George W. Bush

I'd like to point out that extreme viewpoints are rarely right. If I were to talk that way about Clinton, I'd be making a fool of myself. Quite frankly, like Bush or not, I can't see how on Earth you can find a half-decent reason to refer to him as "the worst President in history."

I like you, sun, so please don't take personal offense when I reply to the above with one word:

Bullsh*t!

Um, no, we haven't. We haven't apprehend all those who ordered it, funded it, etc. Where've you gotten that from?

Good God, man, are you serious? It's one thing to not like a person's policies, but you're accusing him of being a cold-blooded murder. There are lots of political figures I don't like, but I believe virtually all of them at least MEAN well in the end. You're taking a very radical stance here.

Is this a bad joke? Hitler wanted to dominate and conquer and murder people for no justifiable reason. We, my friend, were ATTACKED...and we're not conquering anything. We don't want to run these other countries. We're only trying to take out those responsible for this, and ensuring that it doesn't happen again. If you can't see the difference there, I don't know what to say to you.

Bush is gonna be re-elected...I thank God for that. Rail against him all you like, but I'm quite convinced that, barring some truly earth-shaking event, his Presidency (of eight years) will be remembered as one of the greater terms in U.S. history.

I'd like to point out that extreme viewpoints are rarely right. If I were to talk that way about Clinton, I'd be making a fool of myself. Quite frankly, like Bush or not, I can't see how on Earth you can find a half-decent reason to refer to him as "the worst President in history."

Easy, like I can say the world's tallest man is the world's tallest man. If there is another man taller he hasn't said anything. If I compare Bushy with all our past presidents he is the worst.

I like you, sun, so please don't take personal offense when I reply to the above with one word:

Bullsh*t!
Hahaha! Name one nation that can beat us? Please, we're fighting people who barely know how to work RPG's and live in caves. They don't even have cars, they have camels. They don't even have pda's with Windows Xp. No third world nation stands even a tiny chance at beating us. It would take Russia or an alliance of France, England, and Germany, plus the Chinese and Japanese and anybody else.

Um, no, we haven't. We haven't apprehend all those who ordered it, funded it, etc. Where've you gotten that from?
Who ordered it? Bin Laddy barely even knew about it. He laughed when he found out. Are you telling me it was planned and funded by 100,000 people?


Good God, man, are you serious? It's one thing to not like a person's policies, but you're accusing him of being a cold-blooded murder. There are lots of political figures I don't like, but I believe virtually all of them at least MEAN well in the end. You're taking a very radical stance here.
Hitler meant well in the end, so did every other mass murder. They didn't do it for the heck of it, each one thought he was in the right just like we do.

Bush is gonna be re-elected...I thank God for that.
BushLite is satan. You know the Bible didn't say anything about the year 2000, somebody made up that number. The Bible says he'll come like a thief in the night. BushLite could still set off armageddon.

That's not what I mean. First off, an extreme viewpoint is not one grounded in fact...it's one grounded in opinion...otherwise it's not really extreme. And, as I said, I don't think you have a half-decent reason for talking so lowly of him.

I never said we weren't the most powerful...the "Bulllsh*t!" comment was in reference to the absurd notion that you could somehow do Bush's job right now. That's so incredibly outrageous that I don't even know how to begin to criticize it.

We're not sure as to all the specifics. And how exactly do YOU know that "Bin Laddy" barely knew about it?

Furthermore, as you'll notice, I mentioned that we're also trying to stop it from happening again...which means taking out people who are basically calling for our deaths every single day. How can you take issue with our combat against those who want to destory us and would gladly attack us again, in the same manner (civilians) if the right opportunity presented itself?

Hitler wanted to conquer and rule other countries. We do not...we simply want those who would do us harm removed. Hitler wanted to wipe out an entire race simply for being of that race...we're responding to a specific kind of act in a specific way...our intentions are on FULL display for all to see...I don't see how you can object to us taking measures to prevent another 9/11.

You know what? That paragraph is going to convince more people of my position than yours...so I'm glad to reproduce it here.

Do most conservatives believe in a "small govermnet that only interferes when it is absolutely necessary"? None that I know of. But I guess that depends on how you define "conservative." If you mean the Republican Party, then NO. If you mean the "neoconservatives" (e.g. William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, et al.), then NO. If you mean the traditional "movement" conservatives (e.g. Bill Buckley, Robert Bork, et al.), then NO. If you mean the conservatives from the Coulter/Horowitz/O'Rourke school (60's generation and later), then NO. If you mean the Old Right, then yes, but they never defined themselves as "conservative" and never even wanted anything to do with the movement. And it wouldn't have mattered if they wanted in anyway, because Pope Buckley "excommunicated" them (along with Birchers, Objectivists, isolationists, etc.) from the "respectable" conservative movement.

