US Features
By Frank Fuhrig May 2, 2007, 14:14 GMT
Bush veto brings out fringes, from the left and right
And Also
Similar articles
- Obama wants more from Iraqi leaders as pullout looms
- US-Iraqi talks on forces agreement pressured from all sides
- The US military's eyes in the sky - unmanned aerial vehicles
- Democrats unpersuaded by Petraeus testimony
- Five years on, Bush vows to win in Iraq
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. White House gate crashers in less festive mood in first interview
- 2. Suspect in US police killing shot dead (1st Lead)
- 3. Suspect in US police killing shot dead
- 4. In Pictures: 'World War II Fighter Recovered'
- 5. Supreme Court overturns decision on detainee abuse photos
Older Talkback
That the Commander-in-chief is commanding should not be a surprise to anyone. That's what we (as a nation ) expected in the last election and voted for in 2004. Does anyone think that the appeaser John Kerry would have brought our response to terrorism to anything better than what we have today?? I do not think so. By the way, how does anyone really expect the very inexperienced Obama
to lead us in such a dangerous world?
'By the way, how does anyone really expect the very inexperienced Obama'
Lemme guess, you are a big Michael Steele fan?
To the commenter above, would you care to illuminate us on the skills and experience the current President brings to the table in such a dangerous world?
So, exactly how many people from the right wing pro-war group actually were in Iraq, fought in Iraq, had children fighting in Iraq, are nursing disabled wounded children from Iraq, Buried murdered children who were killed needlessly in Iraq?
War on terror my butt. There have always been terrorists and there always will be. It's just now, someone has managed to package it and market it successfully to the sheep of this nation. It's just like when the Catholic Church created hell in the Sixth century to keep the populace controlled by fear of an afterlife of fire and brimstone.
Wake up you so-called freedom fighters. War is profit. Pure and simple. Peace is non-profitable. JFK planned a pull out from Vietnam in 1963 and he was killed a week later by the government. Johnson is sworn in and reverses JFK's withdrawl policies to ensure a nice, long profitable war.
illuminate? great choice of words
how about ' enlighten ' , intelligence isn't
a promise .
I didn't know the world can't wait was another RCP front. How disappointing.
hey BR, how much experience do you think Bush had when he became President? It wasn't much, yet righties insist on denigrating opponents with that line. Funny.
Thank you Bob, but I have and did and proudly so! Think about that when you safely go to sleep tonight!
Bush is experienced enough to be Commander-in-Chief??? A fence post can standby and do nothing but that doesn't make it fit to be Commander-in-Chief!
I am stunned at the way democrats and republicans are making war a political issue.
i guess we as a human beings, have still not become smart enough to realize that politicians are treating us all like sheeps.
Show me the experience of King George when he was coming to the white house.
Or mey be you should choose experienced Dick for new presidente.
Nobody is experienced till he or she get to it.
President Bush is NOT the commander-in-chief of the PEOPLE, but of the ARMED FORCES - a very important distinction, essential to the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. It's scary that he doesn't seem to get that, or doesn't seem to care. Or perhaps he does understand and is just taking advantage of the fact that many unthoughtful people don't get it. I'm sure the people pulling his strings get it.
Why do many people like these 'Free Rupublic'ans seem to think that being anti-war means you are anti-American? Was America founded on freedom for everyone or was it founded as a military base? Is it anti-American to think that the 3,200 Americans killed so far in Iraq didn't need to die--not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqis. And why do war sympathizers constantly tout this was as our 'War on terror' when the decision to go to Iraq had nothing to do with terror. Why would we go to war with Iraq over their presumed possession of weapons of mass destruction when North Korea has flouted UN regulations, has tested REAL weapons of mass destruction, and has threatened to use them? ...Maybe if they had more oil. I'm not saying that we should go to war with North Korea either, just that there is a readily apparent discrepancy that the American people are choosing to ignore.
