j. frank wilsonI'm sure Secretary Gates would be most impressed with your military analysis (as well as the robust nature of your military library). I'm sure if he could only read your post he would significantly alter his views on Iraq.
When Sen. Reid said "The war is lost" he was trying to say there is no military only solution. But why waste your time seeking to understand the views of another when you're so very happy all wrapped up in yourself (as tiny a package as that turns out to be)?
"The war is lost"
May 2, 2007 - 13:35 ET by MightyMouth"The war is lost" he was trying to say there is no military only solution."
Really? Reid needs "frank the translator" for damage control now?
If Reid meant to say that, then why DIDN'T he?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
j. faux wilson misses the irony
May 2, 2007 - 13:41 ET by RJj. faux wilson misses the irony.
Once again he posts a non-answer, while adding a line that is a fine parody of himself: "Why waste your time seeking to understand the views of another when you're so very happy wrapped up in yourself (as tiny a package as that turns out to be)?"
If Iraq's problems don't incl
May 2, 2007 - 14:06 ET by j. frank wilsonIf Iraq's problems don't include civil war, why did the National Intelligence Estimate characterize the situation there as including it? Perhaps our nation could benefit from your wisdom and experience in these matters.
From the BBC (2/2/2007):
Elements of 'civil war' in Iraq
A US intelligence assessment on Iraq says "civil war" accurately describes certain aspects of the conflict, including intense sectarian violence.
However the report, compiled by US security agencies, adds that the controversial term does not adequately sum up the complexity of the situation.
The National Intelligence Estimate gives a bleak assessment of Iraq's future unless the violence is stemmed.
The White House described the report as "tough but fair".
The document uses "civil war" to describe elements of the conflict, including "the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence and population displacements".
Coalition capabilities including force levels, resources and operations remain an essential stabilising element in IraqNational Intelligence Estimate
It says violence between Sunnis and Shias is being driven by increasing polarisation within Iraqi society, compounded by a weak government and security force.
The UN says the war has produced the biggest movement of refugees in the Middle East since the creation of Israel in 1948.
However, the report points out that the conflict also includes Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qaeda and Sunni insurgent attacks on coalition forces, and widespread violence by criminals.
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said the term "civil war" over-simplified the situation.
"I believe that there are essentially four wars going on in Iraq: one is Shia-on-Shia, principally in the south; the second is sectarian conflict, principally in Baghdad; third is the insurgency; and fourth is al-Qaeda," he told reporters before the intelligence estimate was issued.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED was for
May 1, 2007 - 20:12 ET by sembyMISSION ACCOMPLISHED was for those on the ship you idiot! Stop lying to the American people Claire!
I love these morons berrate
May 1, 2007 - 20:30 ET by GregEI love these morons berrate the "Mission Accomplished" (Tommy Franks idea, by the way), but they want to pull troops out of Iraq and call it a new strategy. Yea, it's new strategy. So is a sign in front of my house saying all my things are for the free taking, come on in.......but that's not a strategy for my safety that will work. A "new strategy" means nothing in and of itself. What is the strategy? Oh yea, it's "let's leave." That's a strategy for what? Why don't they say what that "new strategy's" goal is?
From Bush's speech that d
May 1, 2007 - 20:38 ET by GregEFrom Bush's speech that day...
The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know
the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No
act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve,
or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to
victory.
Later, in the halls of Congress lived a man named Harry Reid, one Dick Durbin, one Nancy Pelosi, and many others, who stood up to the mean ol Bushman and said "NOT IF WE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT!!!!!". Their work continues, and because of their hard work, the war continues longer. When our enemies are feeling down and nearly defeated, they turn to the words of these allies for strength, guidance, and encouragement, and with that new breath of life, they march forward with their work. The mean ol Bushman, wanting to destroy enemies of his nation, is finding it rough going fighting both an external enemy, and an internally, elected one.
When our taxes are at 90% so
May 1, 2007 - 20:45 ET by botgWhen our taxes are at 90% so we can provide total enablement for the dregs in society. When our health care is dumbed-down and tripled in expense like our national schooling. When we all must learn spanish or not be allowed to work. When all ideas are equal. Then the Dems can put up their MISION ACCOMPLISHED banner
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, my litmous test for President. BT(adapted)
Great Article by a great soldier!!
May 1, 2007 - 23:36 ET by misterbillNational Review today has this piece. It is a darn good read.
Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?
Sir Walter Scott
Misterbill, thanks for the li
May 2, 2007 - 08:16 ET by old croMisterbill, thanks for the link. A really excellent article that minces no words abouts who our real enemies are. To bad it will not get the exposure it deserves, it will only be read by the "choir".
"Our government, under our Constitution, was established upon the principles of Federalism---that the federal government would have limited enumerated powers and the rest would be left to the states. It not only prevented tyranny, it just made good sense. States become laboratories for democracy and experiment with different kinds of laws. One state might try one welfare reform approach, for example. Another state might try another approach. One would work and
the other would not... Federalism also allows for the diversity that exists among the country's people. Citizens of our various states have different views as to how traditional state responsibilities should be handled. This way, states compete with each other to attract people and businesses---and that is a good thing. Everyone in Washington embraces Federalism until it comes to someone's pet project designed to appeal to the voters. Then, oftentimes, even the most ardent Federalist throws in with the 'Washington solution' crowd...[I]f conservatives use Federalism as a tool with which to reward our friends and strike our enemies, instead of treating it as a valued principle, we are doing a disservice to our country---as
well as to the cause of conservatism."
---Former Sen. Fred Thompson
Special thanks to the Patriot Post!
Sure wish we’d heard the Pr
May 2, 2007 - 02:09 ET by maggieqpublicSure wish we’d heard the President say, “Mission Accomplished”, when he announced the veto of the congressional bill.
Ah the day the MSM and Democr
May 2, 2007 - 09:57 ET by ucAh the day the MSM and Democrats pulled another rug out from under the Presidents strategies. How much international support did this tirade of theirs cost us? "End of major combat" >>> like President affraid Saddam actually had WMD and would use them against our troops and cost us thousands of casualties in a day???
"End of major combat" must have some recognized military definition towards such calamity and not regular (proper military jargon here).
Bush may not be able to live that day down but he may be able to start living it up now. Heck have you tried to follow Pelosi and Reid and their choice of words and phrases >>> I still don't know when they are talking about maybe the "War on Terror" or when they are talking about "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
America, this is a "wake up call" to see the Democratic leadership as it is and not as they are trying to be seen.
Who doesn't remember all the grief the President has gotten over his "war" language? How can Democrats be getting such a free ride by MSM on soo much more unspecific and undefined speach? Bush's speach never got so low. Bush did though practice less is more as a strategy it seems.
It does seem in retrospect that transcripts of our President's commentary fit much more logically and even grammatically than what we have been hearing from Pelosi and Reid. You almost find that they manufactured their "support of the people."
"End of major combat"
Does "uc" stand for
May 2, 2007 - 17:00 ET by j. frank wilsonDoes "uc" stand for Un Clear?
Does "j" stand fo
May 2, 2007 - 17:03 ET by MightyMouthDoes "j" stand for jacka**?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...