Thursday, September 22, 2005
Will Bush Be Defined By Crises?
Ron Fournier of the AP seems to believe so.
1. His response to the attacks of Sept. 11th. His moral fortitude in rallying the country, offering support and compassion to the victims and families, and above all taking the fight to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
2. The liberation of the the Iraqi people and the establishment of a true democratic republic in the Middle East.
I believe that in the 22nd century, it will be said of President George W. Bush, "He was underestimated as President. Only now are historians discovering his personal and political depth. When he arrived in Washington he was criticized for his supposed lack of political experience, but Bush had emotional strengths that made him a natural."
If you find that far fetched, try doing a little research on what the prevailing opinions were of President Abraham Lincoln during his presidency. Bush will be to the America of 2150 what Lincoln is to us today, an icon and one of our finest presidents. ¶ Thursday, September 22, 2005
"It's August in Crawford, Texas, and President Bush is on vacation. His poll ratings are slumping. He hears warnings of a looming crisis that will soon change the course of his presidency.Bush defined by Katrina? I don't think so. Consider this from Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web".
Is this August 2001? Or August 2005?
The answer is both. Historians will ultimately judge Bush's presidency based on his leadership through two tragedies — the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and Hurricane Katrina, plus a conflict of his own design: The war in Iraq.
...
'the Katrina response was plagued by confusion, communications failures and widespread lack of coordination — all of which should have been addressed by expensive post-Sept. 11 reforms.' "
Judging by his leadership to this point, future generations of Americans will likely judge President George W. Bush's performance based on two things."Historians will judge Bush by his response to the hurricane? Hmm, OK, let's try a little test. Who was president during each of these events:
- The Galveston hurricane, which killed some 8,000
- The Great Okeechobee Hurricane, which killed more than 2,500
- The Johnstown, Pa., flood, which killed at least 2,200
- The San Francisco earthquake, which killed 700
You have no idea, do you? We had to look it up, and we're almost an expert on American presidents.
The answers are William McKinley, Calvin Coolidge, Benjamin Harrison and Theodore Roosevelt.
Do you remember ever hearing or reading a single word about how the president responded to any of these events?"
1. His response to the attacks of Sept. 11th. His moral fortitude in rallying the country, offering support and compassion to the victims and families, and above all taking the fight to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
2. The liberation of the the Iraqi people and the establishment of a true democratic republic in the Middle East.
I believe that in the 22nd century, it will be said of President George W. Bush, "He was underestimated as President. Only now are historians discovering his personal and political depth. When he arrived in Washington he was criticized for his supposed lack of political experience, but Bush had emotional strengths that made him a natural."
If you find that far fetched, try doing a little research on what the prevailing opinions were of President Abraham Lincoln during his presidency. Bush will be to the America of 2150 what Lincoln is to us today, an icon and one of our finest presidents. ¶ Thursday, September 22, 2005
Comments:
<< Home
Uh...I hate to burst your bubble with the pinprick of reality, but I feel compelled to point out a couple of things...
1. His response to the attacks of Sept. 11th...taking the fight to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Which has been completely unsuccessful. The Taliban not only still exists, but is making record opium profits. Global terrorism is way, WAY up (at least, the Bush State Department thinks so. Al Qaeda continues to find recruits. And today marks exactly 1,466 days since George W. Bush said that he would get Osama bin Laden dead or alive.
2. The liberation of the the Iraqi people and the establishment of a true democratic republic in the Middle East.
A true democratic republic? IRAQ!?!
In real life, Iraq is an occupied nation in which the vast majority of its citizens wants the US out NOW---and a not inconsiderable number of them are willing to kill over the issue.
Meanwhile, Iraq is halfway to finishing a constitution for an Islamic theocracy...which, in case you're wondering, is different from a "true democratic republic."
Personally, I believe that in the 22nd century, it will be said of President George W. Bush, "He was a incompetent puppet who was the first one up against the wall when the revolution came."
If we both live that long, I'm willin' to put down $20 on that one!
1. His response to the attacks of Sept. 11th...taking the fight to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Which has been completely unsuccessful. The Taliban not only still exists, but is making record opium profits. Global terrorism is way, WAY up (at least, the Bush State Department thinks so. Al Qaeda continues to find recruits. And today marks exactly 1,466 days since George W. Bush said that he would get Osama bin Laden dead or alive.
2. The liberation of the the Iraqi people and the establishment of a true democratic republic in the Middle East.
A true democratic republic? IRAQ!?!
