🚀 go-pugleaf

Uncle Samuel <Stars@Stripes.USA> wrote:
> FranklinJefferson wrote:
>> if the argument is that Bush at least is tough on terrorism... 
Bush
>> really dropped the ball on terrorism.  He went into Afghanistan,
where
>> Al Qaeda was hiding... and then just about when we were ready to
roll
>> up Al Qaeda and shut them down for good, he forgot about going
after
>> Al Qaeda, actually took troops OUT of Afghanistan, and decided to
>> invade Iraq.  So, instead of finishing the job, he starts a new war
in
>> a country where Al Qaeda didn't operate.
> 
> That's a FUCKING LIE!

I don't appreciate your language.  If you can't use polite language
you should just stay silent.

The link you gave very much seems to agree with me-- I don't think it
matters that bin Laden now serves as a "mentor" to terrorism rather
than leading attacks himself-- Bush failed to roll up Al Qaeda, and
took a large number of troops out of Afghanistan to invade Iraq, which
is a country where we know Al Qaeda does NOT operate.
 
Bush has screwed up the war against terror.  He should have completed
what he started, and he should have rolled-up Al Qaeda as job number
one, instead of leaving it to recruit more terrorists.



>...
> franklinjefferson@hotmail.com (FranklinJefferson) wrote in message news:<735b8de2.0410251656.2a9746c4@posting.google.com>...
> > A Contrarian View: Why conservatives should not support Bush.
> > 
> > One reason that conservatives have had for supporting the candidacy of
> > George W. Bush is not that they favor Mr. Bush (many of us have grave
> > reservations about his policies) but that they worry about a Democrat
> > victory presaging a sharp turn of the country to the left.  But this
> > is an unfounded fear: it's simply not going to occur.  The Reagan
> > revolution happened, and, regardless of who is elected in November,
> > it's not about to be undone.
> >  Actually, a Democrat winning the presidency in November would have
> > remarkably little effect on policy.  Republicans hold both houses of
> > Congress, and that's not about to change-- in fact, the best estimates
> > are that the Republican majority in both the house and the senate will
> > increase.  Liberal or not, a Democrat president isn't going to effect
> > any changes that won't first take a thorough Republican scrubbing.
> >  There are, in fact, many advantages in having the president and the
> > Congress elected from opposite parties, and it's argued that America
> > is strongest when they are.  The congress can serve as an effective
> > anchor on presidential excess, and a skeptical president can cut the
> > worst of congressional pork-barrel spending.  I am not one to argue
> > that the government shouldn't be trusted... but when one party
> > controls the government's purse strings, without anybody watching out,
> > congress always seems to see the public treasury as a great big candy
> > store.  That's when you see pork-barrel spending running out of
> > control.  (It's worth noting that the budget surplus the later part of
> > the Clinton administration came from a Democrat president held firmly
> > in check by a Republican congress.)
> >  But the main reason that conservatives shouldn't support Mr. Bush is
> > very simple: George W. Bush is not a conservative.  When you ignore
> > his talk, and looking at what he has actually done, you see that over
> > and over again, George W. Bush has betrayed every ideal that the
> > conservative movement has.
> >  The heart and soul of the conservative thinking is fiscal
> > conservatism: the government should be responsible for how it spends
> > money.  The conservative economic view has always been very simple:
> > balance the budget, and quit deficit spending.  That idea somehow went
> > out the window when George W. Bush was elected (in fact, suddenly we
> > are even hearing how deficit spending is somehow good for the nation.)
> >  What happened to the "lock box," where George Bush said he would put
> > the budget surplus to save it for social security?  The instant he got
> > elected, he seems to have forgotten his promise.
> >  The fact is, George W. Bush has run up a record budget deficit-- the
> > largest deficit in history.  And, before you say that terrorism and
> > the response to the 9/11 atrocity is the source of the unexpected
> > budget deficit-- look at the data.   Only a small portion of the Bush
> > deficit can be tagged to the 9/11 terrorists.  Bragging about
> > "cutting" taxes while actually increasing government spending at the
> > same time isn't really a tax cut; it's just increasing the tax next
> > year.  America is about our children, and leaving our children and
> > grandchildren in debt is not what we mean by "family values."
> >  The heart of America is our business.  Americans aren't afraid to
> > work... but where are the jobs?  A conservative president should be a
> > pro-business president, but in fact rather than helping business,