Conservatives WILL usually avocate lower taxes, but that doesn't mean they believe in a "small government."

They believe in a strong military, yes, which is one reason they don't believe in small government. It's ironic, but not at all surprising, to see this kind of doublespeak as in your list.

The last two go together, and once again I disagree. High standards for Democratic officeholders, but incredibly low standards for Republican ones.

They didn't want to hear about the rape allegations against Reagan (who, like Clinton, refused to deny them). They refuse to allow investigation into the October Surprise, even though several foreign leaders claim that Republican operatives DID meet with the ayatollahs while Carter was still in office. They looked the other way when it came to scandals like Debategate, Republican sex scandals (Bob Barr, Helen Chenowith, Henry Hyde), pardons for FBI lawbreakers, pardons for the Iran/Contra felons BEFORE trial (to cover for Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush?), Guatemalan death squads, support for Nicaraguan terrorists and drug runners (Reagan compared them to our Founding Fathers, if you can believe THAT), invasion of Grenada, assasination manuals at the School of the Americas, support of dictators, CIA-backed coups (destroying democracy to "save" it), etc., ad nauseum.

The fact that these people revere Robert Bork (who fired Archibald Cox, for god's sake!) is telling. And what the hell was Bush doing putting perjurer/felon Elliot Abrams on his staff? If Bush's standards are accepted by most conservatives (and I assume that would include you, Commish), then I'd hate to see what your definition of "high standards" is. Your high standards are what I personally would consider low standards.

Who's calling for our deaths? And is that a thought crime or something? One of W.R. Hearst's newspapers said that President McKinley "deserved a bullet." McKinley, of course, was assasinated not long after. Are you mad at Teddy Roosevelt for not declaring war on the Hearst empire? Maybe the U.S. military should have dropped a bomb on San Simeon, since Hearst provided "aid and comfort to" someone who advocated the death of an American president.

Let me get this straight... an international terrorist group pulls an attack on American soil, so we declare war on the country of Afghanistan, which never attacked us. Pretty strange retaliation. Next up: Iraq. Also did not attack us. Then (forget about catching bin Laden...) Iran, Syria, and perhaps the rest of the Islamic world. This sort of imperialistic hubris is what usually starts World Wars. That it will cause more terrorism is without a doubt.

My advice, if we want to prevent future attacks, is to alter our foreign policy. How about a policy of non-interventionism? It works much better, as history, and even contemporary examples, show: Britain's response to the King David Hotel bombing by Israeli terrorists was to get the hell out of Palestine. England has not had anything like 9/11. Japan, which until recently (post 9/11) had completely renounced the deployment of troops to foreign countries, has not had a 9/11. No country in Europe, or any other country with a similiar way of life as ours, has been attacked in such a manner (which, IMO, disproves Bush's lame theory as to why we were attacked).

Even though it would have been more convenient, geographically as well as strategically, to attack a closer, weaker country, the terrorists did not. I think it's important to ask the "why" questions (as well as the "how") so that we can prevent such attacks in the future.

Maybe you haven't met the right people. The overwhelming majority of conservatives I know do not fully support the Republican party and have a very basic, simple philosophy and they've stuck to.

Doublespeak? I think not. A strong military does not necessarily mean a large government...just a larger government than you'd have with a weak military.

I'm getting the strong impression that you are defining conservative beliefs through the Republican party alone.

I don't know a thing about Elliot Abrams, so I can hardly speak as to his viability in that position. I would wonder, however, as to whether or not such a questionable person is pretty much always present on the White House staff, regardless of the President in office.

I do not recall the exact wording, but haven't various extremists made the claim that they have a "duty" to kill Americans?

And no, it's not a thought crime. If a newspaper says the President "deserves a bullet," that newspaper is acting in poor taste. If someone with a history of terrorism or very possible ties to it is calling for our collective deaths, that's another matter entirely.

I don't believe we've declared war on Afghanistan.

And I suppose your solution is to sit idle? When every option looks like sh*t, it doesn't exactly make sense to complain about the shortcomings of the more appealing ones.

So, where would that have left us in WWII? If it hadn't been for Pearl Harbor, would you have advocated neutrality towards Hitler?

You do realize we're screwed eithe way, right? We intervene, and we're apparently interfering...sticking our nose where it doesn't belong. We sit back, we're indifferent and xenophobic, and unwilling to "do the right thing."

When you stick your neck out to do what you think you ought to do, people are going to be on your case. The more powerful you become, the more enemies you have, and the harder they're going to come at you.