In real life, Iraq is an occupied nation in which the vast majority of its citizens wants the US out NOW---and a not inconsiderable number of them are willing to kill over the issue.
Meanwhile, Iraq is halfway to finishing a constitution for an Islamic theocracy...which, in case you're wondering, is different from a "true democratic republic."
Personally, I believe that in the 22nd century, it will be said of President George W. Bush, "He was a incompetent puppet who was the first one up against the wall when the revolution came."
If we both live that long, I'm willin' to put down $20 on that one!
Donnie,
I hate to be the one to expose the imaginary pin that you are stabbing imaginary bubbles with, but here goes.
You said:
"Which has been completely unsuccessful. The Taliban not only still exists, but is making record opium profits. Global terrorism is way, WAY up (at least, the Bush State Department thinks so. Al Qaeda continues to find recruits. And today marks exactly 1,466 days since George W. Bush said that he would get Osama bin Laden dead or alive."
Newsflash, the Taliban is no longer in power. They lost their power as soon as Bush sent the U.S. troops into Afghanistan. I guess you must of missed that. So, umm...yeah, Bush was successful.
While it would be nice to catch Bin Laden, only a fool would believe that upon his capture, al-Qaeda would fold and the War on Terrorism would be accomplished.
We may not have caught Bin Laden yet, but we have captured quite a few of the top dogs in that terrorist network, and he and the rest now have a life of constant hiding and being on the run.
You said:
"A true democratic republic? IRAQ!?!
In real life, Iraq is an occupied nation in which the vast majority of its citizens wants the US out NOW---and a not inconsiderable number of them are willing to kill over the issue.
Meanwhile, Iraq is halfway to finishing a constitution for an Islamic theocracy...which, in case you're wondering, is different from a "true democratic republic.""
Despite the fact that we are still there in Iraq, (compare with what we faced in Japan and Germany after their surrender with the insurgent rebels there), you're statement that "a vast majority of their citizens want us out now" is B.S. The only ones who want us out are the foreign terrorists and the remainder of the Baath party who want us to leave so they can regain control.
While the vast majority don't want us to stay longer than we have to [psst...neither do we], they want us to help them help themselves in training their police, military and helping to rebuild their infrastructure.
As to them being "halfway through with finishing a Constitution for an Islamic theocracy" I think you are jumping the gun on that one.
Do you seriously believe we would put up with them establishing another "Taliban style" dictatorship? Come on, get real.
It will no doubt be a style of democracy that suits the Iraqi people, (which is fine, we didn't liberate them to "Americanize them"), but it will be a democracy nonetheless and not a repeat of the Baathist regime.
As for your "$20 bet", you obviously aren't too sure of your position if that is all that you would be willing to wager.
Would you like your imaginary pin back now?
I hate to be the one to expose the imaginary pin that you are stabbing imaginary bubbles with, but here goes.
You said:
"Which has been completely unsuccessful. The Taliban not only still exists, but is making record opium profits. Global terrorism is way, WAY up (at least, the Bush State Department thinks so. Al Qaeda continues to find recruits. And today marks exactly 1,466 days since George W. Bush said that he would get Osama bin Laden dead or alive."
Newsflash, the Taliban is no longer in power. They lost their power as soon as Bush sent the U.S. troops into Afghanistan. I guess you must of missed that. So, umm...yeah, Bush was successful.
While it would be nice to catch Bin Laden, only a fool would believe that upon his capture, al-Qaeda would fold and the War on Terrorism would be accomplished.
We may not have caught Bin Laden yet, but we have captured quite a few of the top dogs in that terrorist network, and he and the rest now have a life of constant hiding and being on the run.
You said:
"A true democratic republic? IRAQ!?!
In real life, Iraq is an occupied nation in which the vast majority of its citizens wants the US out NOW---and a not inconsiderable number of them are willing to kill over the issue.
Meanwhile, Iraq is halfway to finishing a constitution for an Islamic theocracy...which, in case you're wondering, is different from a "true democratic republic.""
Despite the fact that we are still there in Iraq, (compare with what we faced in Japan and Germany after their surrender with the insurgent rebels there), you're statement that "a vast majority of their citizens want us out now" is B.S. The only ones who want us out are the foreign terrorists and the remainder of the Baath party who want us to leave so they can regain control.
