Bush invites Dems to talks, not negotiations – USATODAY.com

s?19=40004&7=1660&38=434982315

spacer.gif spacer.gif
USA TODAY emailthis-logo.gif

Powered by
* Please note, the sender’s email address has not been verified.
spacer.gif
You have received the following link from rjbbjb1@charter.net:
spacer.gif
Click the following to access the sent link:
etIcon.gifBush invites Dems to talks, not negotiations – USATODAY.com*
SAVE THIS link FORWARD THIS link
Get your EMAIL THIS Browser Button and use it to email content from any Web site. Click here for more information.
spacer.gif
*This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste the entire address below into your web browser.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-10-bush-iraq_n.htm?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:8f46348d-ad68-419d-9b2c-393643f0aaab&POE=click-refer
Advertisements

9 Responses to “Bush invites Dems to talks, not negotiations – USATODAY.com”

  1. jbintenn Says:

    Walter wrote:

    “The are about to put forth a bill that gives the president all the money he has asked for. If the president vetoes that bill, then HE’LL be the one cutting off the funding for the troops.”

    The Democrats are playing political games in a time of war that ultimately affects the well being of our troops during a time of war. There is simply no excuse for that.

    There are other ways they can show their discontent for the war but not have it involve our troops. They knew full well what the President’s position was when it came to setting artificial timelines so they have no excuse.

    This will backfire on them.

  2. jbintenn Says:

    Greg101 wrote:

    “We are not going to win the war on terror in Iraq – only fuel the flames.”

    The flames were fueled once we invaded Iraq and set up shop there.

    You really think that just leaving is going to make it better? The price we are paying now will be nothing compared to the price we or future generations will pay if we give up on Iraq now.

  3. jbintenn Says:

    Walter,

    If the President has the authority and the final say in a time of war because he is the Commander in Chief and he has remained steadfast and resolute on this issue and everyone knows, including Congress, that he is not going to change his mind, why would Congress choose to try and change his mind at the expense of our troops when they do not have the authority to do so in the first place.

    I call that playing political games and reckless disregard during a time of war.

    The Democrat controlled Congress is now left with no choice but to back down anyway so what did all of this toying with the President gain any of us?

    Even if they did it just to try and isolate the President even further in the minds of the American people, it is still exploiting our troops for attempted political gain and I think most Americans see right through it and it will backfire on them.

  4. jbintenn Says:

    omarh93,

    Listen to the President’s State of the Union address where he so eloquently spoke of this being our generation’s calling and reveals his vision for establishing a lasting peace for all free people and you will understand the stakes in Iraq are more to him than just removing Saddam and then leaving.

    This has been the biggest frustration trying to reason with those on the other side of the fence because you cannot look at this short sighted. None of it will make sense if you do.

  5. jbintenn Says:

    jpetz wrote:

    “What are you? A right-wing chickenhawk who has no problem sending others to fight a war you applaud but don’t have the guts to fight yourself?”

    Another example of the anti-Bush crowd demonstrating the very arrogant pompous attitude they accuse our Commander in Chief of having. “Let he who is innocent cast the first stone…..”

  6. jbintenn Says:

    keone wrote:

    “the people who perpetrated the attacks on us are who we should be fighting”

    We answered the call in Afghanistan and in an indirect way we are still answering it in Iraq.

    Gonna take a change of hearts and minds which is why so much is at stake in Iraq. Success there is defined as allowing the Iraqis to stand on their own two feet within there new democratic government in the midst of a turbulent Middle East region. It should not have to be explained why this is so critical and is in our long term best interest in terms of our national security.

    Many people say it is none of our business. They have been fighting over there for thousands of years, they say. My view is 9/11 made it our business and we ought to be glad we have a President willing to finally take a stand and do something that could have long term lasting effects for generations to come if we would only pull together and see it through.

  7. jbintenn Says:

    Shadowtrucker,

    In the bigger picture there is no question Iraq, when you view it now and back then, had and has everything in the world to do with a post 9/11 approach to how we should treat and deal with rogue regimes, like Iraq was and could become again if we are not steadfast to see it through. There is no question all of that is linked and why shouldn’t it be? To think otherwise and say we should stay here, keep to our business and cover our heads in the sand by sealing our borders is just fundamentally wrong. You might as well get ready for another 9/11, right? Would it happen in our lifetime, don’t know, but why not be on the aggressive and take care of it now while we can? Isn’t that what 9/11 meant to our generation? Didn’t we get the message that you can’t allow a ’93 World Trade Center attack , the USS Cole attack and others to happen and not respond in a very forceful way.? The events of 9/11 should have taught us that lesson for good. President Bush and this administration and many others saw the logic in a short term response (Afghanistan ) to 9/11 and now, yes Iraq is indirectly a long term response. And shouldn’t it be?

    Isn’t the fact that we never really did respond in force and in full to those previous acts of aggression by the Islamic extremists and the fact that we had very poor intelligence back then contribute to why we eventually got attacked on 9/11. Couldn’t what we are doing presently over there in Afghanistan and in Iraq be viewed as contributing to having a lasting positive change on eliminating the radical element in the Middle East? Okay so the jury is still out on Iraq but you have to admit, it is still too early to tell. I do know this, however. These people that love to tell the supporters of President Bush that what he is doing is not only wrong but is making it worse have yet to convince me that the alternative approach of sitting back and hiding here in this country is just as effective. You have history against you if you take that approach anyway since we have already seen what non-action will do.

  8. jbintenn Says:

    Slaw,

    I’m sorry Slaw, your responses have me longing for the days of pre-9/11.

    We have to change that mindset and President Bush is trying to do just that. A bold vision, yes, and a very necessary one for the safety and security of our future.

  9. jbintenn Says:

    PapaGee wrote:

    “I agree with you ….President Bush has many flaws ( we all do) but NO other President had seen what happened to us on September 11, 2001..he made a promise to do what Presidents do…protect this nation from enemies foreign and domestic…he has a plan (from military and civilian experts) and he is convinced we need to fight…AFTER 9/11 …I will take my Presidents word on that need…”

    Thanks for being a voice of reason. What you said above needs to be played over and over again on these blogs so that as many people can see it as possible. It cuts to the core of much of the dissent we find about our President. It really does come down to a trust issue for me and the realization that he is our President and doing what he feels is best.

    You are so right. No President has faced a 9/11 before and as he said then and is still emphasizing today, he intends to defend the American people to the best of his abilities. There is nothing political or deceitful about his intentions at all. He is asking us to trust him and have patience.

    There are no “lies and deception” that many would have us believe. He is not that kind of person. How could he? Politicians may “lie” ( that word is so misused now anyway) but he is not a true Washington insider. He is the Washington outsider he told us he was when he was campaigning. Perhaps this is why he is so misunderstood by many, along with the fact that he is not the best communicator.

    You have to be willing to put down all the pre-conceived notions that are swirling around this President and take him for his word. It may sound corny but it really does start with trust and “taking him at his word.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: