Saturday, May 06, 2006

40 comments:

outofcontrol said...

32% of the people are to stupid to know that the economy is going good because the defense budget has been expanded and government spending has gotton out of control. 32% of the people are to stupid to know what an Iraq is let alone where it is. 32% of the people are to stupid to know that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 So not everyone hates Bush II, 32% of the people are as stupid as he is.

roya said...

I agree with you outofcontrol and I would add one more sentence to your comment. "32% of the people are extremely religious". This would explain everything. Lol

Jason H. Bowden said...

Many on the left fancy themselves more enlightened than the rest of the voting public. However, they have no real agenda of their own beyond hating George Bush. As a result, they're unable to capitalize on Republican mistakes and will continue to wander the political wilderness.

To take an example, Democrats claim to be against increased government spending, but they can never tell the public where they wish to make the deep cuts. It certainly will not be in social security, health care, or education -- if anything, they want *more* spending for entitlement programs. Democrats don't want less government spending, they just want less money spent defending democratic governments and killing terrorists.

Democrats are completely cynical about the Republic, but they'll give any 3rd world dictator the benefit of the doubt on issues concerning NBCs. As a result, no matter how unhappy voters may be with the GOP, they don't trust the Democrats on security. Democrats advocate policies that would let suicidal theocrats have nuclear weapons, permit radicals to overthrow nascent democracies, and allow terrorists to make phone calls into the United States in secrecy. They think we should do nothing to stop a growing totalitarian movement around the globe.

This isn't the Democratic Party that faced down the Communist menace during the Cold War in the service of freedom. It is the Democratic Party of self-centered 1960s hippies. They might as well adopt ME ME ME NOW NOW NOW as their campaign slogan, perhaps with a nice angry YEEAAGH at the end.

Stardust said...

Jason - Our country was attacked under a Republican's watch. N. Korea has nukes and no one could stop them. Many mistakes are made on both sides, but you are pointing fingers at one side. The current administration engages in finger pointing to distract from their repeated failures. They paint pretty pictures as if all is well, when it is not. Or they send off alarms to rally support when they are sinking. Propaganda. Democrats are having problems getting organized...true. However, they are not communists, neo-nazis or whatever you want to call them. There are no more hippies (you are obsessed with the 60s...they are over...no more flower power) Liberals do NOT support terrorists. It is not so cut and dried as to believe "either you are for us or against us." It's not as simple as that.

Last I heard it this is still a free nation with more than one party. The way you are talking you come across as if you would like to only have a one party system and plant a dictator or King.

Also, Democrats or Republicans, Libtertarians, Green Party, Independents...etc. We are all AMERICANS and all parties are concerned with our safety and best interests.

You seem extremely worried about terrorists coming to get you. Why is it you don't trust your current adnimistration to protect you? Could it be because they failed to once already?

Jason H. Bowden said...

Stardust --

Democrats, who have no problem criticizing the intellect of others, really should critically examine the set of ideas they're advancing. Even a little of bit of thought is better than nothing.

The threat the globe's current crop of totalitarians pose to free societies is crystal clear. Engaging in doublethink will not make them go away. Islamic supremacists have spelled out their agenda in unequivocal terms, both rhetorically and behaviorally. That's the horrifying truth. It really is as simple as that, which is why many refuse to countenance it.

I'm defending liberal democracy, not constitutional monarchy, socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, or some other system. The Democrats changed in the 1960s and now no longer believe in a free world. Moral clarity has been abandoned for moral equivalence between free societies and fear societies. That's one of the legacies of the 1960s -- the left is now firmly against the principles of the Enlightenment that have historically animated our republic.

Stardust said...

Jason -
There you go again...just regurgitating propaganda. Just because some don't agree on your ideas and opinions does not mean that liberals and those of other opinions have not thought critically about the problems concerning our national security and other issues in today's world.

You keep bringing up your fears, and have not answered the question: "You seem extremely worried about terrorists coming to get you. Why is it that you don't trust your current adnimistration to protect you?"