While the vast majority don't want us to stay longer than we have to [psst...neither do we], they want us to help them help themselves in training their police, military and helping to rebuild their infrastructure.
As to them being "halfway through with finishing a Constitution for an Islamic theocracy" I think you are jumping the gun on that one.
Do you seriously believe we would put up with them establishing another "Taliban style" dictatorship? Come on, get real.
It will no doubt be a style of democracy that suits the Iraqi people, (which is fine, we didn't liberate them to "Americanize them"), but it will be a democracy nonetheless and not a repeat of the Baathist regime.
As for your "$20 bet", you obviously aren't too sure of your position if that is all that you would be willing to wager.
Would you like your imaginary pin back now?
Clay, clay, clay....
I don't know which far-right "Vince Foster was murdered"-type websites you're getting your news from, but I highly recommend a more varied news diet.
To wit:
Newsflash, the Taliban is no longer in power. They lost their power as soon as Bush sent the U.S. troops into Afghanistan.
No longer running the whole show, true...but that doesn't mean they stopped existing. Between the utter anarchy in the north and the bumper crop of opium this year, the Taliban is well on its way to rebuilding its power base. Dubya did a typically half-assed, unfinished job here.
While it would be nice to catch Bin Laden, only a fool would believe that upon his capture, al-Qaeda would fold and the War on Terrorism would be accomplished.
I never said they would (I leave that kind of shallow magical thinking to you guys). But murdering 3000 people is still a very big deal---and Dubya has failed completely to bring him to justice. I understand why they White House wants to forget him (in order to cover up their clear incompetence) but I can't understand why YOU want to cover their asses as well.
As to them being "halfway through with finishing a Constitution for an Islamic theocracy" I think you are jumping the gun on that one.
I hope you're right---but I doubt it. [source] [source]
Do you seriously believe we would put up with them establishing another "Taliban style" dictatorship? Come on, get real.
Why not? The US gov't put up with a "Taliban style" dictatorship for what?...20 years?
Dude, it comes down to this---Bush is LOSING the war on terror. Losing badly. Global terrorism is way, WAY up, the Taliban are rebuliding, and Iraq is going to become another Islamic state.
You don't even bother to refute these facts, you merely parrot the White House rationalizations for them.
My question is---do you WANT increased global terrorism? Do you WANT the Taliban to rebuild? Do you WANT a new Islamic state in the Mideast? Do you WANT bin Laden to get away scot free?
Of course you don't. No sane person would.
So why are you supporting the Bush regime, which is either unable or unwilling to do anything about it?
I don't know which far-right "Vince Foster was murdered"-type websites you're getting your news from, but I highly recommend a more varied news diet.
To wit:
Newsflash, the Taliban is no longer in power. They lost their power as soon as Bush sent the U.S. troops into Afghanistan.
No longer running the whole show, true...but that doesn't mean they stopped existing. Between the utter anarchy in the north and the bumper crop of opium this year, the Taliban is well on its way to rebuilding its power base. Dubya did a typically half-assed, unfinished job here.
While it would be nice to catch Bin Laden, only a fool would believe that upon his capture, al-Qaeda would fold and the War on Terrorism would be accomplished.
I never said they would (I leave that kind of shallow magical thinking to you guys). But murdering 3000 people is still a very big deal---and Dubya has failed completely to bring him to justice. I understand why they White House wants to forget him (in order to cover up their clear incompetence) but I can't understand why YOU want to cover their asses as well.
As to them being "halfway through with finishing a Constitution for an Islamic theocracy" I think you are jumping the gun on that one.
I hope you're right---but I doubt it. [source] [source]
Do you seriously believe we would put up with them establishing another "Taliban style" dictatorship? Come on, get real.
Why not? The US gov't put up with a "Taliban style" dictatorship for what?...20 years?
Dude, it comes down to this---Bush is LOSING the war on terror. Losing badly. Global terrorism is way, WAY up, the Taliban are rebuliding, and Iraq is going to become another Islamic state.
You don't even bother to refute these facts, you merely parrot the White House rationalizations for them.
My question is---do you WANT increased global terrorism? Do you WANT the Taliban to rebuild? Do you WANT a new Islamic state in the Mideast? Do you WANT bin Laden to get away scot free?
Of course you don't. No sane person would.
So why are you supporting the Bush regime, which is either unable or unwilling to do anything about it?
Donny, Donny, Donny,
I don't know which far-left "Bush is Hitler"-type websites you're getting your news from, but I too highly recommend a more varied news diet.
