Additionally 80% of the country is against illegal immigration and it hasn’t been shut down.

He didn’t stand against a 9/11 commission as you assert (you are another fulfiller of the liberal pattern of attack and accuse), nor the Department of Homeland Security per say. He signed it into law after being passed by Congress. He was trying to have things passed without the Airline security personnel being unionized (as I remember) and I personally agree with him on that issue. He didn’t have the votes to overcome a veto so your characterization is FLAT wrong. Additionally, I’m not sure of your point. You guys RAIL on the Pres daily and he doesn’t CHANGE into the direction of pleasing you guys even though he is LEFT of CENTER. He seems to commit to something and work dilligently towards it to the dismay of leftists.

Your characterization of pulling the troops out steadily after the Iraq December 05 elections as “cut and run is AMUSING at best and predicted by those of us on the “right” (I’m a centrist).

Robert = ATTACKING INCORRECT ACCUSER

“Bush doesn’t capitualte to public opinion.” You, my friend, are a hoot.

Loved the way he stood up to the creation of the 911 Commission (for a few minutes, anyway) or the Dept. of Homeland Security (ditto, until he found out how to pay off his favors through it).

What will you call it when Bush pulls the troops out of Iraq before the ’06 elections?
I ask because “Cut and Run” is already taken.

Bush=Flip-flopper.

BTW, I saw where we won’t be “restructuring” Iraq.

If it’s “Cut and Run” when Dems call for it, what do they call it when Reps propose it? Just wondering.

Let’s try this sentence of yours, “… are corrupt, greedy and warlike”.

And Steve wants a bloodbath. Why Steve?

You are wrong.

Saying that war does not work ignores a massive amount of history where conflicts and problems were solved by war.

Now I grant you the stupidity of putting “war” on everything like War on drugs, war on guns, war on..whatever, I know that doesn’t work, and in my personal opinion that is just a play on words and nothing more.

As for actual war, especially in Iraq, you must be tuning into the MSM and ignoring everything else if you think it is not helping. You seem to ignore the fact that Saddam has been removed, the Iraqis have VOTED themselves a new government and a new consitution to govern themselves not seen in DECADES. Other countries have taken notice and there is a spark of wanting more in those countries from thier own citizens. Syria was made to leave Lebanon by the Lebanese, not us, but the want to govern themselves.

Peace cannot be had by appeasement. You can talk all you want, but you want to compare talking and action, then compare the US actions vs the UN. the UN is nothing but talk, but it takes the actions of a few to make changes. You may not believe in the war, you may believe it was all a lie, all for oil, all for one company, Halliburton, but then you are only getting one sided information which is untrue. When people say it was for the Oil, I would liek to know, have we received any oil from Iraq at all? Have we taken anything? Granted if we do take or ask for a discounted amount, I would not have any qualms about it after spending Billions in rebuilding them.

Funny you mention warmongers being in charge, yet it wa a warmonger we removed from power, Saddam, who invaded Kuwait and went to war with Iran. Who as of recently intelligence reports translated from Iraq have found that he supported and encouraged terrorism and terrorist training camps in Iraq.

Look here for more info:
LINK

While we have barely scratched the surface of Iraq’s intelligence records, it is already obvious that Saddam was a major supporter and enabler of Islamic terrorism.

If as you say Bush is a warmonger and you believe that he kills masses of human beings into obedience (which that perfectly describes Saddam and not Bush) why would he not do this to say, Democrats that oppose him? The moonbats out there? Codepink? Michael Moore? Moveon.org? Why are these people still standing?

Your claims are rediculous and way off base. If Bush was guilty of such, the democrats I would hope would find some sort of spine and band together and tell the world, but most felt the same way that Bush did, they had the same intell that he had, they raised the same concerns and stated the same things back before Bush was even in office.

By the way, the “spare the rod spoil the child” I take you mean the Christian groups or those who believe in God, sicne you take the quote which comes fro mthe Bible. You seemed ot be misinformed yet again, since “spare the rod spoil the child” does not have any meaning to war, but more to how to raise a child, and it does not mean beat your child as that is probably next to come out.

“Both the law of God and the law of man are indeed complimentary and can both be obeyed if you view the “rod” in the verses not as a tool of pain and injury, but figuratively as the wooden rod of a shepherd and the way he uses it as a “rod of correction” to guide and direct.”

This gives you a more appropriate view, since it does not mean to literally beat with a rod, but to correct.

Read here for more information if you choose to learn more:
LINK

This is another:
“From The Bible, Old Testament Proverbs 13-24 – He that spareth his rod hateth his son.”

Those who do not correct, guide and raise thier children correctly, hate them, is how I take that.

A little more if ST doesn’t mind:
“He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.” — Proverbs 13: 24 (KJV)

The Kingdom of God, however, is about right relationships – and the obligations these carry, to love God and each other. Children, therefore, must obey their parents; but parents, equally, must not exasperate their children (Ephesians 6.4).

Punishment should ultimately seek to restore an offender to their community or family, not to alienate or physically harm them. And if we ever lose sight of that goal, we’ll risk making a rod for our own backs.

Since “the rod” was essentially a sign of punishment that was used as context, but it does not literally mean to beat with a rod, thier are other forms of punishment. It does mean that “spoiling” a child, without correction or guidance can lead to a corrupted child.

By your stating the “spare the rod spoil the child groups”, I take it you are talking about the Christians, or those who believe in the Bible, that you wish to add them and thier attitudes, thoughts and opinions to the “ash-heap” of history. You might be suprised at just what you suggest and how many your “suggestion encompasses.

Just a quick note, for I could not let this pass.

Carefully read what OBL LT is saying, it…can it be…..why yes, it does sound almost identical to the democratic talking points.

In some wierd way I wonder if this was not Kennedy with Pelosi directing, for it seems like just the type of stuff that comes from thier mouths on a daily basis.

You don’t think that the enemy listens to the media? Why do you think they allow the media reporters to bed in with them, posing for pictures with RPGs and rifles?

I will not call them stupid, these terrorists, if they are smart they watch our media very closely, see where the holes are in the US security (leaks on how intelligence is gathered is good for them), and watch to see how the media and the public react to certain things, what break thier Will and lessens the resolve to stay there.

I am not sure who is more foolish, the media and leakers thinking they are ‘helping’ by divulging classified information and putting our troops and the US citizens in greater peril….

or the thought that the terrorists are nothing more than teenagers with short attention spans. They won’t watch TV, read papers, listen to reports to see how thier attacks affect the US resolve.

Terrorists watch, they listen, they look for what is effective.

If kidnapping works and gets troop withdrawl (Spain), they will continue to do it if they find success in it.

If Kidnapping and threat of death gets them more money with ransoms (Germany), they will continue to do it, since it works.

Appeasement of terrorists only leads to more terrorism.

Get a clue.

Arnold after the last “special election” changed course and said he’s “learned” and is now spending CA into oblivion. If Bush capitulated to popular opinion (due to the mainstream press’s misinformation) I’d lose any respect I had for Bush.

Democrats say, “The US must withdraw from a defeat in Iraq,” “Bush is a liar” and “Defeat in Iraq is unavoidable.”

Republicans say “A defeat in Iraq is a victory for the terrorists.”

Who agrees with both?