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

ED. NOTE: On Tuesday evening, January 20, 2004, the President of the United States gave one of the most conservative State of the Union addresses in at least a generation. For a SOTU speech, it had a remarkably short spending wish list. Instead, it had passages such as those excerpted below — none of which would have been spoken by a Democrat or liberal (i.e., Leftist), or even a "RINO." Check it out:

Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people. Twenty-eight months have passed since September 11th, 2001 — over two years without an attack on American soil. And it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting — and false.

The once all-powerful ruler of Iraq was found in a hole, and now sits in a prison cell. Of the top 55 officials of the former regime, we have captured or killed 45. Our forces are on the offensive, leading over 1,600 patrols a day and conducting an average of 180 raids a week. We are dealing with these thugs in Iraq, just as surely as we dealt with Saddam Hussein's evil regime.

Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better. Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons.

Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America.

Many of our troops are listening tonight. And I want you and your families to know: America is proud of you. And my administration, and this Congress, will give you the resources you need to fight and win the war on terror.

I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all. They view terrorism more as a crime, a problem to be solved mainly with law enforcement and indictments. After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted and tried and convicted, and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled. The terrorists were still training and plotting in other nations, and drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got.

Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands — (applause) — Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices.

From the beginning, America has sought international support for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.

We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare. Yet it is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.

In the last three years, adversity has also revealed the fundamental strengths of the American economy. We have come through recession, and terrorist attack, and corporate scandals, and the uncertainties of war. And because you acted to stimulate our economy with tax relief, this economy is strong, and growing stronger.

You have doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reduced the marriage penalty, begun to phase out the death tax, reduced taxes on capital gains and stock dividends, cut taxes on small businesses, and you have lowered taxes for every American who pays income taxes.

Americans took those dollars and put them to work, driving this economy forward. The pace of economic growth in the third quarter of 2003 was the fastest in nearly 20 years; new home construction, the highest in almost 20 years; home ownership rates, the highest ever. Manufacturing activity is increasing. Inflation is low. Interest rates are low. Exports are growing. Productivity is high, and jobs are on the rise.

These numbers confirm that the American people are using their money far better than government would have — and you were right to return it.

We're requiring higher standards [in schools]. We are regularly testing every child on the fundamentals. We are reporting results to parents, and making sure they have better options when schools are not performing.

We must continue to pursue an aggressive, pro-growth economic agenda. Congress has some unfinished business on the issue of taxes. The tax reductions you passed are set to expire. Unless you act — (applause) — unless you act — unless you act, the unfair tax on marriage will go back up. Unless you act, millions of families will be charged $300 more in federal taxes for every child. Unless you act, small businesses will pay higher taxes. Unless you act, the death tax will eventually come back to life. Unless you act, Americans face a tax increase. What Congress has given, the Congress should not take away. For the sake of job growth, the tax cuts you passed should be permanent.

Our agenda for jobs and growth must help small business owners and employees with relief from needless federal regulation, and protect them from junk and frivolous lawsuits.

Consumers and businesses need reliable supplies of energy to make our economy run — so I urge you to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

My administration is promoting free and fair trade to open up new markets for America's entrepreneurs and manufacturers and farmers — to create jobs for American workers. Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people.

In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland, and meets important domestic needs, while limiting the growth in discretionary spending to less than 4 percent. This will require that Congress focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending, and be wise with the people's money. By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years.

Tonight, I also ask you to reform our immigration laws so they reflect our values and benefit our economy.

I oppose amnesty, because it would encourage further illegal immigration, and unfairly reward those who break our laws. My temporary worker program will preserve the citizenship path for those who respect the law, while bringing millions of hardworking men and women out from the shadows of American life.

[ED. NOTE: The precedent for guest worker programs goes back at least to the Eisenhower administration.]