You said:
"No longer running the whole show, true...but that doesn't mean they stopped existing. Between the utter anarchy in the north and the bumper crop of opium this year, the Taliban is well on its way to rebuilding its power base. Dubya did a typically half-assed, unfinished job here."
We never stopped Nazis from existing after WWII. Some of them hid in South America. Today the "skin heads" and other Nazi groups exist, albeit they are only curiousities on the human landscape with no real power to speak of. So, you're point is?
Bush's success in ousting the Taliban from power in Afghanistan could hardly be called a "half-assed" job. Maybe you, sir, are guilty of some "half-assed" thinking on your part.
You said:
"I never said they would (I leave that kind of shallow magical thinking to you guys). But murdering 3000 people is still a very big deal---and Dubya has failed completely to bring him to justice. I understand why they White House wants to forget him (in order to cover up their clear incompetence) but I can't understand why YOU want to cover their asses as well."
It is interesting how you state that you leave the type of "shallow, magical thinking", (that Bin Laden's capture equals the end of the War on Terrorism"), to "us", and then proceed to embrace that very "shallow, magical thinking" yourself, with your "Bush failed in not capturing Bin Laden and is trying to cover his incompetence in failing to bring Bin Laden to justice" schtict. You're funny.
You said:
"I hope you're right---but I doubt it. [source] [source]"
Ok. Let's see [source] number one is a blog, and like James, I would point out that you might as well use your own blog as a "source".
[source] number two is from a middle eastern news service. So, you get your guidance from terrorist sympathizers? What a joke.
Simply posting [sources] doesn't automatically support the validity of your position. What's next? Are you going to use al-Qaeda websites as your sources? Nice try though.
You said:
"Why not? The US gov't put up with a "Taliban style" dictatorship for what?...20 years?
Dude, it comes down to this---Bush is LOSING the war on terror. Losing badly. Global terrorism is way, WAY up, the Taliban are rebuliding, and Iraq is going to become another Islamic state.
You don't even bother to refute these facts, you merely parrot the White House rationalizations for them.
My question is---do you WANT increased global terrorism? Do you WANT the Taliban to rebuild? Do you WANT a new Islamic state in the Mideast? Do you WANT bin Laden to get away scot free? Of course you don't. No sane person would.
So why are you supporting the Bush regime, which is either unable or unwilling to do anything about it?"
I hear the "there can be no peace without appeasment" line in your arguement.
Let's see if I understand your point. We fold up and stop threatening the activities of al-Qaeda and capture Bin Laden and then the threat of Islamofacist terrorism will cease to exist.
If we don't the Taliban will re-build and we won't be able to stop them, (even though we have stopped them from being in power).
Are the Taliban the greater threat than al-Qaeda?
I don't believe any "sane person" would buy your line of malarkey.
BTW, there isn't any "Bush regime". In case you haven't noticed, we are a Democratic Republic" Bush was voted into office not once, but twice by free elections. And there are sufficient checks and balances built into our form of government to prevent any "regime" from ever occuring.
It might be time to brush up on your civics knowledge.
I don't know which far-left "Bush is Hitler"-type websites you're getting your news from, but I too highly recommend a more varied news diet.
You said:
"No longer running the whole show, true...but that doesn't mean they stopped existing. Between the utter anarchy in the north and the bumper crop of opium this year, the Taliban is well on its way to rebuilding its power base. Dubya did a typically half-assed, unfinished job here."
We never stopped Nazis from existing after WWII. Some of them hid in South America. Today the "skin heads" and other Nazi groups exist, albeit they are only curiousities on the human landscape with no real power to speak of. So, you're point is?
Bush's success in ousting the Taliban from power in Afghanistan could hardly be called a "half-assed" job. Maybe you, sir, are guilty of some "half-assed" thinking on your part.
You said:
"I never said they would (I leave that kind of shallow magical thinking to you guys). But murdering 3000 people is still a very big deal---and Dubya has failed completely to bring him to justice. I understand why they White House wants to forget him (in order to cover up their clear incompetence) but I can't understand why YOU want to cover their asses as well."
It is interesting how you state that you leave the type of "shallow, magical thinking", (that Bin Laden's capture equals the end of the War on Terrorism"), to "us", and then proceed to embrace that very "shallow, magical thinking" yourself, with your "Bush failed in not capturing Bin Laden and is trying to cover his incompetence in failing to bring Bin Laden to justice" schtict. You're funny.