Jason H. Bowden said...

Stardust --

I can tell you where conservatives from Bush to Giuliani stand on foreign policy. We know the Bush administration in particular has made tactical errors, but I can tell you what they're trying to do in the big scheme of things. In anycase, we'll be putting fresh blood in office in 2008. This answers your question. You can ask if we can trust Bush to fight for a free world for the short time he's in office. I ask -- do you guys have a plan or even ideas I can even trust?

Democrats want to "change the course." To where, exactly?

The foreign policy of the Democrats, as far as can make it out, is much different. It includes letting theocracies have NBCs, letting al Zarqawi run Iraq, letting bin Laden make phone calls into the United States in secrecy, coupled with extra money allocated for port and border security. In short, it involves surrender, appeasement, wishful thinking, and misunderstanding of the Islamofascist threat.

I've been banned from Democratic forums from dissenting from the majority's opinion on letting Mullahs have nukes, wiretapping, and criticizing people like Cindy Sheehan who want an immediate withdrawal. (For instance, I was at DU, which has 100,000 people, since 2001.) The majority of Democrats weren't pushing these ideas in 2004, but they are now.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Sell me what you precisely think the Democratic philosophy on terrorism is. Right now, there's a few Liebermans that want to make sure the Islamofascists lose WWIII, there are Mark Warners keeping their mouths shut, and then there are the hordes of Jan Schakowskys and Bobby Rushs blaming America and Israel for the terrorism of Muslim fundamnentalists in unison.

You say we need to be more thoughtful. Do Democrats have any specific thoughts on how to deal with suicidal Muslim Hitlers beyond vapid propositions about peace and dialogue? You guys bash the 32% who support Bush for being "extremely religious," but who do you think we're fighting?

Stardust said...

Jason - you keep turning the argument around instead of answering the question. The Republicans have been in control for 6 years now. They may remain in power in 2008. They say everything is "in control" and even you say things are going well and should "stay the course" in the middle east. So why are you still afraid? If you don't trust the current administration to protect you, then why would you trust them to protect you in the future?

Stardust said...

32% xian fundies fighting a near equal number of islamic fundies = holy war. Maybe most of us don't want to see people die and the world go up in a mushroom cloud for jeebus or mohammad.
Things have to be thought out and hopefully find a peaceful solution or a way with the least expense to human life.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Stardust --

I trust the administration to stay the course with regard to keeping America secure and working for a free world. Note -- this is an answer to your question. You've asked it many times before, and I will continue to give you the same answer.

The reason why you ask it, naturally, is because the Democrats want to change the course, and you want to change the subject. What would a changed course entail? Beyond increased port security, Democrats don't offer much beyond surrender, appeasement, and wishful thinking.

You know it too.

American Christians, Indian Hindis, and Israeli Jews are *not* the threat to world peace. I state this unequivocally and without apology. The problem is not religion, but Islamic inspired totalitarianism. When you show me the Buddhist suicide bombers and the Christians flying airplanes into skyscrapers, perhaps I'll revise my position.

Stardust said...

As a registered Independent(is there such a party anymore?), I would like to see government stop pointing fingers and work together to come to some kind of solution about current middle east and terrorist attacks instead of constantly pointing fingers and attacking each other. Politician of all parties are guilty of trying to win the next election instead of focusing on what is best for the country in general. War is not something to be entered into lightly. As I have said before, I have not met one liberal in favor of the terrorists. You seem like you would like to do a complete extermination of the islamic people, and that is not acceptable. That is very Hitler-ish. Since 9/11 I myself do not feel safe with the ridiculous administration who has not made progress, but propaganda and bullshit rhetoric. If things were so good, you would not be afraid and everyone would be behind our government waving our flags like in WWII. But in recent decades, politicians are only interested in competing in an ongoing popularity contest to see who can "woo" voters to one side or another. The skeptic stands back and looks at all sides.