Now, regardless of whether or not a modified foreign policy will prevent such attacks in the future, we still have THIS attack to deal with, and I don't see it as anywhere near plausible to simply take this punch in the gut and return back to our corner with a vow to sit out the next round.

Some are, yes. Are most? No.

Those who write for the mainstream conservative magazines, such as The National Review and The Weekly Standard are for the most part, not. I read an incredible editorial by Jonah Goldberg (online editor of National Review), in which he approvingly quoted Reagan's infamous "If it takes a bloodbath…" line, while later in the editorial describing himself as a libertarian! Surely he knows the context of the line, because he acknowledged that Reagan said it in response to student protests. Across the country in Ohio, Governor Jim Rhodes was saying in a press conference that the Kent State protesters were worse than the Nazis (only he used the term brownshirts), Communists and Klansmen (nightriders). A few days later, the National Guard was sent to the campus in direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Guardsmen shot at the students for 13 straight seconds, killing four and wounding several others. The FBI investigated the shooting, and found that the protesters had been neither violent nor threatening to the National Guard.

Goldberg certainly knows all this, yet he still claims to be a libertarian? It is to laugh. This guy is like Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen, believing, if not six impossible things, at least two.

But I realize Goldberg is not the only conservative out there. William F. Buckley surprised many people when he came out against the War on Drugs a few years ago. Andrew Sullivan, who is certainly a "mainstream" conservative, has publicy spoken against sodomy laws and for gay marriage. Most conservatives nowadays are against censorship, although it was a Repulican majority which passed the Communications Decency Act (many Democrats voted for it as well, to their shame). Bob Barr is one of the only Republicans in Congress to come out against the new Anti-Terrorism laws and the secret military tribunals advocated by the current administration. He joins many on the Left (as well as the Right) in recognizing that the government needs to be held accountable, and shouldn’t be given a blank check to do whatever it pleases.

But I've read so many more ridiculous Goldberg-esque (and worse) columns that these shining examples do little to convince me that most conservatives believe in small, non-interventionist government.

Since there are no statistics available to back up either of our positions, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this point (since I know you'll disagree).

Um. In just about any case besides full-blown war, it does. Standing armies during peacetime are explicitly forbidden in the Constitution. And even if not… oh, to hell with it. Why am I even arguing such a trivial point? Just read this revealing quote from Bruce Weinrod as the Berlin Wall was coming down:

"The first thing [Bush] ought to do is call Margaret Thatcher and try to talk some sense into her. She was recently quoted as saying the Cold War is over. That really is a problem if you have somebody who is tough-minded saying that. She may not understand that, at least with the American public, you have to create a sense of urgency about what we are doing; otherwise, the course of least resistance is followed and funding shifts to social programs. [Emphasis added]"

Sounds like somebody is afraid military funding will be cut. Oh no! We can't have that! The Cold War is over but we're sure to have an enemy somewhere on the planet, and if not, we'll just have to invent one! To quote The Onion: "Nobody wins when there's peace."

Of course, I don't pretend that this guy speaks for all conservatives, but a lot of them whined when Clinton cut the military by 2/3 (or something like that). Clinton's joke of a war on Serbia (which I also opposed, BTW) was proof that we obviously didn't need such a huge military to begin with.

I'm getting the strong impression that you didn't read my post. I reiterate:

Do most conservatives believe in a "small govermnet that only interferes when it is absolutely necessary"? None that I know of. But I guess that depends on how you define "conservative." If you mean the Republican Party, then NO. If you mean the "neoconservatives" (e.g. William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, et al.), then NO. If you mean the traditional "movement" conservatives (e.g. Bill Buckley, Robert Bork, et al.), then NO. If you mean the conservatives from the Coulter/Horowitz/O'Rourke school (60's generation and later), then NO. If you mean the Old Right, then yes, but they never defined themselves as "conservative" and never even wanted anything to do with the movement. And it wouldn't have mattered if they wanted in anyway, because Pope Buckley "excommunicated" them (along with Birchers, Objectivists, isolationists, etc.) from the "respectable" conservative movement.

My only regret is saying "none…" rather than "most…" I also regret leaving out the Religious Right in my assessment. Otherwise, I stand by my statement.

"Other Presidents did it too," is a poor excuse. I don't know if you're trying to defend your earlier position that you and most conservatives have high standards for those in power. You don't seem to overtly disagree that this is, for the most part, false.

I'm not saying that I have extremely high standards for those in power, because who does? We're talking about politicians, for God's sake. Nothing would get done in Washington because so many people would be investigated, asked to resign, etc. I can see how an idealist might claim to actually have extremely high standards here, but in practice it would probably result in gridlock.

