Democrats are saying "Screw Them."

Re: Re: Good Response

Just curious, Tom...what is your opinion of Bill Clinton's refusal to serve in the military?

 

[QUOTE I believe in ..... common sacrifice. [/B][/QUOTE]

If you believe in common sacrifice then you are not a right winger. Right wingers believe in the sacrifice of those others who have neither the power nor the financial might to resist them.

 

<<If you believe in common sacrifice then you are not a right winger. Right wingers believe in the sacrifice of those others who have neither the power nor the financial might to resist them.>>

Said out of ignorance.

 

<<Right wingers believe in the sacrifice of those others who have neither the power nor the financial might to resist them.>>

I have voted as a conservative in every election. While I make a decent living today, there was a time not long ago when I was making $25,000 per year and paying $775 per month in child support. I live in the greater Washinton, DC area, which as you may know, has an extremely high cost of living factor. Subtract a net of $775 per month from a gross $25,000 per year and you'll see that I was making very little money. Subtract a car payment, insurance, phone bill, and food, and you'll see I was at a negative cash flow each month. So, I had NO financial means or power, AT ALL. I lived in a horrible, crime infested neighborhood for years becaue it was all I could afford, and even then I had to have a roommate. I enlisted in the USMC when I was 18. I belong to a church organization today and I give freely of my time and money to those that need it. I also give to charities in other countries where poverty is at grotesque levels. More over, I am not the exception to the rule. I am not a conservative-right-wing anomaly. You probably won't accept or believe that...oh well. Unlike the ultra-leftists, I never looked for a hand out and I never thought the world owed me something. It's about personal accountability.

Pug

 

Typical Democrats

FLORIDA DEMOCRATS PLACE NEWSPAPER AD CALLING FOR RUMSFELD HIT; FUNDRAISING FOR KERRY
CLICK HERE

 

This isn't about "right wing" or "left wing"

It is about whether Bush and his team actually know what they're doing in Iraq. The answer is pretty clear that they do not - if they did, we'd have (a) found weapons of mass destruction, (b) have been greeted as "saviors" by a grateful Iraqi population, (c) would not have wars of liberation breaking out all around us from every faction inside the country, and (d) would have a clear plan for stabilizing the country, and getting the hell out.

Oh yes, let's not forget the resources that were wasted there that could have been better used either in homeland security (inside the US, for example bolstering defenses at power plants, etc.) or actually hunting down Osama.

Bush lost focus with Iraq. Whether we are right-wing or left-wing, the issue before us all is whether we can give this presidency a vote of confidence for another 4 years.

 

If there is one thing Bush has not done, it is to lose focus. He is doing a fantastic job. I only wish we could vote him in for a third term after he trounces that anti-patriot Kerry.

BLD

 

<<It is about whether Bush and his team actually know what they're doing in Iraq. The answer is pretty clear that they do not - if they did, we'd have (a) found weapons of mass destruction, (b) have been greeted as "saviors" by a grateful Iraqi population, (c) would not have wars of liberation breaking out all around us from every faction inside the country, and (d) would have a clear plan for stabilizing the country, and getting the hell out.>>


Clearly you don't watch the news or read much. (a) Based on the available intelligence, everyone thought there would be WMD's. It wasn't just the Bush team, it was also the Clinton team. It wasn't just the USA either, but virtually the whole world. Virtually the entire world, including the Arab world, thought that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. If it turns out that he didn't, then he (Saddam) played a very dangerous game of deliberately leading the rest of the world to believe that he had them. The intelligence "failures" were not just ours, but France, Germany, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Great Britain, etc. (b) We were greeted as saviors. Have you already forgotten the pics and videos of Iraqi's chanting "We Love Bush" and stomping on pics of Saddam? Have you already forgotten the pics and video of the Iraqi women and children that were bringing our troops food and candy? The problem is that these people have lived in fear that we can't possibly imagine for decades. It takes time. (c) There are no wars of liberation breaking out. There are large pockets of fanatic militias that are attempting to position themselves in a place of power. In addition, many of the attacks are coming from foreign fighters. There are 25,000,000 Iraqi's. There are about 135,000 U.S. troops. Even with our fire power, if a majority of the Iraqi population wanted us gone we would't be losing 3 or 4 men a day, we'd be losing hundreds, maybe thousands. (d) There is a plan. There has always been a plan. There has always been a time table and, for the most part, we are ahead of the proposed schedule. Transfer of power on June 30th, Elections in 2005. What part of that plan don't you understand. Is it that there is still fighting going on? Of course there is! Did you think this was going to be so neat and clean that we could send in 100,000 combat troops and oust a hostile regime (with large pockets still loyal to Saddam) in a few weeks? All of the Iraqi's, with the exception of some Sunni's that had it really great under Saddam, are happy that he is gone. The problem is now that Saddam is gone many Iraqi's don't want us there either. If we leave now there will be a power vacuum, civil wars, and no guarantee that the next regime in power won't also support terror, rule ruthlessly, rob billions from the Iraqi people, etc. This is the problem with many Americans: short memories, no long term thinking, no patience (everything has to be right here and right now), and no sense of personal sacrifice.