You said:
"I hope you're right---but I doubt it. [source] [source]"
Ok. Let's see [source] number one is a blog, and like James, I would point out that you might as well use your own blog as a "source".
[source] number two is from a middle eastern news service. So, you get your guidance from terrorist sympathizers? What a joke.
Simply posting [sources] doesn't automatically support the validity of your position. What's next? Are you going to use al-Qaeda websites as your sources? Nice try though.
You said:
"Why not? The US gov't put up with a "Taliban style" dictatorship for what?...20 years?
Dude, it comes down to this---Bush is LOSING the war on terror. Losing badly. Global terrorism is way, WAY up, the Taliban are rebuliding, and Iraq is going to become another Islamic state.
You don't even bother to refute these facts, you merely parrot the White House rationalizations for them.
My question is---do you WANT increased global terrorism? Do you WANT the Taliban to rebuild? Do you WANT a new Islamic state in the Mideast? Do you WANT bin Laden to get away scot free? Of course you don't. No sane person would.
So why are you supporting the Bush regime, which is either unable or unwilling to do anything about it?"
I hear the "there can be no peace without appeasment" line in your arguement.
Let's see if I understand your point. We fold up and stop threatening the activities of al-Qaeda and capture Bin Laden and then the threat of Islamofacist terrorism will cease to exist.
If we don't the Taliban will re-build and we won't be able to stop them, (even though we have stopped them from being in power).
Are the Taliban the greater threat than al-Qaeda?
I don't believe any "sane person" would buy your line of malarkey.
BTW, there isn't any "Bush regime". In case you haven't noticed, we are a Democratic Republic" Bush was voted into office not once, but twice by free elections. And there are sufficient checks and balances built into our form of government to prevent any "regime" from ever occuring.
It might be time to brush up on your civics knowledge.
Let's see if I understand your point. We fold up and stop threatening the activities of al-Qaeda and capture Bin Laden and then the threat of Islamofacist terrorism will cease to exist.
No, clay---you don't understand my point at all. I seriously doubt that you want to.
No, clay---you don't understand my point at all. I seriously doubt that you want to.
Donnie,
Other than folding up our military and leaving the fight, what would be your point? You seem to think that "global terrorism is on the rise" because of our actions.
Let me tell you something, global terrorism has been on the rise since the 70's. It took 9/11 to wake up this sleeping giant.
The only way we are going to stop these bloodthirsty terrorists is if we wipe them off of the face of the earth and work towards a better way of life for the people in the Middle East who aren't yet terrorists. Where there is no hope, terrorism breeds.
Helping Iraq to be able to stand up its own form of democratic government is a step in the right direction. I can assure you that the younger generation of Iranians are watching Iraq's development with a vested interest. They are tired of dictatorship Islamist rule in their country.
Freedom is contagious. And President Bush is right about that. The more freedom that comes to the peoples of the Middle East the more likely that the seeds of terrorism will wither and die.
The Taliban is for the most part gone. It had its day. It made the wrong choice in harboring al-Qaeda terrorists and Bush made good on his promise that if you aid and abet our enemy al-Qaeda, you are our enemy also. The Taliban paid dearly for its stance.
Osama bin Laden has been living his life on the run every since 9/11, he has no freedom, no life to speak of. He is no longer an effective leader [http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm]
al-Qaeda has suffered serious losses since we brought the fight to them after 9/11. Granted it will take time to root them all out, but that's not surprising and we are well on the way to doing just that.
The notion that if we just reason with them, or leave Iraq to fall into their hands, abandon its chance for freedom and the positive example of hope and prosperity that that will bring, then the terrorist will give up their deadly mission is dead wrong.
You can't reason with terrorists. They aren't reasonable people. Reasonable people don't murder innocent women and children. Reasonable people don't strap bombs onto themselves and blow themselves up on public streets.
England tried your appeasment way via Neville Chamberlin and almost lost their sovereignty because of it.
If they hadn't took a stance against Hitler under the leadership of Winston Churchill, and if the U.S. hadn't committed its troops to stand up to Hitler, then England along with the rest of Europe would have fell to Germany's Third Reich, all despite the "good intentions" of its peacenic appeasement efforts.
The same is true now. The Islamofacist terrorists aren't going to quit until America is destroyed, Europe and Western Civilization is converted to their brand of Islam, and until all of the Jews living in Israel and all over the world are murdered.
