So you think George W. Bush is not a conservative?

SOTU transcript ^ | 1/22/04

[skip2myloo]

What's all that got to do with our failure, after 28 months, to implement relatively simple measures to x-ray cargo and mail at airports, as well as a whole host of other commonsense security measures ??

Surely as a nation, we can do better here at home to defend ourselves.

Surely we can defend our borders - THAT is the primary role for our federal government, after all, to provide for the common defense.

[exmarine]

The War on terror is the direct opposite. Our enemy is in hiding and very few in numbers. They also do not prescribe to the Geneva Convention's protocol, as well as, they are scattered across the globe. They are also very primitive and have their ideals centered in the 11th century.

Gosh, do you think it would help if we identified the enemy? Bush says the enemy is "terrorists" but any person who had their coffee this morning realizes the enemy is "islamic terrorists." To compound his error and politically correct thinking, the Theologian-in-Chief demands that we believe that "Islam is Peace." Meanwhile, our airports are no safer, our borders are no more secure, and our citizens are less free.

[George W. Bush]

The Bush Admin. will lose all credibility overnight and unless they do declare martial law and suspend the Constitution, he can kiss his presidency good-bye at that point - any sane American would then vote for a president who will close the border.

Actually, this is about the only thing that could defeat his re-election. But I think the Islamic terrorists are too afraid of him to try for it.

Bush and the rest of the U.S. govt. enforces the laws they like and ignores the ones they don't like. Selective enforcement of laws is a form of tyranny.

Well, Bush hardly invented selective enforcement. It's a trick that goes back to the beginning of the republic. It's no tyranny, just politics as usual.

[exmarine]

Well, Bush hardly invented selective enforcement. It's a trick that goes back to the beginning of the republic. It's no tyranny, just politics as usual.

It militates against one of the basic founding principles of this country - LEX REX. Nation of laws not men who an arbitrarily rule as they please. However, I would add a caveat, and that is that there are no so many tens of thousands of laws on the books that no American could possibly obey them all, let alone be aware of them. This is scary in the sense that the government can conceivably arrest any citizen on the grounds that the citizen broke some obscure law he knows nothing about.

[exmarine]

Well, Bush hardly invented selective enforcement. It's a trick that goes back to the beginning of the republic. It's no tyranny, just politics as usual.

It militates against one of the basic founding principles of this country - LEX REX. Nation of laws not men who can arbitrarily rule as they please. However, I would add a caveat, and that is that there are no so many tens of thousands of laws on the books that no American could possibly obey them all, let alone be aware of them. This is scary in the sense that the government can conceivably arrest any citizen on the grounds that the citizen broke some obscure law he knows nothing about.

[zook]

I'm just a regular guy who believes in supporting his country in time of war. I'm just a guy who hasn't forgotten 9/11 and the many other prior attacks launched against this country by Islamic terrorism. I'm just a guy who knows that our enemies grow stronger when left or right wing bubbleheads, cowards, geeks, and cranks give them reason to doubt our resolve.

Mesmirized? Nah. Simply proud to support the first president we've had since Reagan to fully and effectively understand and respond to the enemies we face.

[skip2myloo]

With the Patriot Act, they don't even need to concoct a lame excuse.

[George W. Bush]

...pretty teenage girls with underwire bras are singled out for increased scrutiny...

Aha, a hidden perk for the screeners!

Actually, I don't think we can be protected fully, given the vast influx of cargo. I don't mind the restrictions much. They're intended to head off another 9/11. Personally, I think we should instead have federal universal CCW. It would make terrorism too uncertain. And it would have prevented a 9/11.

But I won't pretend we're safer when the borders are so wide open. We're not. Only taking the fight to the terrorists can do that. Bush is right on that score.

IMO, I'd rather we had Osama in custody than Saddam. But I won't cry over Saddam either way. Execute him. But we really need to get Osama and clean out all the terrorist nests. At some point, Iraq is just a distraction from the real war on terror. But I think BushCo knows this well enough.

[exmarine]

But I think the Islamic terrorists are too afraid of him to try for it.

