Posted on 09/16/2001 5:10:47 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
(MAJOR PUKE ALERT)
NOTE: The following excerpts are the front page comments about the recent terrorist attacks that are currently displayed by Democrats.com, a far left wing Democrat Party front group that is run by DNC insiders, ex Clinton administration officials, and ex Gore campaign strategists. They are literally using every opportunity possible to smear Bush and to politically exploit the recent tragedies. See their disgusting tasteless comments for yourself:
Bush's War in His Own Words: What EXACTLY Are We Fighting For?
Bush says "we're at war," and we take his words with deadly seriousness. If America's youth are going to be sent off to fight and die - and countless innocent lives taken abroad as "collateral damage" - then Bush owes America and the world a clear and meaningful and explanation of what we're fighting for, who we're fighting, and how we're going to win. We won't settle for platitudes, vague statements or meaningless generalizations - either from Bush or from the Republican media. We demand the truth!
Is America Being Set Up for War by the Bush Corporate Machine?
According to the mass media, you'd think at least 2/3 of all Americans are itching to go to war. But talk to young people across the nation (those with the most at stake!), people in banks, grocery stores, restaurants, and you will find a VERY different story. Most want justice, not revenge. This discrepancy between the man on the street and the media machine, which has from day one been an alternating lap and attack dog for Bush, shows that America is being set up big time. While justice against the guilty cannot be turned into a corporate profit, war most certainly can. War can be used to stave off a recession (gets all those young men and women out of the work pool for a while), can force a corporate iron control into countries where an advantage may be gained (Bush has widened his targets now to SIXTY nations), and can make it easy to push through your anti-environmental, anti-human rights agenda in the name of "national security."
Bush Now Threatens to Attack 60 Nations: Are We About to Be Led Off the Edge of a Cliff By a Madman?
When we saw the following story in the BBC, we were chilled with a thought that had never before stuck us, no matter how frustrated and angry we may have been at Bush: Is he insane? In less than one week, he has gone from threatening to attack any nation harboring the actual guilty parties to now vowing to unleash the "full wrath" (direct quote) of the U.S. on SIXTY nations. Pumped up by the first real wave of support (born of grief and chaos) that he has ever received and urged on by the two most fanatically intolerant people in his administration (Ashcroft and Rumsfeld), has he gone over the edge into some bizarre John Wayne fantasy? More critically - Will Americans be self-destructive enough to follow him over the edge?
PREVIOUS DEMOCRATS.COM EXCERPTS AND DISCREPENCIES WITHIN THEM:
Compare the following excerpts I and II. Excerpt I is Democrats.com's commments on Afghanistan as they appear AT PRESENT. Excerpt II is that exact same article when it was first posted late Friday. Democrats.com apparantly removed and altered some of the more inflamatory language AFTER freepers took notice of it.
(EXCERPT I - CURRENT ARTICLE)
Bush's Threats May Cause the Starvation of Hundreds of Thousands of Afghan Civilians by Winter
Carefully stoking the anger and fear of Americans still reeling from the disaster, Bush has repeatedly threatened nations harboring terrorists. To Bush, it's just a few words. But for hundreds of thousands of desperately poor Afghan farmers, already living under subsistence conditions brought on by 20 years of war and the worst drought in decades, it may soon mean starvation.
(EXCERPT II - SAME ARTICLE AS OF LAST FRIDAY EVENING)
Bush Threats Expected to Lead to the Starvation of 250,000 Afghanistani Civilians by Winter
Bush is basking in the temporary support of the masses he has gained through the tragedy. Playing upon the anger and fear of Americans still reeling from the disaster, he has made vague inflammatory threats against nations harboring terrorists. To him, it's a photo op moment. For hundreds of thousands of desperately poor Afghanistani farmers, already living under subsistence conditions brought on by 20 years of war and the worst drought in decades, it may soon mean starvation.
NOTE: Perhaps most telling are Democrats.com's comments from immediately after the disaster occurred. Pay careful attention to the final sentence in the excerpt of this article by Democrats.com co-founder and bigwig Democrat political consultant Bob Fertik. Apparantly the "another time" he talks of is now, less than a week after the horrific tragedy.
(EXCERPT)
"This wasn't the moment to denounce the unelected pretender in the White House, who will inevitably want to appear "tough" by unleashing bombs and terrifying someone else's child. That's what terrorism is - grownups feeling justified - or worse, feeling compelled - to frighten, maim, or kill someone else's child.
