Well a few words,

First the Bush administration never lied about Iraq and WMD, all of our allies as well as every single country in the United Nations has conclude and stated for years that Iraq did in deed, for a fact, have WMD. The Clinton administration believed this just as much and made more about the possible nuclear threat that Saddam posed, more so then Bush.

Therefore no one was lied to. Some of the ones now whining about being lied to are the democrats. The very same ones mind you that just a year of so a go and with the Clinton administration were out there stating “Iraq has WMD’S” “We need regime change” with their Commander in Chief Bill Clinton.

I supported them then (with democrats) and I support this President. Is it not strange that the very same democrats that supported Bill Clinton (as I did) do NOT support President Bush? Most likely because they have no real issues to run on for 2004 and are going to lose their *** once again.

Now Nick, you may never have believed that Iraq has WMD. You may not have believed it during the Clintons years and don’t believe it now. I can respect that since you have the very same information I do which is “none” neither you or I have the information that are allies have and that the entire United Nations had which all conclude based on the information they had that Iraq did indeed have WMD.

The question I would ask you is why do you believe Iraq never had them when all are allies believed he did as well as the entire United Nations? Mind you they all believed this for well over 8 – 10 years now.

As long as there is a war going on I can tell you now that NO democrat will win in 2004. The American public, the vast majority of the public does not trust a democrat during times of war. Especially this war since just about all of them has shown they have no spine, no courage to protect the best interest of America.

Iraq is a PART a very big PART of the war on terror. They are not the end game, but they played a major role and have since been taken out. They, in my opinion, played a part on 9/11 for the simple fact they supported and funded terrorist organizations, recruitment and training. They had the means to equip terrorist with WMD’S to carry out attacks on America and for the most part have been haulted.

The Clinton administration did very, very little to curb terrorist actions. However, I have many of times been in the defense for the Clinton administration for not doing as much as President Bush has done. Simple fact, in my opinion, is no way any President would have been able to do what President Bush is doing were it not for 9/11.

For to many decades America has been playing the passive role and the terrorist thought they had a free pass and expanded and became more deadly. Now that America is playing an offensive role the terrorist have much more to fear then just words as they were use to, be it past democrat or republican administrations in the office.

In 2004 President Bush will be reelected because the American public does not want to see the creditability of America tossed in the can, nor do they want to see the economy that is coming back disappear because of the tax hikes EVERY democrat running for office has promised. They all have, in one way or the other, have stated they are for tax HIKES…

Tax HIKES = Bad for the economy, bad for the people, and bad for federal revenue.
Tax CUTS = Good for the economy, good for the people, and good for federal revenue

 

Geez, after all the hollerin' died down this got to be a good discussion.

I was raised in a conservative family, but did my undergrad work at Berkeley. While there, I learned that you could be a democrat and have a rational opinion, and that some "liberal" ideas have been and are good for the country. So I really don't like Left-baiting.

For myself, I just cannot ascribe to G. W. Bush the kind of underhanded agenda others seem to want to ascribe to him. I thought before the war in Iraq that he overstated the case regarding WMD, and to the extent it was overstated, he is feeling, I think, deserved consequences for it. My calling it overstated is not the same, at all, as saying he lied, and I would never try to make the case that SH's hands were clean. They certainly were not, he wanted to have gas weapons, he equiped his own army with gas masks and gas defenses, why would he do that? It is possible that in response to all the international pressure, he really did distroy all but anything that could be construed as dual use, and understood that he could never produce enough of it under sanctions to really use effectively, but he was still a threat. Hey, he used it on his own people! This guy was a collossal jerk, certainly in the same league as Stalin and Hitler.

This board knows my own record of strongly questioning whether we should go into Iraq without the UN; I questioned whether we should have gotten involved in Kosovo for the same reason (oh yeah, that was Clinton...)

But I do not think that Bush is dishonest. I think he was convinced that we would find better evidence by now.

I confess to some mystification, however, that there are some in the body politic that hate Mr. Bush so much. Why is it that when there really is a black and white issue, that people refuse to acknowledge that? Why is ideology a bad thing?

I think that back in the 50s and 60s, conservatives defended several bad ideas, and I, in the first decade of the 3rd millenium, do not want to be making the same mistakes my father did, trying to defend (or at least not even see) blatant racism. I remember in college the radicals were protesting investment in South Africa, and I, due to my conservative bias (usually a good thing, I think) could not support them, but twenty years later, apartheid fell (largely due to those liberal's strategies) and South Africa is a better place, no thanks to conservatives like me.