I know, I know...I am communist hippie scum for wanting to find a peaceful resolution if possible. ;)

(Some fundie xians WOULD fly planes into buildings if they weren't so stupid. History shows how cruel xians can be and how far they would go in the name of Jeebus. The KKK is still in existence, gays are killed walking down streets, they kill their children they think are "demon possessed"...and at this moment a new breed of xians is on the rise with Battlecry.com...check it out if you want to see a growing number of little Hitlers.)

Jason H. Bowden said...

Stardust --

Most of the left is not guilty of favoring terrorists. However, almost all of them are guilty of the moral paralysis that results from postulating moral equivalence where it does not exist.

Islamic totalitarians should be feared. In my lifetime, they have literally crucified thousands of people, flown airplanes into skyscrapers, ruthlessly massacred schoolchildren, and implemented genocides on a Biblical scale. Some think that Christians who want nativity scenes on public property are an equivalent threat; this is a brazen case of psychological displacement if I ever saw one. We have three options when dealing with nations with Islamic totalitarians:

1) Kill their leaders and subjugate everybody.
2) Appease them.
3) Aid democrats and reformers opposed to the totalitarians.

Number 1 is the Ann Coulter option.
Number 2 is the Jimmy Carter option.
Number 3 is the George Bush option.

Personally, I think the Bush option is the best way to deal with the situation.

Stardust said...

Ok..we all oppose Islamic totalitarians...now what? What's Bush's big plan? What does he mean by "stay the course" and all of the other bullcrap rhetoric he uses? You say the Bush plan is the best plan and yet you seem terrified still.

There is a reason why Bush has the lowest ratings of any president ever...there is a reason why so many are not happy with him and even many of his die-hard supporters have turned their backs on him. He is incompetent.

Stardust said...

Jason:
President Bush said that Islam is a religion of peace...quote:

"Islam is Peace" Says President
Remarks by the President at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C. September 2001

"THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much for your hospitality. We've just had a -- wide-ranging discussions on the matter at hand. Like the good folks standing with me, the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday's attacks. And so were Muslims all across the world. Both Americans and Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslims in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens.

These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that. "

Link to White House page

Roya said...

America is fighting terrorism? Really? Were was I when all these were happening?

I thought america is bizzzzzy in Iraq, playing hide and seek. Wow! So they actually went back to afghanistan and focused on getting to the root of alqaeda? Are they putting pressure on countries which support terrorism but somehow are called the friends of America? Did they do that even though the top members of the Bush administration (including Bushy himself) have vested interest (oil) in keeping those countries happy?

After all these politics studies and I missed such significant events that are needed to fight terrorism.
Wow! Thanks for informing us J.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Stardust --

It is rational to fear, i.e. be alarmed by, people who do terrifying things. Autistic responses to terror such as apathy, disregard, and neglect are not appropriate responses for human beings that have actual thoughts and emotions.

Like Bush, I want to support the modern Muslims, like the ones that voted in the last Iraqi election many Democrats want to abandon, and oppose the cruel, fanatic, and ultimately totalitarian ones like Saddam Hussein, Mullah Omar and so forth. I've reluctantly arrived at the conclusion that this is the right and wise thing to do.

At this point in time, there are still a few Democrats like Hillary Clinton that want to stay the course. She opposes an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and wants to makes sure things are done right like a responsible human being. Hillary makes no excuses for Palestinian terror, and also believes we need to take a hardline on Iran, even if force must be used. The complaint of all the other Democrats -- the Rahm Emanuels and the Nancy Pelosis -- is not with Bush's competence, but with the course itself -- they want it changed from democratic reform to the appeasement of terror. We've tried that before with Mussolini, Hirohito, and Hitler with disasterous results.

Let us make certain history doesn't repeat itself.

Roya said...

"Hillary makes no excuses for Palestinian terror, and also believes we need to take a hardline on Iran, even if force must be used."