(Of course, the Republican media will never accuse Bush of "wagging the dog" to divert attention from his lies and sagging polls, as they did when Clinton punished
Saddam Hussein. Nor will they insist that military action will weaken our troops' readiness and morale, as they did when Clinton stopped Slobodon Milosevic. And they certainly won't argue that Bush's malign neglect of the Middle East conflict put America at risk, or his mindless vacationing while warnings swirled, or his raw contempt for world opinion on a dozen global issues. But we'll leave these for another time."
Not tragedy, nor disaster, nor common sense, nor common decency itself can convince these types from putting their leftist agendas aside for even one minute. It's a perfect demonstration of the "ends justify the means" mentality that runs the daily lives and actions of the far left. To them, the end of taking political cheap shots justifies their means of exploiting a tragedy to do so. It's beyond sickening, but it's the way it is and that cannot be emphasized enough. If only the public knew what truly sickening creatures lurked inside the Democrat inner circles even at the time of the worst tragedies imaginable.
These idiots think the US is so big a carcass that they can run it down to increase their power and still benefit. If they lived in New York, they might not be talking this way.
Hillary and Bill are a perfect example. They figured it didn't matter how much they fed China and Lippo--they were above it all. Well, you're not above it all if the bombs are crashing all around you. (Although I bet Hillary and Bill still feel that way. She's just bummed that GWB is getting all the attention.)
"They are not STUPID, they are EVIL."
Theya re not patriots, they are megalomaniacs,
caring only about the promulgation and perpetuation of their POWER
and increasing the numbers of Americans who are dependent upon their control through BIG GOVERNMENT.
"They are not STUPID, they are EVIL."
Theya re not patriots, they are megalomaniacs,
caring only about the promulgation and perpetuation of their POWER
and increasing the numbers of Americans who are dependent upon their control through BIG GOVERNMENT.
Republican media
Personally, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the real "powers that be" did permit this tragedy to happen, in order to profit from a war (wouldn't be the first time). However, I doubt very much Bush had anything to do with it.
the Republican media
No comment necessary. This is just too silly.
will never accuse Bush of "wagging the dog" to divert attention from his lies and sagging polls
No comparison. Clinton's actions were the very definition of "wagging the dog," while Bush is simply responding, with proper restraint, to the worst crisis America has faced in decades.
when Clinton punished Saddam Hussein
When Clinton "punished" Saddam Hussein? Hmmm...don't remember that. It was so thinly veiled that only a die-hard Clinton defender would see it as punishing Saddam Hussein instead of the cowardly media diversion. Clinton was a desperate, desperate man at that point. Is Bush similarly desperate? Not hardly.
What bunk this is. I also feel sorry for these deluded people, but unfortunately they've got guys like Peter Jennings and Dan Rather to give credence to them by subtly (and not-so-subtly) attacking Bush's leadership.
Bush Threats Expected to Lead to the Starvation of 250,000 Afghanistani Civilians by Winter
Hey, what are a few thousand American lives? Let's just do nothing. Actually, I have to laugh at leftist predictions because they are nearly always exaggerated or patently false.
