I would never "wish" we lost, I am just intelligent enough to realize that there is not going to be any real "win or lose" here. (didn't bush already offically proclaim victory last year)?
I want the best for our counrty, but I am enough of a realist that I can also be a man and admit when we are doing wrong. It's called an Exit Strategy, and we are lacking one.
Democracy will not "spread" to Iran in our lifetimes, I'll send you a hundred bucks if I'm wrong.

 

Also, on the radio today, one of the reporters that had been covering the Crawford incident said that the grieving mother demonstrator was not "camped" at the sit-in, but spent her nights in a motel. I give her credit for being steadfast, but her plight seems not to be as bad as most of the media make it out to be.

 

suppose communist china envaded the U.S.....they came and overran us and took over.when in charge,they explained to us that the way our government had been using us and suppressing us for their benefit was wrong.they had a different way that was the right way.everyone would be equal,everyone would have a job.no more inequality and class discrimination.communism,,that is better than our way,they explain that in time,we will be better with it,and that they had freed us from political suppression and the evil democracy we were under.would you just believe them?or would you fight till your last breath?.....you have to understand,the way they are is the way they have always been,thats all they know,or all they believe.they have been taught the evils of democracy and propaganda of how bad and evil america is.......it will take time to ever make it better in iraq,if it ever does get better.im sure when we defeated japan,they didnt take to the emporer not being the man overnight,,,,,,,,,any thoughts??...bama

 

It is not very often that democracy spreads in one lifetime. I know ours didn't. I also know I won't live to see the benefits of being in Iraq, but my kids and grandkids will.

Making this country safer for future generations, mine and yours, had to start somewhere.

 

If we were as oppressed as most of the people in Iraq were, I might welcome the Chinese. Remember, the people of Iraq had very few freedoms.....no freedom of speech, no freedom to demonstrate, no womens rights, no television, few radios (and best not get caught listening to the wrong station), and no freedom of the press. Even most brainwashed people can understand the difference. It just takes time.

What would happen to the Crawford demonstrators in Iraq under Saddams rule?

 

In my opinion the media has given this whole thing way to much attention and this is why we we are talking about it and more people are joining in. (Don't they have jobs?) If all you had to do to talk to the Pres. of the United States was camp in front of his home,anybody with a strong opinion would do it. For that reason alone I don't blame Bush. I don't think she went about it the right way,not that I would know the right way,but we see now this will not work.Her only chance now is negitive press, and I think Bush has seen alot of that to not even care.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by crobtex
If we were as oppressed as most of the people in Iraq were, I might welcome the Chinese. Remember, the people of Iraq had very few freedoms.....no freedom of speech, no freedom to demonstrate, no womens rights, no television, few radios (and best not get caught listening to the wrong station), and no freedom of the press. Even most brainwashed people can understand the difference. It just takes time.

What would happen to the Crawford demonstrators in Iraq under Saddams rule? QUOTE]

I can think of about a dozen countrys that fall within those guidlines of lacking some personal freedoms however their major export is walnuts and rice. We have enough of both so we had to "Free" the one with the oil. Imagine that. I didn't see anything about a troop reduction but I did see that the defense dept. wants to add another 20,000 troops to help stabalize the region according to Cnn. FWIW

 

What no one seems to be mentioning is that her son died over a year ago. After his death, Bush met with the mother. She had nothing but praises for Bush in a speech after that meeting. I wonder how much she will make from the book after this is all over. Her family has seperated themselves from her, her husband has filed for divorce, today I think.

The whole thing is a sham. Bush has no reason to meet her, nothing that could be said, it is all set up to deface Bush. Also he is not a glib man, a poor speaker, they would make him look like a fool. How he would actually be a fool, is to go and meet her out there.

 

I very rarely agree with this gal, but I think she hit the nail right on the head this time:
Published August 14, 2005, A commentary by Kathleen Parker

It is unseemly to critique how people express their personal grief, especially when it comes to those who've lost children to war.

So if Cindy Sheehan wants to camp outside President George W. Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch in the name of her son -- Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, who was killed last year in a Baghdad ambush -- then she deserves only cool drinks and soft shade.