You might be comfortable converting to Islam and living under Osama's rules, but I'm not. I back military action to destroy our enemy and perserve our freedom and way of life.
President Bush has been faithful in taking the fight to al-Qaeda and not backing down. For that he gains my respect.
I believe that life under a President Gore or President Kerry would have been disasterous as we would be waiting to see what the UN would allow us to do about al-Qaeda, if anything.
I will never support any viewpoint that would risk my life and freedom on some risky, hair-brained, cowardly appeasment plan.
al-Qaeda got their one and only blow against us on 9/11 any plan short of destroying them completely and any other murderous terrorist group is anti-American in my book.
I understand full well what your point is, and I am dead set against it. I will never agree with the liberal viewpoint. I love America as it was founded to be. I'm not interested in converting my country into a communist/socialist state under the direction of the European Union.
If that's what you want, that is you're right to think that way and support those who are working toward that goal.
I, on the other hand, will do everything in my power to fight against the left's goal for the U.S., Iraq, and the war against the terrorists that we are engaged in.
Other than folding up our military and leaving the fight, what would be your point? You seem to think that "global terrorism is on the rise" because of our actions.
Let me tell you something, global terrorism has been on the rise since the 70's. It took 9/11 to wake up this sleeping giant.
The only way we are going to stop these bloodthirsty terrorists is if we wipe them off of the face of the earth and work towards a better way of life for the people in the Middle East who aren't yet terrorists. Where there is no hope, terrorism breeds.
Helping Iraq to be able to stand up its own form of democratic government is a step in the right direction. I can assure you that the younger generation of Iranians are watching Iraq's development with a vested interest. They are tired of dictatorship Islamist rule in their country.
Freedom is contagious. And President Bush is right about that. The more freedom that comes to the peoples of the Middle East the more likely that the seeds of terrorism will wither and die.
The Taliban is for the most part gone. It had its day. It made the wrong choice in harboring al-Qaeda terrorists and Bush made good on his promise that if you aid and abet our enemy al-Qaeda, you are our enemy also. The Taliban paid dearly for its stance.
Osama bin Laden has been living his life on the run every since 9/11, he has no freedom, no life to speak of. He is no longer an effective leader [http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm]
al-Qaeda has suffered serious losses since we brought the fight to them after 9/11. Granted it will take time to root them all out, but that's not surprising and we are well on the way to doing just that.
The notion that if we just reason with them, or leave Iraq to fall into their hands, abandon its chance for freedom and the positive example of hope and prosperity that that will bring, then the terrorist will give up their deadly mission is dead wrong.
You can't reason with terrorists. They aren't reasonable people. Reasonable people don't murder innocent women and children. Reasonable people don't strap bombs onto themselves and blow themselves up on public streets.
England tried your appeasment way via Neville Chamberlin and almost lost their sovereignty because of it.
If they hadn't took a stance against Hitler under the leadership of Winston Churchill, and if the U.S. hadn't committed its troops to stand up to Hitler, then England along with the rest of Europe would have fell to Germany's Third Reich, all despite the "good intentions" of its peacenic appeasement efforts.
The same is true now. The Islamofacist terrorists aren't going to quit until America is destroyed, Europe and Western Civilization is converted to their brand of Islam, and until all of the Jews living in Israel and all over the world are murdered.
You might be comfortable converting to Islam and living under Osama's rules, but I'm not. I back military action to destroy our enemy and perserve our freedom and way of life.
President Bush has been faithful in taking the fight to al-Qaeda and not backing down. For that he gains my respect.
I believe that life under a President Gore or President Kerry would have been disasterous as we would be waiting to see what the UN would allow us to do about al-Qaeda, if anything.
I will never support any viewpoint that would risk my life and freedom on some risky, hair-brained, cowardly appeasment plan.
al-Qaeda got their one and only blow against us on 9/11 any plan short of destroying them completely and any other murderous terrorist group is anti-American in my book.
I understand full well what your point is, and I am dead set against it. I will never agree with the liberal viewpoint. I love America as it was founded to be. I'm not interested in converting my country into a communist/socialist state under the direction of the European Union.
If that's what you want, that is you're right to think that way and support those who are working toward that goal.
I, on the other hand, will do everything in my power to fight against the left's goal for the U.S., Iraq, and the war against the terrorists that we are engaged in.
Thanks for the rambling religious creedo, clay.