Pathetic red-baiting crap. Who cares if some militantly anti-thinking Freeper can chom cigars and yell? The question is, who's telling the truth?
If it takes a communist to tell the truth about this war, then I say we need more communists.
We sure as hell don't need these so-called journalists who absolve themselves of the task of uncovering the truth, and prefer to just present things as a 'he said, she said' drama. Save that for daytime TV.
We need a truth surge!!!
Please give me a break. Bush has you living in fear. Kerry would have done a significantly better job than Bush for many reasons including the fact that international relations are his mother ship. Bush on the other hand is a global failure & moron that does not listen to his people, but dictates to them. His head is stuck in the ground, he fires honest workers so 'his people' aka 'Bush agenda supporters' hold power. He surrounds his self with 'yes men' b/c he fires his staff otherwise. Bush is creating a mess for the next president to clean up - I swear, I could do a better job leading. How? B/c I care about what the people want. Bush only seems to be concerned with himself and his Christian followers.
The majority of attackers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabian. Attacking Iraq to fight terrorism was like blockading Cananda to stop illegal immigrants from Mexico. The occupation is a failure and the surge is only bringing about the deaths of more of our soldiers. The fight against the Taliban continues in Afghanistan all but unnoticed as the Moron-In-Chief keeps the focus on his lost cause in Iraq.
Once again it's 'The Fringes.' What would opinion mongers do without them?
Why not call for an end to fringe analysis (So predictable, so hackneyed.) and ask: What does the bog of inaction and indifference in the bloated center offer as a way _out_ OR a way to _victory_ in Iraq? Forced to actually do some thinking, take a stance, the masters of the meaningless middle would quickly gravitate to the fringes. I happen to believe that migration would be toward _out_, a clear tactic and strategy with benefits,immediate and long range, rather than toward _victory_, a vague, undefined, unachievalbe hope which saddles us to pain and loss for years five, six, seven . . . ?
Whichever would turn out to be the case, point your finger at the middles, not the fringes.
Whackjobs young and old are coming to complain - I think there's another village out there missing its idiot...
What is an anti-war group with Maoist tendencies anyway? The Chinesse aren't Maoist anymore. They are repressive and totalitarian but hardly on the path towards inner harmony.
Since when do we care about an internet chapter of 'nut-jobs for America', anyway? I guess they had nothing better to do than show-up to protest a dozen or so granolas who had the day off their commune.
Sounds like two groups of people I'm glad don't live near me.
First, let's get one thing straight - Iraq at the time Bush attacked it had nothing to do with terror. Second, TERROR is NOT a country, it is tactics. You can't start war on it. Third, I don't know about Obama, but almost anyone will do a better job than the 'Mission Accomplished' guy, occupying the White House at the moment.
You can't have a war on a concept. You can have a war against a people, you can fight a war against a political movement, but you cannot fight a war against an EMOTION. Terror is just that. So long as people are capable of being frightened, there will be terror. It would make just as much sense to launch a war against people who write horror movie screenplays.
The war in Iraq is nothing but a political ruse to distract from the many things going wrong in the United States. There is no ideal. There is no clear goal. We are simply fighting to fight because it is sort of profitable. We had no reason to go into Iraq in the first place. It is not our place to enforce OUR beliefs onto other nations. It would be quite another if the people of that nation appealed to us for help and support. Rather, we forcibly removed their political figurehead and removed the one person that held the warring factions and tribes of that nation apart.
We made a mistake, plain and simple. We cannot clean it up. We don't have the ability or the compassion to do so. Rather than squandering billions of dollars that we don't even technically have (hello, huge federal deficit) we should pull out, cut our losses, and assist on DIPLOMATIC terms. Pointing a gun at people will not get the desired result, it will simply foster more resentment and belligerence. Pulling out now truly is the best option. We must apologize for our mistakes, oversee the negotiations, and assist with THEIR decisions rather than try to FORCE them to use ours.
But that's not the American way.
Your Talkback on this Story