Okay, then, what about these people?

"The current events . . . have caused me to activate my unit. Please be advised that the time for Aryans to attack is now, not later." – Paul R. Mullet, Aryan Nations chief in Minnesota

"May the WAR be started. DEATH to His (God's) enemies, may the World Trade Center BURN TO THE GROUND! ... We can blame no others than ourselves for our problems due to the fact that we allow ... Satan's children, called jews today, to have dominion over our lives." – August Kreis, webmaster of the Posse Comitatus website

"The enemy of our enemy is, for now at least, our friends. We may not want them marrying our daughter, just as they would not want us marrying theirs. We may not want them in our societies, just as they would not want us in theirs. But anyone who is willing to drive a plane into a building to kill jews is alright by me. I wish our members had half as much testicular fortitude." – Billy Roper, deputy of the National Alliance

According to the Historical Dictionary of Terrorism (Sean Anderson and Stephen Sloan), all three of these groups are known terrorist groups or have ties to terrorism. And if we take what they've been saying since September 11 seriously, it sounds like they think it's their “duty” to kill Americans, or at least Jewish-Americans.

Did the "War on Terrorism" miss these groups? Don't "May the WAR be started" and "[I've] activate[d] my unit" sound like declarations of war to you? As far as I know, no action has been taken against them. The military is not planning to drop bombs on their bases or homes (with their families being collateral damage, I suppose). And I, personally, do not condone such a course of action. I don't think you do either.

I apologize. I had forgotten entirely that this was yet another military action completely illegal and unconstitutional. Thank you for reminding me!

No, I support retaliation when we are directly attacked. I'm not a pacifist; hardly anyone is. In this case, we were attacked by a terrorist organization, not a country. I support the arrests and trials of those linked to these crimes.

There are exceptions to any non-interventionist stance. But there has been an alarming trend since WWII to label any two-bit dictator we want to get rid of as the "new Hitler." And we just absolutely must get rid of them, even if that means invading their country, or imposing unilateral sanctions that harm the citizens far more than the dictator.

But if we decide to make friends with some dictator, or he is on the CIA payroll, or Margaret Thatcher has tea with him and calls him a "great man," we will not intervene unless the general public finds out he is a drug dealer (and our leaders, in a Casablanca-esque moment, are "shocked, shocked, to find such activity going on"). And we will not allow Spain to extradite a friendly dictator to put him on trial for killing Spaniards, because hey, he killed less people than Pol Pot, right? (I'd like to see that argument tried in Court sometime: "Your honor, my client may be a serial killer, but at least he didn't kill as many people as John Wayne Gacy. Have a heart!")

Right. Not bombing foreign countries is xenophobic.

And I do mean non-intervention in terms of force. Foreign Aid is a form of "intervention" (if you want to call it that), that I support. It's quite different than forceful intervention.

I don't see it as anywhere near plausible either, but I don't agree with bombing Afghanistan and now maybe Iraq (and who knows who else) as an appropriate retaliation.

Gah, I'm sick of typing now. Let's just say we disagree on the appropriate foreign policy to take, which wasn't the main thrust of my original post anyway.

You've taken a survey?

I guess we run in different circles.

They don't necessarily represent the majority of conservatives anymore than Pat Robertson necessarily represents the majority of Christians, or anymore than James Carville necessarily represents the majority of Democrats.

Why? It stands to reason that the crazies are going to stand out. It's the same logic that has most liberals unfairly portrayed by Rush Limbaugh, who likes to focus on the wacko cases.

I'm quite frankly at a loss for words if you're actually suggesting that it's a bad idea to maintain a strong military. Don't you believe "peace through strength" has any merit?

Uh, it does?

Section 10, Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

I thought we had the "Consent of Congress" necessary? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I read it twice in anticipation of you saying that sort of thing.

You're right, it is a poor excuse...however, it's not exactly the excuse I was using.

As I said, I'm unfamiliar with Abrams, and I'm certainly not going to take a stance on something I know so little about. The only point I was trying to make (in case there's any confusion here as to that) was that there are always likely to be "questionable" people who can get the job done...which is why I don't think we'll ever see an administration without a few eyebrow-raising folks involved. Yes, this applies to Clinton as well. I'm not affording Dubya alone this kind of slack.

Um, I do. My family does. Most of my friends do. And regardless of all that, we SHOULD. I don't think it's at all unreasonable or unrealistic.

I'm not claiming that all skeletons need to be dug up...but at the very least, when one is found, hold the person accountable. Apparently even that is too much to ask, though.