Pug

 

Pug,

Semper Fi!

To the rest, enjoy your free speech......something the Iraqi people did not have until recently....

 

Re: Re: Re: Good Response

At least Clinton was honest about his feelings on the war. Moreover, whatever he did to improve his position, he did on his own. Unlike Bush, he didn't have family connections helping him abdicate all responsibilities. I have a lot more respect for those who stood up and voiced their objections to the war than those who, ostensibly, supported the effort, but apparently felt it was best to let others (read poor and minorities, primarily) do the fighting.

I'll admit that if you are going to use participation in the war as a measuring stick (someone like Kerry, for example), that you can find a lot wrong with both Bush and Clinton. Nevertheless, I'm much more inclined to cut slack to someone who did his own work, expressed his views (and his ambivalence) honestly, and who was an honest-to-god serious student (Rhodes Scholar), rather than a spoiled brat/lousy student who let his father get him off the hook.

You asked.

 

Well said!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Good Response

So dodging the draft is okay with you?

1) Please provide proof that Bush received preferential treatment

2) The overwhelming majority of casualties in Vietnam were white males. Mext myth, please.

In other words, you'll cut a lot of slack to a draft-dodger as long he fits with your ideaology. Someone who doesn't fit, that actually served in the military, gets no slack at all.

 

Yes, the plan. After hearing Bush last night, it's clear. We are going to democratize the entire Middle East, because it's our God-given destiny. And we're going to pay for it with billions of taxpayer dollars, and with the lives of our sons and daughters. And this time table that you mention: transfer power June 30 and elections in 2005. Dream on. Bush is trying to play both sides of the issue: placate the American people by telling them this shift will happen soon, but all the while hinting, and committing to, this much broader plan for the Middle East (the Middle East Reform Initiative, or some such nonsense). If anyone thinks that effort will take anything less than decades, you're fooling yourself.

And of course that was the Plan all along. The whole Saddam/WMD thing was the ploy to get us there.” What? We thought there were weapons of mass destruction. Oh well, while we're here we might as well stay for 50 or 60 years..."

You know, it's the familiar drill. If you can't be straight with the American people, baffle 'em with propaganda.

 

Food for thought...

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." .... John Stuart Mill.

 

However long it takes, we have no choice.

In case you haven't noticed, Tom, the Islamo-facists are bent on destroying the United States. We have to destroy them first.

I suppose you'd prefer we take the route of Spain and surrender to the terrorists?

 

BUSH'S PRESS CONFERENCE LAST NIGHT

President Bush came out swinging last night at his nationally televised press conference, and as usual, the media made a bunch of idiots out of themselves. But that's par for the course, I suppose. Bush began with a 17-minute address to the nation that focused entirely on the situation in Iraq. Throughout the course of his remarks, he shot down just about every argument the Democrats and the media have been making about Iraq. Don't expect to see that analysis in the press reports of his news conference today however.

The president said that the violence in Iraq is neither a civil war, nor an uprising, but rather a power grab by Islamic militants. This fact is clear to anyone who takes a rational view of the situation. So much for the Vietnam comparison. He also stood by the June 30th deadline for handing over power to the Iraqis, much to the consternation of the left and Democrats in Congress. He correctly pointed out that if the Coalition steps back from that pledge, the Iraqis will feel betrayed, something he is not going to let happen. In other words, he wants the word of the United States to actually mean something. Imagine that.

Then it was send in the clowns time as the media started asking their questions. It wasn't so much a question and answer period as it was an interrogation. First question? How could Bush be so wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and how could he take us to war on false premises? Straight out of the liberal playbook. At the beginning of the war in Iraq John Kerry had the same view on WMDs as did George Bush; ditto for the United Nations and most of Europe. To hear the media tell it there was only one person in the world last March who felt that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMDs, and that person was George Bush.

Then, we had the question that Bush would not answer...and it was priceless, because they tried more than once. Does the president feel any personal responsibility for 9/11? The first question that comes to mind is whether or not it is even appropriate for a reporter to demand apologies from the president at a presidential news conference? But ... ask the question they did.

Look ... he didn't do it. They did it. Osama bin Laden and his assortment of Islamic maniacs. The president's job is not to apologize. His job is to react; to pursue the people who did this thing ... and permanently remove them as a threat to our security and interests.