In January of 2006, seniors can get prescription drug coverage under Medicare. For a monthly premium of about $35, most seniors who do not have that coverage today can expect to see their drug bills cut roughly in half. Under this reform, senior citizens will be able to keep their Medicare just as it is, or they can choose a Medicare plan that fits them best — just as you, as members of Congress, can choose an insurance plan that meets your needs. And starting this year, millions of Americans will be able to save money tax-free for their medical expenses in a health savings account.

On the critical issue of health care, our goal is to ensure that Americans can choose and afford private health care coverage that best fits their individual needs.

Small businesses should be able to band together and negotiate for lower insurance rates, so they can cover more workers with health insurance. I urge you to pass association health plans. I ask you to give lower-income Americans a refundable tax credit that would allow millions to buy their own basic health insurance.

To protect the doctor-patient relationship, and keep good doctors doing good work, we must eliminate wasteful and frivolous medical lawsuits. And tonight I propose that individuals who buy catastrophic health care coverage, as part of our new health savings accounts, be allowed to deduct 100 percent of the premiums from their taxes.

A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more Americans afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that makes America's health care the best in the world.

One of the worst decisions our children can make is to gamble their lives and futures on drugs. Our government is helping parents confront this problem with aggressive education, treatment, and law enforcement. Drug use in high school has declined by 11 percent over the last two years. Four hundred thousand fewer young people are using illegal drugs than in the year 2001.

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

It's also important to strengthen our communities by unleashing the compassion of America's religious institutions. Religious charities of every creed are doing some of the most vital work in our country — mentoring children, feeding the hungry, taking the hand of the lonely. Yet government has often denied social service grants and contracts to these groups, just because they have a cross or a Star of David or a crescent on the wall. By executive order, I have opened billions of dollars in grant money to competition that includes faith-based charities. Tonight I ask you to codify this into law, so people of faith can know that the law will never discriminate against them again.

The momentum of freedom in our world is unmistakable — and it is not carried forward by our power alone. We can trust in that greater power who guides the unfolding of the years. And in all that is to come, we can know that His purposes are just and true.

Suicide bombers may be willing but they demand that their deaths make a meaningful cultural or religious statement, that it has a strong chance of success.

Most people do not understand the mindset of these terrorists. They do not demand that their deaths make a difference - they are the human fodder being exploited by the likes of bin Laden and other terrorists. They are not out to make a statement - a statement is secondary. The motivation of such men is twofold: (1) kill the infidels who do not accept Allah as their master, and (2) convert the world to Islam. They have a religious/devotional motivation similar to the motivation of the Kamikaze pilots who worshipped the emperor in WWII. I recommend the following books by Dr. Robert Morey for your reading pleasure: "Islamic Invasion" and "Winning the War Against Radical Islam". I believe Dr. Morey is one of the few people who truly understand the terrorist culture. He has debated (and creamed) many islamic leaders, and they have threatened his life.

And they require the permission of the imams for jihad. Our measures may have discouraged some of them from granting permission for jihad against American soil.

Yes, they do take orders and follow the cue of bin Laden and others, but surely you don't think that bin Laden would withhold his permission or order to kill Americans, or that bin Laden would hesitate to use a WMD against us or Israel if he had one.

And there is no doubt that the personal motivation for the terrorist is the promise of his eternal reward - the big brothel in the sky.

By trashing Bush, you seem to be doing all you can to ensure her election.

Hate to bring reality into this but: is she running?

You're grasphing at straws. Surely you can assemble better arguments.

And you miss the spots where I defend Bush or give him plenty of passes on things FR used to howl about with Klinton.

I'm not even very tough on him. But the Constitution is not negotiable. Well, not to me and a few other 'cranks' anyway.

Mere legislation is not on the same par with constitutional mandate and authority and proscriptions against federal encroachment.

I agree, but my comment was in the context of protection of our borders. The Constitutoin mandates that the federal govt. protect us from foreign invasions. By not enforcing immigration laws, they are shirking the constitutional mandate. Therefore, it is tyranny in this case. We aren't talking about some frivolous law - immigration laws are directly tied to national sovereignty and security.