There's a crucial distinction here: there's no good reason to afford everyone the rights we've given to U.S. Citizens. If you become an American, you're given certain rights...these do not extend to people who want them only when their own methods are failing.

As for people threatening violence here in America: don't we investigate direct threats? Aren't we monitoring things? I surely hope so. Do these people, more importantly, have a HISTORY of terrorism? That makes quite a bit of difference, in my opinion.

See above...Section 10, Clause 3. Again, please correct me if I've misunderstood something.

To that I must ask two questions:

1 - What do you mean by "trial"? I'll wager you don't particularly like the idea of a military tribunal.

2 - What is to be done if the only way to get to these people is to potentially harm innocent people?

There surely has...but I'm not part of it. I'm using a somewhat extreme example to make a point...nothing more.

I'm confused. Are you asking me to defend all of these decisions? Or did you just feel the need to vent?

As ridiculous as it sounds, I've had such things bleated at me more than once.

Obviously I'm referring to forceful intervention. WHEN do we intervene? And how? What horrible act would have to be committed in front of us before it'd be appropriate for us to step in, I wonder?

Type as little, or as much, as you want.

Not trying to start another giant debate here, but I have a question. What do you think about going to war with Iraq? And if you are for it, are you going to join a branch of the military to fight it?

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

Whoa! The whole point of living in a free country is the right to maintain ideas and opinions that differ from the majority -- and not get bopped on the head. How 'bout Peace in our time"? Or failing that, how about peas in our time? Any port in a storm.
Love to all,
Jozie

P.S. to "most hated man": I don't know that we have to go knock those guys on the head just because we can . . . .

Actually, I'm totally against going to war with Iraq. I am currently in the service of the US Army, and I will no doubt be called to fight for something I don't believe in. Here's my thing. I am sick of people who have no intention of fighting said war talking about how we should go fight Iraq. It makes them hypocrites in my opinion.

I don't think it makes them hypocrites at all. Only those in battle should be allowed to have opinions?

Okay, that didn't come out right. Everyone is allowed their opinions. I'm just disturbed by people who are so gung ho about sending me and my brothers in arms to die so callously. If they want war so bad, they should be willing to fight. Just my opinion, which I didn't state very well the first time.....

Today Bush Jr. loaded a hundred talibuns in a truck and they all suffocated to death, just like HITLER used to do. Thank you~


Oh yeah Yod, I know what you're going to say. BushLite didn't personally order it, just like Hitler didn't order every single truckload of people to be killed and dumped in a mass grave, but he was still responsible for it.

Now he's trying some backdoor loophole crap so he can bomb Iraq, saying they fired on our troops so we have to attack them. He's so full of evil it's disgusting. What an evildoer of evil he is.

Actually that's not what I would have said (if you'd let me, that is). What I would have said (and am saying now, in fact) is that it's not necessarily wrong to suffocate people. It depends on who the people are and why you're doing it. If someone tried to kill my family and I suffocted him in self-defense, I'd feel no real guilt. You act, though, as if the mere fact that people have been killed automatically implies fault!

Just keep talkin' man. You're arguing for Bush, not against him, when you use such ridiculously extreme terms.

I'm pretty sure those hundred people didn't do anything to me and weren't involved at all in Sept 11th. They were probably home washing their feet that day or something. They didn't even know it was gonna happen. Also, they were p.o.w's. Do you think it's okay to kill p.o.w.'s who have already given up? It isn't self defense if it's after the fact.

Ummm, a few things.

1 - A person doesn't have to be involved with the attacks of 9/11 to be a horrible criminal.

2 - Who said they did anything to YOU? Are you the only one crimes can be committed against?

3 - They were "probably" home washing their feet? Got a source, do you? Sounds like pure speculation on your part...and even then, an evil person is evil regardless of whether or not they've taken to cleaning their feet.

4 - What's their knowing or not knowing it would happen have to do with it?

Depends on the specifics, I suppose.

Here, read this.
Someone else's opinion

Hey Sunny!
You know I'm an overall Bush supporter type person but have you seen that guy on Jay Leno that 'does' Bush? OMG, that dude is hilarious!

***Sorry to interrupt... carry on***

That is just messed up. I have never read a worse sentence in the entire time I've been here. I am so glad I did not say something so purely evil as that. How is it NOT WRONG to suffocate P.O.W.'s?!?

Umm, are you telling me there's no circumstances under which you can hold someone prisoner who deserves to be killed? There are no heinous acts they can commit to warrant that? I'm not saying they DID deserve it...I'm saying that I'd like to find out what they've done to potentially merit their death before I go condemning it.