I have to disagree with you here. Anyone who is willing to blow himself up for Allah isn't afraid of George Bush, and events in Israel prove their lack of fear. His motivation is his reward - 72 virgins in that big brothel in the sky.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

In answer to your thought, firstly, it is not easy to implement total compliance as quickly as you like. There is a limited budget to work with. On one hand, you complain about the President's "runaway" spending, yet you require total implementation of people, expensive monitoring equipment that hasn't been invented yet, but is in the process, add the huge cost of implementing the WAR, then add all the opposition the fights the President in everything he does......

Perhaps you would do much better if you were in his shoes. You could also draft large numbers of troops to line our borders and build razor wire fences over several hundred miles, all of which takes time, planning, approval, FUNDING, etc....

Instant response only exists in dictatorships. Democracy's take time. and your idea that these measures are "simple" is simply a figment of your very active imagination.

[zook]

Oh? I hadn't noticed this great influx of Al-Quaeda seminar posters here at FR. Is it really that big of a problem?

I've noted a good sized handful of their waterboys right here in this thread.

was part of the vocal majority at FR who were impatient for Bush to act. But I'm not one of the mad-dog contingent calling for widespread use of nuclear weapons on the Muslim homelands after 9/11 either. I opposed it.

Poor boy. Just doesn't know what to think. Which freeper seriously advocated the "wide spread use of nuclear weapons on the Muslim homelands after 9/11"? You really do object to freedom of speech, don't you?

I'm using my freedom of speech to say clearly that American opposition to this war will encourage our enemies to kill more Americans. I guess some people can live with that.

[skip2myloo]

Their strategy is creating chaos and letting us self-destruct. Some would argue they're winning.

They do not fear retribution or death - their only fear is that we can disrupt and delay their schedule.

[exmarine]

I'm just a regular guy who believes in supporting his country in time of war.

I also support Bush on the war and the troops (with some disagreements). However, I am not one of those Americans who say "America, right or wrong." If America is wrong, then it's wrong. My moral standard is the bible and my legal standard is the U.S. Constitution, and whenever a President or any other leader acts in a way contary to these, he is wrong.

[George W. Bush]

The whole world changes from day to day and will never be the same. This is simply the way the world is. 911 changed this country faster and to some very necessary degrees. There are changes most of us do not like, but in time, we will learn what works and what makes our lives better as a result.

The rule of law under the Constitution is not a fad to be dismissed. It is the basis of the first and greatest democracy and the commonwealth it has built for its citizens throughout its history.

The Constitution is who we are.

If you don't believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then you actually have only the rights that any particular government in power is willing to give you.

The history of such naive trust in central government has a sad history.

Never mind, someday the Dims will be in power again. Then you'll suddenly discover how important your rights are. That is, if you have any left.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

You sound like Howard Dean. In that respect, how many terrorist acts have been committed on our soil since 911?

Do you suppose that there is much more going on behind the curtain that you are not aware of?

[exmarine]

They do not fear retribution or death - their only fear is that we can disrupt and delay their schedule.

Their biggest fear is destruction of Islam, and a well placed ultimatum from the President (bomb LA, lose Mecca) would go a long way in winning the war on Islam.

[George W. Bush]

You're missing the key words here. To this President, issues like "the public's opposition to open borders and unlimited illegal immigration; the confiscation of taxpayer money for international causes..." and I might add the public's opposition to out-of-control legal immigration are NOT "issues of such great consequence".

And there is a bipartisan agreement, even with Dim labor leaders, to implement this.

It's another issue where the voters are excluded by design of both parties.

[exmarine]

You sound like Howard Dean. In that respect, how many terrorist acts have been committed on our soil since 911?

Spare me your invalid comparisons. To a rabid Bush supporter, anyone who disagrees with Bush sounds like Howard Dean or a liberal.

Second, the southern border is WIDE OPEN. If you don't think that is a security risk, then you are whistling past the graveyard as much as Bush is.

[George W. Bush]

He's mesmerized by the "cult of personality" thing.

Oh, he'll wake up if Hillary is ever sworn in as C-in-C...

[zook]

So, had you been around in 1943, if you had to choose between fighting a just war and tossing a "socialistic" Democrat president out of office, you'd have chosen the latter.

The point is that your efforts to get rid of Bush help increase the likelihood of our defeat at the hands of radical Islamists. And they increase the likelihood of further 9/11's because the evidence suggests that no Democrat (other perhaps than Lieberman) has the will to defend this country.