I like both her positions but none are practical. You obviously have not studied politics, otherwise you would know that it only helps her get elected. This is because there is a diference between finding the best solution to problems and trying to be seen as a STRONG LEADER. The best solution is not necessarily the most aggressive one. And in both cases (I have done a great deal of study on both), her position is one that makes her look strong.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Roya--

I have no idea why you want to allow the most vicious and reactionary elements in the world to overthrow Iraq's nascent democratic government. Perhaps you think by aiding hardcore Muslim fundamentalists, you're fighting the oil companies, starting the path to liberate all of us from the misery of Western slavery. Perhaps you simply hate America. I'm sure Hegel deduced the answer someplace in his Logic.

We import much more oil from Canada or Mexico than we do from countries like Saudi Arabia. Secondly, note that the greedy, imperialistic, unprincipled, and materialist United States does not import a drop of Iranian oil. But by all means, please continue to believe sinister conspiracy theories about oil companies, Jews, defense contractors, or whatever supports your fantasy that Muslim totalitarians are not a danger to free societies.

Lastly, people can and do say what they mean in this world. Making errors of fact can damage a politician, as Bush has shown. And the public has no patience of deception, seen most clearly in the case of Richard Nixon. With most Americans strongly against the Iraq War, there is little incentive for Hillary to take hawkish stands, regardless if someone in Australia studies politics or not.

Roya said...

"I have no idea why you want to allow the most vicious and reactionary elements in the world to overthrow Iraq's nascent democratic government."

Maybe it's because I being an Iranian feel that you’re so called democratic government resembles the Iranian government. When the people overthrow the Shah they called him a tyrant and now what do they have? They replaced a secular government with a strong economy with a weak theocratic DEMOCRACY.

In Iraq, the same is happening. A secular tyrant is replaced with a THEOCRATIC DEMOCRACY. The people want a religious government and that’s what they are getting. I don't give a shit if it’s called democratic, as democracy itself is a kind of tyranny (majority rule over minority), I don't trust people to make smart and fair choices.

I'm a Kurd, so I'm happy for the Kurds but it’s a disaster for the world. We get one more theocratic government in the world.

"Perhaps you think by aiding hardcore Muslim fundamentalists, you're fighting the oil companies, starting the path to liberate all of us from the misery of Western slavery. Perhaps you simply hate America."

WTF!? I'm an atheist and I'm no fan of religious people of any kind. I hate America? You’re kidding me? I love it! Especially when I read its history and how wise and rational they were in their own time. My favorite is Thomas Jefferson. What I hate is to see Bushy word when I hear of the presidents of the United States. Those great men of the early history of US cannot be compared to the lousy bushy we have.

"Secondly, note that the greedy, imperialistic, unprincipled, and materialist United States does not import a drop of Iranian oil."

Lol! Firstly that’s not how I look at America or any other country. I'm a libertarian and realist. I believe all countries are there to help themselves as they can and it has nothing to do with being good or bad. Governments have responsibilities to the people who elected them so they have to do all they can to serve the interest of their people.

Secondly, from a strategic point of view, having more instability in the region makes the situation a lot worse for the US, whether you believe it or not. As an Iranian, I'm the first one to jump for joy if we get ride of this THING that rules over my country, even if it’s by military means. However it’s stupid for me to think it’s that simple. Iran is almost 3 times bigger than Iraq. It neighbors Iraq on the west, Afghanistan from the east. And Chechnya is just above Iran. Even if they just bomb just the Nuk facilities they would have take into account the great number of Suicide bombers and fighters (I prefer to call them delusional murderers) who are ready to fight anyone and create instability even in their own expense. Remember the Iranians were the first ones to use suicide bombing (in Iran-Iraq war). Unlike Iraq that only had an army, Iran has multiple militant organizations (religiously based) that are fully armed, trained, and ORGANISED, and are ready to fight if they get their call from their leader (Khamenei). They would create instability in the region which is not in the interest of US.

So the idea of attacking Iran is just a way to attract votes. She got your support didn’t she?
I don’t think she’s that stupid.

