Backing Dean guarantees a Bush victory (must read)

The Daily Northwestern ^ | 1/6/04 | Nadir Hassan

[Valin]

I want Howard Dean to be the Democratic nominee for President despite the fact that his intellect is the size of a single in the Foster-Walker Complex.

If he gets the nomination, George W. Bush is going to launch a major can of whoop-ass, the likes of which have never been seen before in any election. It will make the 99 percent landslide "victories" of dictators around the world look like closely fought contests.

Many ask why I have a dog in this fight. After all I'm a Pakistani with no interest in the debates over Medicare and school vouchers. I'd rather go to class than read about campaign finance reform.

To put it simply, American politics bore me.

I do, however, care deeply about my country. At the risk of sounding like a peace activist -- which I most certainly am not, at least not in the NOWAR tradition -- I also care about the freedom and well-being of the global community. And right now, Dubya is the only person capable of doing that.

Ideally, Muslims wouldn't need Bush to do their dirty work for them. They would repudiate all forms of terrorism, reform their own dirty political systems and realize that women should be treated as human beings, not cattle. But since they're not up to the task Bush is the next best alternative.

In the last 28 months he has managed to bomb Afghanistan into modernity and rid them of the Taliban, who subscribed to the "women-as-cattle" philosophy mentioned above. He has also managed to free the Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, who came up with the novel idea of mass murder as a solution to overpopulation. He got the spineless President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan to develop a backbone and renounce his previous support for terrorism.

Howard Dean, showing himself to be the moral vacuum he undoubtedly is, said "I suppose it's a good thing" upon hearing of Saddam's forced removal. This is why he does not have a chance in hell against Bush. The American people must realize the importance of freedom and not give Dean the chance to fiddle while the Muslim world burns.

I feel like puking with disgust whenever I see a "no war" sign painted on The Rock. Liberals need to realize it is only at gunpoint that extremist Muslims will learn that anti-Semitism is not a lifestyle choice, and suicide bombings will not result in a Palestinian state. You control mass murderers with war, not resolutions and court orders.

When I visited my ancestral homeland of Afghanistan last year, I felt safe in the knowledge that I would not be incarcerated for being a beardless, non-praying, T-shirt-and-jean-wearing individual. That freedom was exhilarating. It was a freedom no one in the country enjoyed until Bush came dashing in like the Texas sheriff he is so often portrayed as being.

Which is why I urge College Republicans -- all five of them -- to rally behind Dean during the primary season.

And then come November and Bush's landslide victory, I will feel safer and freer.

Nadir Hassan is a Medill sophomore. He can be reached at n-hassan@northwestern.edu.

[thoughtomator]

I bet if you could find or create a small-government alternative to the current GOP policies that had a real chance of being realized, nearly all FReepers would hop on board. (In the context of current events, however, an isolationist foreign policy has zero chance of being accepted by the electorate.) The reality at the moment is that no such alternative exists. In that context, Bush and the current market-socialist GOP is the far better choice of the two unsatisfying options with which we will be presented in November. Just because someone expresses support for Bush doesn't mean buy-in on every single Bush policy.

[JohnGalt]

No argument here (cheers to the occasion) though I would change electorate to 'DC establishment types.' But letting in these phonies from the left who are only interested in projecting their dual loyalties at the expense of the American tax payer is no way to form an alternative.

[Burkeman1]

Ozark Caligula

LOL. Hadn't heard that one before.

[adam_az]

He sounds like a Pakistani national of Afghan descent, of whom I'm sure there are many.

And JohnGalt sounds like a judgemental, assuming fool.

[adam_az]

I support bringing the troops home from Korea and the 106 other countries US troops are currently stationed in

Please explain the chain of events you expect to follow such a move, and why they are desirable?

BTW, do you understand that in many of these countries, the "deployment" consists primarily of liason?

[JohnGalt]

And it looks like you did not read the actual posts.

Is the author a multinational? Yes, he lists two different countries and he mentions ambiguously 'his country' however multiple posters did not seem to think this meant the United States.

Is he a RINO or a 'phony Republican'? Yes; he supports Rockefeller wing internationalism and is indifferent to socialism at home.

Best not to post and thought a fool, then post and remove all doubt.

[adam_az]

Blindly ignoring the socialist apology

Strip off the flowery loaded rhetoric, and you could just say that he's more interested in US foreign policy than in domestic policy, and that the poster was discussing the concepts explained by the author, rather than the ones he didn't. Funny, doesn't sound so evil that way.