> > American businesses are going out of business; and the ones that are
> > staying in business are shipping jobs oversees.  No matter what Mr.
> > Bush's advisors may think, ramping up the deficit is not helping the
> > economy.
> > Mr. Bush says that education is his priority.  This is excellent, but
> > is the federal government really the right place to reform our
> > schools?  Education needs to be done at the local level-- right at the
> > level of homes and families-- and not by big-government mandate.  The
> > "no child left behind" laws, stripped of rhetoric, consist of nothing
> > except new  government-mandated standardized tests-- another unfunded
> > mandate from Washington that our states and cities have to pay for. 
> > Teaching children how to do well on standardized tests-- is what we
> > want to teach our children?  When did conservatism start believing
> > that the government in Washington is the right place to run our
> > schools?
> >  The conservative world view is that the era of Big Government is
> > over. Ronald Reagan knew that, and for that matter, so did President
> > George H. W. Bush.  But the younger Bush just hasn't gotten the
> > message.
> >  Iraq.  It goes without saying that America needs to be strong, and
> > that we should use every means of defending ourselves against those
> > who detest our freedom and despise our way of life.   Destroying the
> > Taliban, the stronghold of the Al Qaida terrorists, was necessary and
> > unavoidable; it was required for the defense of America.  But invading
> > Iraq? Long ago, John Quincy Adams wrote, "Wherever the standard of
> > freedom shall be unfurled, there will [America's] heart, her
> > benedictions, and her prayers be.  But she goes not abroad in search
> > of monsters to destroy."  It doesn't matter how loathsome a dictator
> > Saddam Hussein was; America should go to war only with great
> > reluctance, and as a matter of last resort.  America isn't in the
> > business of nation building.  Once, even George W. Bush understood
> > that.  During a debate with then-Vice President Al Gore in 2000, Mr.
> > Bush said: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's
> > called nation-building . . .. Maybe I'm missing something here.  I
> > mean, we're going to have a kind of nation-building corps from
> > America? Absolutely not."   Apparently to Mr. Bush, it depends on what
> > the meaning of "absolutely not" is.
> >  And fear of terrorism is no reason to erode our liberty. 
> > Conservative leader Pat Buchanan said, "It is remarkable how
> > complacent Americans seem to be, as our freedoms are gradually
> > restricted, and more and more power and wealth flow to Big Government
> > to protect us from terrorists."  Do we really need the 342-page
> > Patriot Act, to protect us from terrorism by giving the government
> > more rights?  Has we finally become a place where American citizens
> > can be picked up and held without lawyer and without charges,
> > indefinitely?  It is worth quoting Benjamin Franklin:  "They who would
> > give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither
> > liberty or security. "  When did we decide that we prefer our security
> > to our liberty?
> >  A final reason why conservatives should not support Mr. Bush is that,
> > quite frankly, he is not merely destroying the credibility of the
> > Republican party, he is damaging the credibility of conservatives,
> > period.  Is Bush really the person who we want the world to view as
> > the public image of conservatism?  For the last twenty years, Ronald
> > Reagan has been the image of conservatism in American.  Do we want
> > George W. Bush to be the intellect who will shape conservatism for the
> > next  twenty years?  Conservatism can survive a term of  Mr. Kerry as
> > president-- it may even make us stronger and more focussed.  But can
> > conservatism survive another term of Mr. Bush?
> >  No one will deny that Mr. Kerry is a liberal.  But even if he wins
> > the presidency, he will find a solid Republican Congress, and an
> > America united.  He is no threat to America.
> >  Bush, a wolf in sheep's clothing, is eroding our economy, our
> > liberty, and the very standing of our nation in the world.  His words
> > say that he is a conservative.  His actions, on the other hand, say
> > exactly the opposite.
> > 
> > 
> > Recommended reading:
> > Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan
> > Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency, by Pat Buchanan
> > 
> > American Conservative magazine:
> > http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html
> > War without end: http://www.theamericancause.org/patthecheney.htm
> > The Case against Empire:
> > http://www.theamericancause.org/caseagainst.htm
> > The war party http://www.theamericancause.org/patthewarpartys.htm
>  
> > > http://www.americandaily.com/article/4687