“But by all means, please continue to believe sinister conspiracy theories about oil companies, Jews, defense contractors, or whatever supports your fantasy that Muslim totalitarians are not a danger to free societies.”

When did I say that? The Jews? What about them? “sinister conspiracy theories about oil companies, Jews, defense contractors” what do you mean by that?

And I do see religious overtaking of the world or any part of the world as dangerous. Why did you assume I don’t? Again I’m a libertarian! So please don’t assume what people think.

Stardust said...

Autistic responses to terror such as apathy, disregard, and neglect are not appropriate responses for human beings that have actual thoughts and emotions.

This is exactly what Bush has been. No wonder you are afraid.

Stardust said...

Also, you are accusing us of saying things we have not said or believe. You are not listening and only focusing on what is in your own brain from whatever sources you want to believe. But generally, and I have said this time and time again...we do NOT SUPPORT TERRORISTS, RUTHLESS THEOCRATS, AND CRAZY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE.
So, please stop telling me that I do. As Roya pointed out, there is a reason for caution and not just rushing in there like a loose cannon. If you don't take caution before exterminating a nest of bees, you are going to get stung.

Jeffy said...

All this hate of Bush, and extremism on both sides, is just going to keep this seesaw of policies between both sides. It is just separating and creating negativity within the country. It is now time to compromise and work together for a greater cause.
Going after terrorists that wish to destroy is a good thing, but bashing either approach by saying "you are a rightwing hillbilly redneck" or "you are a left wing communist hippie" only makes each side move more to the opposite side of the spectrum.
Resorting to the Bill O'Rielly crybaby way of arguing, which is try to insult a Democratic idea by saying its just communist, is NOT listening, is NOT working towards anything. It's the Joe Petry way of thinking, I am right because I demand it. Listen to what I am saying because I demand it. and my mother demands it so you cannot demand because she demanding that you cant demand because I demanded at the beginning of time because I demand it.
Anyways I must be off for work. The extremist stance needs to be dropped, for it is not a productive way of thinking and working together, for whatever cause it is.
Too bad these idealogical and optimistic views do not exist, and will never, so long as men are corrupted by power and greed, because when it all comes down to it, everything now is run and done for profit and money.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Stardust--

I'm read every word that you've written carefully and have given you the dignity of lengthy, well constructed responses. As I wrote above,

"Most of the left is not guilty of favoring terrorists. However, almost all of them are guilty of the moral paralysis that results from postulating moral equivalence where it does not exist."

On the basis of what I've seen in this thread, this judgment is correct. One person said we're ruled by the Cross, and another insisted that we're ruled by Mammon. In reality, in America, individuals are the architects of their own lives.

My alarm with regard to a specific ideology that can be labelled Islamofascism is well justified. It is independent of the competence of any president, Democratic or Republican.

You guys wouldn't be preaching caution and moderation if a white guy like Jorg Haider, Le Pen, or even Bush was aiding white supremacists, promising to wipe out the Jews and so forth. The left's obsession with diversity, tolerance, and multiculturalism is clouding their judgment of the Muslim equivalents of David Koresh, Hitler, and the KKK.

If you want to do nothing active beyond words and happy talk to stop Islamofascists from obtaining NBCs, and if you think America should not help democracies fight Islamofascists, you are helping the terrorists obtain their objectives with your actions, even though you may still retain negative feelings toward them.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Roya--

The United States is not a theocracy. Anybody can run for any office without approval from a religious bureaucracy. Leftwing people with names like 'Barack Hussein Obama', homos like Barney Frank, and Jews such as Joe Lieberman are elected representatives, so you can't say the public is bigoted either.

"I don't trust people to make smart and fair choices."

This is the ruling principle of the left. People are too stupid, as outofcontrol mentioned, too spiritual, as you believe, or too materialistic, as Jeffkowski believes to make their own life deicsions. Some say we might as well promote an authentic stateless society, or go directly to its predictable historical result, totalitarianism.