I prefer a reality-based rather than a faith-based foreign policy, but to each his own I guess.
I prefer a reality-based rather than a faith-based foreign policy, but to each his own I guess.
Donnie,
You're welcome, all though nothing I said was "rambling". Unless you have some sort of trouble reading anything that is more than one or two paragraphs in length. ; )
As for reality based foreign policy, perhaps you should study the track record of appeasement in foreign policy. Start with a study of Neville Chamberlain.
[here's a hint, it doesn't work].
As for faith based foreign policy, I'm not sure what you mean. Faith-based is usually used in relation to religious tenets. I don't recall any religious content in my answer to your question, (which you dismiss as a religious creedo). Do you know what the word religious means?
While you haven't managed to demonstrate that your liberal parroting is in anyway "reality based", you do seem to manage the "based on feelings" position of the left fairly well.
You also appear to resort to "you don't see my point and probably don't care" tactic when you have nothing left to say. Followed up by the meaningless "religious creed" rhetoric.
Even allowing for your misuse of the title "religious", then that could be used both ways and turned on you and your comments as nothing more than leftist "religious" creed.
Which begs the question, so what? You are a leftist and I come from the right point of view.
Congratulations.
You're welcome, all though nothing I said was "rambling". Unless you have some sort of trouble reading anything that is more than one or two paragraphs in length. ; )
As for reality based foreign policy, perhaps you should study the track record of appeasement in foreign policy. Start with a study of Neville Chamberlain.
[here's a hint, it doesn't work].
As for faith based foreign policy, I'm not sure what you mean. Faith-based is usually used in relation to religious tenets. I don't recall any religious content in my answer to your question, (which you dismiss as a religious creedo). Do you know what the word religious means?
While you haven't managed to demonstrate that your liberal parroting is in anyway "reality based", you do seem to manage the "based on feelings" position of the left fairly well.
You also appear to resort to "you don't see my point and probably don't care" tactic when you have nothing left to say. Followed up by the meaningless "religious creed" rhetoric.
Even allowing for your misuse of the title "religious", then that could be used both ways and turned on you and your comments as nothing more than leftist "religious" creed.
Which begs the question, so what? You are a leftist and I come from the right point of view.
Congratulations.
Bush??? Compared to Lincoln????
ROFLMAO!
oh man...best laugh I've had today
You guys really do live in a universe all your own.
ROFLMAO!
oh man...best laugh I've had today
You guys really do live in a universe all your own.
"Faith based foreign policy"? Donny, what exactly did Clay say that was remotely "faith-based"?
I know it's hard for you to make your case without trying to do a little "bait & switch" magic (like screaming about a coup d'etat in response to a post about supporting the military) but if you want to have a serious debate with anyone you need to quit trying to cloud the issue by dragging the discussion back to your favorite talking points where you THINK you have a leg to stand on.
I know it's hard for you to make your case without trying to do a little "bait & switch" magic (like screaming about a coup d'etat in response to a post about supporting the military) but if you want to have a serious debate with anyone you need to quit trying to cloud the issue by dragging the discussion back to your favorite talking points where you THINK you have a leg to stand on.
"Faith based foreign policy"? Donny, what exactly did Clay say that was remotely "faith-based"?
OOPS! I keep forgetting that you boys have a hard time grasping the concept that a word can have more than one meaning.
From The New Oxord American Dictionary (available now at your local public library or independent bookseller)
"faith (noun): 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion."
You both have a near-fanatical faith in Bush, the Pentagon, and the conservative media---to the exclusion of anyone or anything else.
Nothings gonna change that. Neither of you wants to change that.
But for goddess sake, PLEASE get yourselves a decent dictionary and learn what words mean!
OOPS! I keep forgetting that you boys have a hard time grasping the concept that a word can have more than one meaning.
From The New Oxord American Dictionary (available now at your local public library or independent bookseller)
"faith (noun): 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion."
You both have a near-fanatical faith in Bush, the Pentagon, and the conservative media---to the exclusion of anyone or anything else.
Nothings gonna change that. Neither of you wants to change that.
But for goddess sake, PLEASE get yourselves a decent dictionary and learn what words mean!
Riiiiiight, so you intended a completely different meaning than that conventionally used for "faith-based".
And it had nothing to do with your failed tactic of trying to "magically" spin the discussion over to your MoveOn.org approved talking points.
And it had nothing to do with your failed tactic of trying to "magically" spin the discussion over to your MoveOn.org approved talking points.