There are thousands of middle eastern Muslim taxi drivers in Washington, D.C. alone. Before 9-11, they were DEMANDING that suitable prayer rooms be built for them at National and Dulles Airports. Damn near every one of them is a jihadist and a potential suicide bomber.

The vast majority are refugees from oppressive backward Arab regimes who want a better life.

We've done fairly well at weeding out the obvious radicals. We'll never be (and never were) entirely safe against attacks.

Our best bet, and the strategy Bush is following, is to make them understand that we are willing to depose and alter their Muslim homelands and establish strictly secular Muslim countries like Turkey. That eliminates the power of the imams over these idiots and makes them more reticent to authorize jihad.

On this strategy, I don't see what else Bush can do without completing disrupting our economy and giving up being the driving economy in the world.

However, approving of his strategy doesn't give him a pass on the other matters we've discussed on this thread.

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

Don't be so hard on yourself.

Which freeper seriously advocated the "wide spread use of nuclear weapons on the Muslim homelands after 9/11"?

Apparently, you didn't pay attention. There were literally thousands of posts here at FR calling for nuking Afghanistan, all the Arab lands, turning them into parking lots, turning them into a sea of glass, etc. For a few days, the anger was understandable. I did make posts after that opposing such comments.

You must not have paid any attention. It was on every thread on the topic once we found out it was Al-Quaeda on 9/11.

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

Huh? Opposed? I am not now and never was opposed. I was impatient for the invasion and all that diddling with the U.N. Huge mistake that I blame on Powell. My posting history on this is pretty average (aggressive) for FR.

Just how many Al-Quaeda are bothering to read FR, in your opinion?

Yeah, I think you'd like the return of seditious libel laws.

In the end, we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights or we have only the rights that some government is willing to let us have.

Yes. The ongoing legal war being waged on Christianity and our Christian heritage in this country is indicative of a shift toward the belief that the God-given inalienable rights recognized in the Declaration of Independence (and secured by the Constitution) are not inalienable after all - they are given by men and not God.

This is, or at least was, the key feature which distinguished America from other democracies.

Again I agree. The founders, who possessed Reformation-like thinking, believed that the State should serve the individual, not vice versa.

Correction to my last post: Their GOAL (not motivation) is to kill infidels and convert all to islam, but their MOTIVATION is their promise reward in the hereafter. That is why you read where the bombers smile just before they detonate themselves - they are thinking of the 72 virgins.

There is considerable textual evidence that has been collated by Arabic scholars that the '72 virgins' was a mistranslation and that the real phrase is actually '72 white grapes'.

Makes sense actually.

Undersexed losers commit suicide, someone hands them a couple of bunches of grapes and tells them there aren't any virgins.

Oh, the scholars who believe this are publishing their work in secret from fear of reprisal. But it seems they're making a pretty strong textual case.

It's a gutter faith, an ignorant barracks religion. Not the Religion Of Peace^TM as some silly politicians like to pretend as a PC exercise.

"You have no knowlege about what actually takes place. But you can bet that the reason we have had no attacks when, according to you, we are utterly vulnerable, there are countless more effective meassures being taken that you are unaware of."

My friend, you are seriously mistaken. You have no idea who or where I am, much less any idea about my level of experience or knowledge of the government in general, or the intelligence community in particular.

I would caution you against making such emphatic, declaratory statements about the level of knowledge possessed by folks on this forum.

Its the old cliche 'I'd have to kill you if I told you,' but suffice it to say that those who know DO NOT talk about it.

Like education, throwing money at the intelligence system does not fix what's broken.

While "things" are better - the bottom line is we've been lucky so far.

You want a real world example, that college kid planted boxcutters on multiple aircraft AFTER he called the FBI and TSA and told them what he was going to do.

Consider that.

I agree, but my comment was in the context of protection of our borders.

Absolutely. The first and original duty was to provide for the common defense and a lesser responsibility for the upkeep of the first federal roads, largely by helping to provide bridges to support commerce.