That said, I cannot see a congruent issue on the liberal agenda today. Abortion is mostly killing a baby because it is inconvenient. I have a hard time being simpathetic to those who would permit such behavior, as the cost of that liberalism is a baby's life. I think that gay people should not be harrassed for their choice of how they get off, but I think the idea of gay marriage is silly and a joke. Health care entitlements are an issue upon which reasonable people may differ, and I would certainly chose the conservative, pay your own way point of view on that one, but also, basic health care for the poor is an issue, where health care costs (read: insurance costs) are skyrocketing due to new technologies and old liabilities. It just seems like the "angry left" as some would call them really just don't like to find a set of principles that they stick with and live or die over (idealism) whether or not it is popular. Reagan was such a man. Kennedy seemed to be (except when it came to fidelity to his wife, at which point I am sorry but I find it hard to have confidence that such a man was particularly idealistic).

Bottom line is, however, the presidential candidates, most of them, especially Wesley Clark, Dean, and Kerry, seem to want to make up positions to take advantage of Bush hate rather than offer respectful alternatives.

I could go on and on, and most of you probably don't care what I think anyway. Anyway, I like the tone of a more reasoned discussion, rather than the earlier name calling.

Hope I didn't exceed the character limit!

TS

 

TexasSteve:

Excellent post...

 

Hey TS ,
Sorry to hit the boards with the "name calling" .

You have excellent ideas .

I get my dander up when nameless people of other countries spout off about my countries ideals and leadership by only quoteing obscure articles.

I was baiting to find out if there was conscious thought behind the original post.

My apologies for offending you but I will remain strong to defend our country, it's leadership, principles and people.

 

From what I read Dean is a gun guy

 

I agree. Leadership, principles, and people.

GWB is supplying the leadership, principled leadership, that has always been what made our country great. We are a nation founded on principles, and if we leave those behind, who are we? Nevertheless, we need to be sure all the people, not just the ones just like us and not just the ones that agree with us, get to enjoy the fruits of our liberty and justice for all.

(can you hear the patriotic music in the background?)

New point...why are people so upset with "neocons"? When the term neo-conservative is shortened that way, it comes accross as an insult, a term of derision. Yet, I associate the term with the likes of George Will, kind of the quntessential neo-conservative. What I like about his type is that they strongly value principles (correctly understanding that changing or reinterpreting the principles changes the character of the country) while appreciating that some conservative positions in the past have been violations of principle.

They think. They measure policy against logic cooly and without regard to some "party line" yet are not willing to throw out time-tested values for the sake of just trying to be different. They are called Neo- because they break with the old conservatives in that they are willing to think outside the box of "we have always done it this way"

I am of the opinion, one that is only just forming so I am interested in others view, that many of today's democrats are much more "conservative" than Republicans. Consider the evidence:

1. Abortion rights have been in place for 30 years, they are therefore established policy. Any time they are threatened by new ideas, such as that some types of abortions might actually be killing viable human beings, they come out with a diatribe of illogical sound bites to try to paint the effort as regressive, yet it is the right to abortion that is killing babies.

2. School vounchers seem to be a very good idea to me to force schools in general and particular teachers especially to get off of their hind ends and start trying to get students to succeed. Why is this a bad idea? Because it threatens the entrenched, tenured teaching establhishment.

3. The continuing fillibustering of people like Thomas Pickering, who within his conservative mindset has fought for equal and dignified treatment of minorities while serving in Mississippi. Seems he is opposed because he might provide Republicans with someone they can point to with a record that is supported by all the major black leaders in his district. The liberals oppose a black woman because her "conservative" views don't mesh with the accepted party line of victimization and oppression. Why are they opposing their own success? If this sounds confused, it is because I just don't get this move. I cannot interpret it as anything other than just trying to be obstructionist, trying to prevent the loss of a traditionally democratic constituency.

TS

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...p?story=464783

 

Mr Livingstone needs to stop smoking the crack, I mean peace pipe so much and maybe he will actually make some sense.

I tell you some people are so afraid of the few that stand up for others rights, and more so for their right to exist with the least amount of government involvement as possible. Mr. Livingstone is the perfect example of those who “think” they are smarter then the average citizen and that people like himself should actually rule over the people making “all” their choices for them.

It is people like Mr. Livingstone that the public should fear for it is his kind that wish to rule over everyone and dictate to them what they can do, what they can say, and how they shall feel.

That my friends IS ”the greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen.”

Oh, and what Mr. Livingstone is afraid to admit in public is that if it were not for America and strong leaders like President Bush he would not be able to sleep peaceable at night…