The Shah should have been supported, but Jimmah Carter, with his enlightened moral relativism, stabbed him in the back and didn't give him the American backing that was promised. As a result, we later had to support Saddam Hussein, a homicidal maniac with hegemonic ambitions, to prevent Iran from exporting its revolution. There's no ethical equivalence between the Shah and Hussein, and the world is a better place with Hussein gone.

Marxist-style economic determinism is not libertarianism. Sometimes people do fight wars to free slaves like Abraham Lincoln, or oppose Communist governments like Ronald Reagan on the basis that it is the right thing to do. There are some like Henry Kissinger that have advocated a "realist" foreign policy approach, but other administrations like Reagan and Bush II act on a principled basis.

Stardust said...

There are some like Henry Kissinger that have advocated a "realist" foreign policy approach, but other administrations like Reagan and Bush II act on a principled basis.

Then what the hell are you afraid if Bush II is in control with his "principled basis"????

The left's obsession with diversity, tolerance, and multiculturalism is clouding their judgment of the Muslim equivalents of David Koresh, Hitler, and the KKK.

This is untrue...we are just concerned about innocent lives that would be lost and it is better to think about how to take care of the problem without causing WWIII.

Your beloved fool has already shown concern for these people as I have shown you HERE.

Like Jeff says...isn't it about time for political sides to sit down and start cooperating instead of behaving irrationally and pointing fingers at each other? The way you talk you want to crown a fool a King and do away with any other thought processes and opinions and then we would no longer be a free nation, but a like-minded BORG for the Republic.

Stardust said...

By innocent lives lost, I am talking about BOTH sides. I would not want to end up being a victim of some other country's military weapons that were aimed at Bush for being an arrogant theocrat who makes decisions based on his chit chats with his god.

Stardust said...

Reagan's dealings with Iran:
1985/6 US holds secret talks with Iran and makes weapons shipments, allegedly in exchange for Iranian assistance in releasing US hostages in Lebanon. With revelations that profits were illegally channelled to Nicaraguan rebels, this creates the biggest crisis of Ronald Reagan's US presidency.

Stardust said...

Clinton's actions against Iran:

1995 President Clinton imposes oil and trade sanctions on Iran for alleged sponsorship of "terrorism", seeking to acquire nuclear arms and hostility to the Middle East process. Iran denies the charges.

1996 Mr Clinton stiffens sanctions with penalties against any firm that invests $40m or more a year in oil and gas projects in Iran and Libya.

Stardust said...

Timeline: US-Iran ties

Both Dems and Republican administrations have been dealing with trying to stablize Iran for decades. I am a pessimist about any kind of U.S. type democracy being embraced there. The best we can do is try to keep anyone from starting Armageddon.

Jason H. Bowden said...

stardust --

I am not asserting nor denying that 'Bush is a clown, and we're all going to die' or 'I love Bush, we're all going to die'. I *am* asserting that Democrats as an opposition party generally offer policies that would help fascists in the Islamic world obtain their horrific, and in some cases apocalyptic, objectives. I am not saying all Muslims are violent, and neither is Bush, as your link demonstrates. I am saying that those that are violent tend to be religious fanatics, not misunderstood proletarians.

I'm also not denying the left is concerned about terrorism. But like Jimmy Carter, while their concern is genuine, they don't believe in taking any *action* against it. That's the problem.

As Natan Sharansky writes,

"In our television age, when pictures without context immediately influence our emotions, when cause and effect are deemed irrelevant, when only suffering is important, human sympathy and a deep desire for peace can turn into a weapon of tyranny. Sadly, I have watched many of those who yearn for peace and who champion human rights turn their backs on the freedom that makes both possible."

Roya said...

I agree with you completely in your last post. If you actually visit The atheist jew blog you can see I have said almost the same thing there.

And oh! Jimmy carter! He's the reason Iran is in this mess. If I could just ....>:(

The only difference between your thoughts and mine is that, I think bush as a religious person is as damaging to freedom as those muslims that we both fear.

Stardust said...