Examples:
SOVIET UNION
1981 - Expert - "It is a vulgar mistake to think that most people in Eastern Europe are miserable." (Paul Samuelson, Professor of Economics, MIT, Nobel Laureate, Economics, 1981)
1982 - Expert - "The Soviet Union is not now, nor will it be during the next decade, in the throes of a true systematic crisis, for it boasts enormous unused reserves of political and social stability that suffice to endure the deepest difficulties." (Seweryn Bialer, Professor of Political Science, Columbia University, Foreign Affairs Magazine, 1982/3)
1982 - Expert - "I found more goods in the shops, more food in the markets, more cars on the street ... those in the United States who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of economic and social collapse, ready with one small push to go over the brink are wishful thinkers who are only kidding themselves." (Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., 1982)
1983 - Expert - "All evidence indicates that the Reagan administration has abandoned both containment and detonate for a very different objective: destroying the Soviet Union as a world power and possibly even its Communist system. [This is a] potentially fatal form of Sovietphobia ... a pathological rather than a healthy response to the Soviet Union." (Stephen Cohen, Princeton University Sovietologist, 1983) 1984 - Expert - "The Soviet economy has made great national progress in recent years." (John Kenneth Galbraith, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, New Yorker Magaine, 1984)-->
1984 - Expert - "That the Soviet system has made great material progress in recent years is evident both from the statistics and from the general urban scene...One sees it in the appearance of well-being of the people on the streets...and the general aspect of restaurants, theaters, and shops... Partly, the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast with the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower." (John Kenneth Galbraith, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, 1984)
1984 - Expert - "On the economic front, for the first time in its history the Soviet leadership was able to pursue successfully a policy of guns and butter as well as growth ... The Soviet citizen-worker, peasant, and professional - has become accustomed in the Brezhnev period to an uninterrupted upward trend in his well-being ..." (John Kenneth Galbraith, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, New Yorker Magaine, 1984)
1985 - Expert - "What counts is results, and there can be no doubt that the Soviet planning system has been a powerful engine for economic growth...The Soviet model has surely demonstrated that a command economy is capable of mobilizing resources for rapid growth." (Paul Samuelson, MIT, Nobel laureate in economics, 1985)
1985 - Expert - "It's clear that the ideologies of Communism, socialism and capitalism are all in trouble." (James Reston, New York Times, 1985)
1989 - Expert - "Can economic command significantly compress and accelerate the growth process? The remarkable performance of the Soviet Union suggests that it can. In 1920 Russia was but a minor figure in the economic councils of the world. Today it is a country whose economic achievements bear comparison with those of the United States." (Lester Thurow, Professor of Economics, MIT, The Economic Problem, 1989)
STARVATION
"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." --Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, 1968
OVER-POPULATION
"There may be much disagreement with the statement that population and capital growth must stop soon. But virtually no one will argue that material growth on this planet can go on forever." --Paul Ehrlich
"...stopping population growth in 1975 and industrial capital growth in 1985...a world forum where statesmen, policy-makers and scientists...concerted international measures and joint long-term planning will be necessary on a scale and scope without precedent...a rational and enduring state of equilibrium by planned measures...A decision to do nothing is a decision to increase the risk of collapse" --Club of Rome
"...famine and ecocatastrophe...take immediate action...population control...hopefully through changes in our value system, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail." --Paul Ehrlich, Prophet of Doom, Myopic Visionary
OIL RESERVES DEPLETION
"The era of growth is over and the era of limits is upon us." --Economist Robert Lekachman
"In oil, the United States is clearly approaching depletion. At today's rate of consumption -- not tomorrow's -- the United States has proved reserves of oil sufficient to meet the nation's needs for thirteen years." --Vance Packard, The Waste Makers, 1960
Yes, "clearly." This is obvious to all thinking people! When people like Packard use sweeping language to sound an alarm, beware. They just don't know what the hell they're talking about. If we listened to these clowns every time they predicted the end of the world, we would be in a state of paralysis. Incidentally, in 1973, thirteen years after Vance "Waste Maker" Packard made his prediction, oil reserves were 36 billion barrels. In 1960, reserves were 32 billion barrels. Oops!
GASOLINE SHORTAGE
The Prophets of Doom in Defense of State Intervention, 1970s:
"...obvious that gasoline could reach at least $2 a gallon after decontrol." --John Dingell
"...gas will cost $2 per gallon within a few years and $3 per gallon during the vehicle's lifetime." --Lester Brown, Worldwatch Institute
"...gasoline will soon go to $3 a gallon." --Senator Dale Bumpers, Defender of Liar-in-Chief Bill Clinton
"Ronald Reagan brushed aside energy issues during the campaign, insisting that shortages could be overcome by unleashing private enterprise. But not even his most fervent supporters in the energy business share that optimism. Virtually all private forecasts predict declining domestic oil production and liquid fuel shortages during the next decade." --New York Times
"There is a dwindling supply of energy sources. The prices are going to rise in the future no matter who is President, no matter what party occupies the administration in Washington, no matter what we do." --Jimmy "No Way No How" Carter, Master of Malaise
"We must adopt a system of gasoline rationing without delay...that demands a fair sacrifice from all Americans." --Senator Edward "Never Too Left" Kennedy
So what happened? Well, as was his style, Ronald Reagan ignored all the gloom-and-doom "Brain Trusters." In the first month of his administration (1981), he issued an Executive Order ending oil price controls. Within four months, the average price of unleaded gasoline fell from $1.41 to 86¢. Refineries' average cost of buying crude oil fell from more than $30 a barrel in 1981 to less than half of that by March 1986. And by the end of the 1980s, crude oil reserves were 41 percent higher than they were at the beginning of the decade.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.