The 'common defense' doesn't mean much without a border. I'm sure it's a novel concept to some people around here.

I think now is a good time to start buying gold (espcially numismatic gold)

Having some gold isn't a bad idea. But converting all your savings isn't the best financial strategy. At least, that's the record of it in past gold-buying scares.

But owning a little gold is smart. The rich always have some precious metals and jewels. The most ancient form of currency.

You need to get a life, I've already told someone else and I'll tell you.

Perhaps a life consists of more than "It's Bush's fault. I hate Bush. Bush is not a true conservative. Bush is mean. ..."

I'm not going to change it just because you think I should.

Oh. I'm shocked. I suppose this means you won't be listening to my motorcycle advice either.

Besides I'm not for any of those people, I'm for true conservatives. Take you "it'll be your fault" bs and put it where it belongs, with the people in charge.

I don't think you are for true conservatives. I think you just want to complain and vent.

In addition, look up double entendre since I'm fairly certain you have no idea what it means to begin with.

I'm fairly certain means you are not really certain. A double entendre is you claiming you are for true conservatives.

I see your idiocy knows no bounds.

I never said "It's Bush's fault. I hate Bush....... Bush is mean. ..." I've said I don't like a number of his polices. If you can't tell the difference between the two maybe you should get some help.

"I suppose this means you won't be listening to my motorcycle advice either." Certainly not, I'll turn to the people that actually know something for that.

"I don't think you are for true conservatives. I think you just want to complain and vent." No, I want Bush to stop being a rino and act like the conservative he claims to be.

"A double entendre is you claiming you are for true conservatives." You really should have looked it up, making up definitions just displays your ignorance for the world.

There is considerable textual evidence that has been collated by Arabic scholars that the '72 virgins' was a mistranslation and that the real phrase is actually '72 white grapes'.

Ahh, collated by "arabic" scholars - I think historiography comes into play here. You have to consdier the source. Dr. Morey is a leading scholar on the history of Islam and the tenets of the faith, and I believe there is zero doubt that the terrorists are promised virgins in paradise. Please pick up those books - you will not regret it.

Again I agree. The founders, who possessed Reformation-like thinking, believed that the State should serve the individual, not vice versa.

Absolutely. John Calvin was the intellectual father of America. And those pro-republican anti-monarchical footnotes in the Geneva Bible that the colonists carried to the New World were pretty seditious stuff in an age of monarchy. In the hands of the early Presbys, they were a call to armed insurrection. Heck, most people don't even know that Jefferson lifted most of the Declaration from a letter circulated by a firebrand Presbyterian leader at the time.

King James responded to the Geneva's influence with the very sound KJV text. His only stipulation: no footnotes!

But King James was too late. Calvin's seditious version was in too many hands as the family bible and it accomplished its mission.

America can be seen in this light as the ultimate political fulfillment of the Reformation. I believe this is historically accurate.

So many people are unaware of the real history of the republic. They think that history is that pap they were spoonfed in those boring high school civics classes. Since they believe the propaganda public school version is boring, they don't generally dig in and find the real and very fascinating story of colonial America and the radical founding of the Republic.

Like education, throwing money at the intelligence system does not fix what's broken. While "things" are better - the bottom line is we've been lucky so far.

Obviously so. No amount of electronics will overcome lack of human intelligence. And we have been lucky. Or Bush has scared the imams (who might not want to share a cell with Saddam or get a bullet in the head some dark night).

Bush has done some things about as well as anyone could expect, tactical methods and timing aside. And he can't fix some of the military and intelligence problems that took decades to accrue.

Very funny -- I'm sure its just symbolic allusion, or perhaps we've lost something in the translation, like protecting the family jewels.

If its literally 72 white grapes - there's a bunch of disappointed homicide bombers wherever it is they go to meet Allah.

Can you imagine, "those ba$t**ds lied to me, all I get is the bunch of stinking grapes??"

Sometimes justice IS a cruel irony.

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.