Roya said:The only difference between your thoughts and mine is that, I think bush as a religious person is as damaging to freedom as those muslims that we both fear.

Roya - And that is what I have been trying to make clear about my stance on GW. The comic posted indicates that Bush's daddy is most likely not in the now 31% of the people who approve of the job he is doing. (His rating went down another point yesterday.)

I am not asserting nor denying that 'Bush is a clown, and we're all going to die' or 'I love Bush, we're all going to die'. I *am* asserting that Democrats as an opposition party generally offer policies that would help fascists in the Islamic world obtain their horrific, and in some cases apocalyptic, objectives.

On the other hand, the muslim fundamentalists may be hoping we start the "holy war" of the Apocalypse and get the ball rolling to fulfill the prophecies of the end of the world.

outofcontrol said...

Democrat or Republican?
Liberal or Conservative?
Tax and Spend or Spend and Spend?
Balance the budget and have surpluses or tax cuts and growing deficits?
For Social Security or Against Social Security?
Use facts to go to war or Only use the right facts to go to war?
Evolution or Creationism?
Follow the law or break the law?
Right to choose or absolute control?
Live and let live or Biblical control?
Bush is still sinking (31%) now. Why one must ask? When Bush ran as a man of principles and honesty as a platform little did we know that it is only a lie if he says it is a lie.
Illegal wire tapping is like illegal immigrant, it is illegal. Bush does not get it. A supposed man of principles that carelessly breaks the law has no credibility. Bush being the champion of the Republican conservative right makes me proud to be called a liberal, hippie, socialist, communist or any other such labels that republicans throw out to try and win their case when facts and common sense do not work.
Bush's record of fighting terrorists is abysmal. He is not fighting them on their soil, he is creating more of them whose only objective is to kill the infidels. Afghanistan is slinking back into turmoil( did not all the Taliban get killed?), Iraq is on the verge of civil war, and Iran wants to be a superpower whose intent is to destroy the West. Without support from his own people, without afore mentioned credibility Bush is powerless to deal with any problem. As a nation we can only hope that our next President has the respect, honesty and dignity to lead our nation thru these problems. Those qualities will be necessary to lead the world to acceptable, comprehensive solutions.

Jason H. Bowden said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jason H. Bowden said...

ooc --

Contrary to what foreign policy experts like Sean Penn believe, opposing evil does not create more evil. Opposing Communism during the Cold War did not create more communists. In contrast, if we want to see a LOT more terrorists, surrender, ahem, "strategically redeploy" the coalition forces in Iraq and observe the disaster that will ensue.

Those who are genuinely democratic and against religious fanaticism eagerly support the liberal democrats in Iraq. The Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Christians, and most if not all of the Muslims here in the United States are not the threat.

Like Jimmy Carter, Democrats deep down know what's right and wrong, but they don't believe in backing up their morals with anything beyond feelings, happy talk, and the Jacques Chirac foreign policy tool of choice: The Strongly Worded Letter.

Bush will be gone in less than two years. However, those who want to surrender to terrorists in the naive hope it will decrease their numbers and mollify their fanaticism will still be in our midst.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Here are some more thoughts for the openminded:

"So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army... After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them."

"But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear."

--Osama bin Laden

We're not involved in a manhunt; we're in a global struggle between democrats and totalitarians.

Stardust said...

Contrary to what foreign policy experts like Sean Penn believe,

Who said anything about Sean Penn???

We're not involved in a manhunt; we're in a global struggle between democrats and totalitarians.

And Bush II has been a failure in this manhunt for terrorists. Blaming liberals is a distraction.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Stardust --

We are *NOT* in a manhunt for individual terrorists. We're fighting a totalitarian movement that has been gaining strength over the last 20 years while we have been asleep.

Stardust said...

We're fighting a totalitarian movement that has been gaining strength over the last 20 years while we have been asleep.

And Bush II has been the biggest "snoozer" of them all.

Stardust said...

Jason - Here's one for you. Our commander in chief