I do my darndest to respond to everyone who posts to me so that the ideological black and white types who showed up on this site last March to cheer on the Armageddon realize that there is an actual debate here and maybe they should read a book and turn off the soft porn magnate's news program.

Gosh, you sure like to make uninformed assumptions.

[JohnGalt]

This is a conservative web site and I would be far too arrogant to claim I could explain to an internationalist, be he Hamiltonian or straight liberal, in a couple of posts on an anonymous posting board, American conservative theory, but I will tell you, a good place to start can be found in America's first President.

That is okay if you forgot his name or are unfamiliar with his legacy but American patriots still hold him in high esteem and are constantly humbled by his wisdom, even 200 years on. I realize you are probably really busy, but a good place to start, and to answer your question is his Farewell Address. I realize that the gubmint education camps, err-public schools don't talk about him much anymore, but its worth a read between the Washington Grapevine and the Roundtable on the soft porn magnate's news network.

[happygrl]

...yeah, I am relieved this multinational phony is a Bush supporter.

I was going to chime in, but it looks like my fellow FReepers have already responded to your idiotic comment.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

After all I'm a Pakistani with no interest in the debates over . . . [American domestic issues] To put it simply, American politics bore me.

Doesn't sound much like an American at all.

[JohnGalt]

I have no argument with RINOs writing articles, its just strange that those with low self-esteem, so anxious for applause from the peanut gallery, can't honestly digest and consider whether the support of the author is worth celebrating.

And what assumptions are you referring to? Fox News is considered a conservative news source on this web site, that seemed pretty safe, and Alexa.com provides the evidence that much of FR's traffic particularly last spring, was click overs from CBN and the 700 Club which routinely used Armageddonist rhetoric in describing the nature of the Iraq War.

[adam_az]

And that excuses his socialist apology how?

Read the following word definition, and then tell me how the word "apology fits?"

1. apology -- (an expression of regret at having caused trouble for someone; "he wrote a letter of apology to the hostess")
2. apology, apologia -- (a formal written defense of something you believe in strongly)
3. apology, excuse -- (a poor example; "it was an apology for a meal"; "a poor excuse for an automobile")

Hint:

exaggerate- 1. overstate, exaggerate, overdraw, hyperbolize, hyerbolise, magnify, amplify -- (to enlarge beyond bounds or the truth; "tended to romanticize and exaggerate this `gracious Old South' imagery")
2. overdo, exaggerate -- (do something to an excessive degree; "He overdid it last night when he did 100 push-ups")

[JohnGalt]

But you just chimed in which makes your post pointless.

Can't you bring a little more wit to the table?

[JohnGalt]

Exaggerate like the Saddam threat...I see. In the future I will use "socialist indifference"-- will that suit you?

What can I say, you probably know a lot about exaggeration.

[JohnGalt]

Don't you think its a little strange for a non-citizen to be commenting with the written word on American politics if he can't vote or contribute money in an election, not even commenting on serving in the military?

[adam_az]

I read every post, and funny, I understood what the author meant. I guess you were too busy trying come up with some irrelevent turn of phrase to engage your reading comprehension skills.

"Best not to post and thought a fool, then post and remove all doubt."

Apparently when you aren't busy being a misleading jerk or a patronizing jerk, you are practicing your plain old jerk skills. Up yours, buddy.

[JohnGalt]

Then I can only conclude you are a RINO as well.

Curious, are you considered 'witty' in your tribe?

[adam_az]

Patronizing Jerk Mode Galt wrote:

"That is okay if you forgot his name or are unfamiliar with his legacy but American patriots still hold him in high esteem and are constantly humbled by his wisdom, even 200 years on. I realize you are probably really busy, but a good place to start, and to answer your question is his Farewell Address."

You didn't answer even one of my questions. So much for "Responding to every poster."

Please explain the chain of events you expect to follow such a move (bringing *all* US troops stationed overseas home), and why they are desirable?

BTW, do you understand that in many of these countries, the "deployment" consists primarily of liason?

[SONbrad]

I really wouldn't bother with John if I were you. His world hasn't changed in many years. It seems that he (and his world and political views) regressed 200 years have remained there, forever.

Anyone who doesn't believe has he does is called names and demonized. You see it is only John that can define a Republican. If you don't agree with him, you are a RINO, when, in reality, he represents such a dismally small percentage of republicans, that it is he who is a RINO.

[adam_az]

"What can I say, you probably know a lot about exaggeration."

Just enough to recognize when people use it as a rhetorical device to make a point that can't be made with logic.