We started this orgy of apologies during the Clintonista era. They are little more than moral exhibitionism. The reason this reporter was pressing Bush for this apology is because he realizes that an apology would be a de facto acceptance of culpability. Maybe Clinton should apologize.

Then someone asked him if he ever admits any mistakes. He couldn't think of any. The liberals in the media must be seething over that one. Then came the question about the PDB, and they couldn't get him on that either. The underlying premise of many of the questions is the standard liberal mantra these days: that President Bush knew about the attacks on 9/11 before they happened and did nothing. To them, it's all a big conspiracy.

Liberals believe in virtually every conspiracy under the sun, except the one true and obvious conspiracy; the media is liberally biased.

Bush was also repeatedly questioned on his "plan" to resolve the situation in Iraq and bring our troops home. What do they want, an hour-by-hour timetable? The plan stands to turn over Iraqi sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30th. American troops will stay to protect against insurrection. Following the transfer of power there will be free elections. What do they expect from Bush, the names of the candidates?

 

ASHCROFT ROASTS THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION

If there is one man the Bush-haters hate more than Bush, it's John Ashcroft. To the left, he might as well be the devil himself. Anyway, Attorney General John Ashcroft testified yesterday before the 9/11 Blame Commission and dropped a bombshell. And it's about time somebody said it...these "hearings" have turned into a partisan debacle, so the Bush administration is fighting back.

Ashcroft blamed the Clinton administration for leaving America open to attack, saying that the attacks of 9/11 happened because "for nearly a decade our government had blinded itself to our enemies." The Democrats on this commission and their buddies in the media want to start assigning blame, then let's put it where it belongs. Ashcroft went on to say that once in office, he moved to overturn a failed policy that was restricting American agents from killing Osama Bin Laden, allowing only capture. For eight long years, that was the Democratic approach...treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem. "Even if they could have penetrated Bin Laden's training camps, they would have needed a battery of lawyers" to take action, he said. This hits the nail right on the head folks. The media is roasting the Bush administration over some vague memo before 9/11 when the Clinton administration had Bin Laden in their sites on several occasions? Spare me.

If these people want to pin the 9/11 attacks on somebody, they're talking to the wrong administration.

 

<<"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." .... John Stuart Mill.>>

Amen to that!

 

<<Yes, the plan. After hearing Bush last night, it's clear. We are going to democratize the entire Middle East, because it's our God-given destiny. And we're going to pay for it with billions of taxpayer dollars, and with the lives of our sons and daughters.>>


You are partially correct. Yes, we are going to try and bring democracy to the middle east. It is not our God given destiny to so, but rather human self preservation. At the moment the middle east is a breeding ground for radical anti-American sentiment. Why? Because in their current society this is what they are taught from birth. Why? Because there is no freedom in their society to teach anything else. There is no freedom in their society to learn or to study anything else. There is no freedom to express different views that vary from the norm. If we ignore the current problem in the middle east do you really think things will get better? Do you really think the radical groups will just stop hating us? If this is really your view than you know nothing about radical Islam. They do not hate us because of what we do, they hate us because of who we are and because of what they feel their God has commanded them to do.

As far as spending billions in tax payer money and losing American lives, here are your choices: We can 1) spend billions now and lose lives trying to stamp out radical groups while bringing freedom of thought to an isolated and opressed society, or 2) we can spend billions of dollars in tax payer money repairing the damage from continued terrorist attacks on our soil, the same attacks that will result in tremendous loss of American life.

You decide. I would rather not fight at all, but that is clearly not a choice.

Pug

 

Congratulations. You have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. This is what Bush wants Americans to take away form the discussion - that we are somehow wiping out this force that threatens us every minute of every day. This is not what he's doing. He is trying to democratize the Middle East. This is not the same thing as wiping out terrorists.

And are we really destroying the fascists? Every day that we are occupying Iraq is a great recruiting day for Al Qaeda et al.

What I would prefer is a president that was up front about the real intentions of his administration. Instead of using 9/11 as a flash point, constantly waving the flag in the faces of those who disagree with him, capitalizing on engendered fear, and playing a shell game with WMD, I'd appreciate a president who told the truth. The men and women who have died, and their families, deserve that.

I would also appreciate a president who didn't have to constantly invoke God as a means of justification. From the American perspective, this fight has absolutely nothing to do with God. Is it our God-given destiny to grant freedom to everyone in the Middle East. Is that why we're there - as if if were essentially a humanitarian effort? Moreover, with the US as a supposedly secular state, it's presumptuous and unbecoming. It's presumptuous to think that everyone in this country is comfortable framing this struggle in terms of religion. There is a tacit assumption, of course, that Bush really means HIS God. If the president were an orthodox Jew and insisted on framing the struggle in terms of God, would the American public be as accepting and tolerant? Not a chance.