Boy, are you dreaming!! Bush will be considered in the bottom 5 of Presidents for failures and loss of the United States power in the World. I am glad you are in the 38% that approve of this President, well as of right now, probably will be 25% in December.
BS Bob,
I agree, Bush will be in the "bottom 5 of Presidents for failures," which will make him among the 5 most successful Presidents.
As for the imaginary "loss of United States power" don't you bleeding-heart lefties think US power is a bad thing? If this loss of power were real (which it isn't) shouldn't you be celebrating?
I agree, Bush will be in the "bottom 5 of Presidents for failures," which will make him among the 5 most successful Presidents.
As for the imaginary "loss of United States power" don't you bleeding-heart lefties think US power is a bad thing? If this loss of power were real (which it isn't) shouldn't you be celebrating?
James,
I see Donnie's at it again. If he can't defend his points he hides behind suggesting his opponent consult a dictionary.
Like I've already told him, even if we use his definition for "faith-based" then he himself is no better. Anyone who holds a position has faith in it being true, unless, of course, he is a fool.
Is Donnie just like us? If he is then his comment and arrogant English teacher role are inane. Or is he just a fool who thinks he has a point, but hold's no faith in it?
Oh wait, then there was that extremely high confident, $20 wager of his.
I see Donnie's at it again. If he can't defend his points he hides behind suggesting his opponent consult a dictionary.
Like I've already told him, even if we use his definition for "faith-based" then he himself is no better. Anyone who holds a position has faith in it being true, unless, of course, he is a fool.
Is Donnie just like us? If he is then his comment and arrogant English teacher role are inane. Or is he just a fool who thinks he has a point, but hold's no faith in it?
Oh wait, then there was that extremely high confident, $20 wager of his.
Donnie: "You both have a near-fanatical faith in Bush, the Pentagon, and the conservative media---to the exclusion of anyone or anything else."
Let's stick to facts, old son. As I've said in the past, there are many things I disagree with Bush on, there are many decisions he's made that were wrong. This month he's even started to channel FDR.
And I've been personally interested in the Pentagon's doings for over 17 years, so I certainly don't have unwavering faith in that institution. Maybe you should check that dictionary for the meaning of fanatical. I don't think it means what you think it does.
Why not admit that when you said "faith-based" you meant religion based. Then you can admit that Clay said nothing of the kind. Then you can go back to making other baseless assertions that can be so easily refuted and disproved.
Keep it up, Donny, this fun for me.
Let's stick to facts, old son. As I've said in the past, there are many things I disagree with Bush on, there are many decisions he's made that were wrong. This month he's even started to channel FDR.
And I've been personally interested in the Pentagon's doings for over 17 years, so I certainly don't have unwavering faith in that institution. Maybe you should check that dictionary for the meaning of fanatical. I don't think it means what you think it does.
Why not admit that when you said "faith-based" you meant religion based. Then you can admit that Clay said nothing of the kind. Then you can go back to making other baseless assertions that can be so easily refuted and disproved.
Keep it up, Donny, this fun for me.
Is it funny that the only way James replies is by attacking and name calling. He does not discuss or give reasons. Reminds me of Bush, Rove, Delay, and Cheney.
BS Bob,
You might just want to read ALL of the comments that James has made.
The tactic of "name calling" is usually a liberal one, and James is no liberal.
Actually, Donnie utilizes this technique along with his arrogant, "I'm the English professor - check your dictionary" technique.
I think that a pause, and some deep breaths along with an honest perusal of all that has been said is in order here.
What do you say?
You might just want to read ALL of the comments that James has made.
The tactic of "name calling" is usually a liberal one, and James is no liberal.
Actually, Donnie utilizes this technique along with his arrogant, "I'm the English professor - check your dictionary" technique.
I think that a pause, and some deep breaths along with an honest perusal of all that has been said is in order here.
What do you say?
Donny:"Personally, I believe that in the 22nd century, it will be said of President George W. Bush, 'He was a incompetent puppet who was the first one up against the wall when the revolution came.'
"If we both live that long, I'm willin' to put down $20 on that one!"
RF:So, Donny, which federal crime are you advocating, A coup d'état, or violence against the President of the United States?
Post a Comment
"If we both live that long, I'm willin' to put down $20 on that one!"
RF:So, Donny, which federal crime are you advocating, A coup d'état, or violence against the President of the United States?
<< Home