As for those glomming onto her tragedy -- whether for political posturing or personal profiling -- gloves off. As these grief hounds bask in the kliegs of temporary fame, even the dogs of "dog days" skulk in shame.

Yes, of course, it is August.

With no shark bites in weeks and Natalee Holloway still missing after more than two months; with the Supreme Court confirmation hearings still weeks away and already stale, and the shuttle crew safely landed, what's a ravenous news horde to do?

Why, stake out the president and the mother who mourns her son.

Speaking as a mother and fellow citizen, my heart goes out to Cindy Sheehan and all other parents of lost sons and daughters. One can only imagine their grief and pain. Thus, my first thought upon hearing her plea for an audience with Bush was that he should run, not walk, and greet her with a warm embrace.

I wanted him to hug her and to say how deeply sorry he is for her loss. I wanted him to face the cameras and, choking back emotion, to tell the world how much he cares for every single son and daughter serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And then I wanted him to be Tony Blair and say all the right things in just the right way so that Cindy Sheehan could return home to Vacaville, Calif., and begin to heal.

But, Bush is not Tony Blair, as intelligent design would have it. And he's not coming out because he can't, though he might have in that first instant, before the crowds arrived. He probably wishes he had. Then again, he did meet with Sheehan on another occasion, in private with other military parents, but Sheehan wasn't satisfied.

She wants more. But what, and how much? What exactly would satisfy her and her entourage? For Cindy Sheehan is no longer just a grieving mother. She's a media extravaganza, a political pawn and a rallying icon -- the Rosa Parks of the anti-war movement, as she has been dubbed. There's now a "Camp Casey," the Crawford gathering place for Sheehan supporters, as well as a been there/done that T-shirt: "BUSH Talk to Cindy! Moms and Vets Will Stop The War!"

Moveon.org offered Sheehan media expertise, while Democratic consultant Joe Trippi organized a conference call for bloggers and Sheehan.

At this point, Sheehan's demands have become impossibly problematic for Bush. Just as intended? By declining to see her, he seems cruel and out of touch with others' suffering. But by seeing her, he puts himself -- and potentially the security of others -- at great risk.

Why can't he come out?

He can't because he's the president of the United States, because we're at war, and because every move he makes causes ripples around the world. Ripples that, depending on other circumstances, can get other sons and daughters killed before Joe Trippi can say, "That's a wrap."

He can't because what Sheehan's anti-war supporters want is neither a hug nor a few words of comfort. They want a confrontation -- a wrenching, sobbing, high-noon showdown -- soon to be a Democratic political ad and Al-Jazeera headline for the foreseeable future.

Sheehan, who opposed the war before her son died, belongs to the movement now. And Bush, regardless of what he personally might wish to do, has responsibilities that far exceed the crowd gathering beyond his Prairie Chapel Ranch.

Once he allows himself to be captured in a video clip or a photograph, recoiling from the agony of a bereaved mother, the world is in greater danger. Democrats might be delighted to freeze that image in political time, but so would insurgents planning their next Baghdad ambush.

Whatever Sheehan hoped for in the beginning of her watch is irrelevant now. She and her cause have been usurped and distorted by the phenomenon of which she is the center. Her healing will have to wait until the next big story breaks and the media circus moves on.

Where is Jaws when you need him?

 

Bama has a point.

 

I just wanna drop this in before it gets locked...

Geico - you referred to as PJ's stance as treasonous? Why is it treasonous?

 

It's easier to put me down and take my comments as a "threat" than actually take the time to consider my view point.
We have gotten SO patriotic here, that if someone even thinks you are saying something negative about our current situation they write you off as an idiot.

trea·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trzn)
n.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

A betrayal of trust or confidence.

 

Of all the summers in Texas that could have had cool weather, why did it have to be THIS summer?? Why couldn't we have had the typical 105-108 degree August weather??

A little Texas heat would shut 'em up.

 

Maybe a Black Smoke truck rally up and down the road.

Mount Up!!

 

Works for me. Maybe I can stop at Carl's Corner along the way and fill up with some of that B20 while I'm at it.