Peggy Noonan: The Paragraph- Help the White House make the case for re-election

Opinion Journal ^ | 02/12/04 | Peggy Noonan

[Burkeman1]

BS- Without the "WMD threat" and the fear mogering about them there would have no war. Laughable.

[MissAmericanPie]

They don't have nukes, if they had had them they would have used them up front. I don't see how you feel safer with open borders Bush. That's why it's not a big issue with me, if anything his attitude towards the border promises if terrorists do get a nuke they will have no problemo getting them into the country.

[.30Carbine]

If your faith is in the 'law', no wonder you're upset. Bottom line, I don't know a SINGLE SOUL who 'obeys' the law in the full sense.

Clinton himself couldn't have said it better.

The U.S. constitution is NOT, NOT a document of laws.

I'm really curious: What is it then?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby...
U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragragh 2.

[.30Carbine]

If your faith is in the 'law', no wonder you're upset. Bottom line, I don't know a SINGLE SOUL who 'obeys' the law in the full sense.

Clinton himself couldn't have said it better.

The U.S. constitution is NOT, NOT a document of laws.

I'm really curious: What is it then?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby...
U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragragh 2.

[Always Right]

BS- Without the "WMD threat" and the fear mogering about them there would have no war. Laughable.

What a load. That wasn't even an arguement. There were Senators and Congresscritters who did not support the war because there was not imminent threat, and Bush did not claim one. Bush laid out an honest arguement for war, and the fact bare that out. I can't help it if the media has manipulated your little mind.

[.30Carbine]

I considered posting it thrice.

[dalebert]

You know what they say? Rush is right.

[nopardons]

All I did was thank John Huang2 for the ping, on that old thread.I usually do give a John a " thanks " or a " hi ", or a good evening....since he and I are old FRiends.

Trying to stretching that to mean anything else, is just bait. If you had bothered to look at my remarks, on ALL of her columns,you would have seem a very mixed bag of comments,made by me. And she is a " hack "; look up the meaning of that word. :-)

You want to stir up trouble/start a flame war, go find someone else. ;

[gobucks]

Ok. I see where you're going I think. From the technical reading of my post, you could easily feel free to associate my post with His Royal Evilness himself, Clinton. (Fwiw, .30carbine, the gun issue is my 2nd favorite, next to marriage). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just trying to bait me because I'm not really being too clear on this.

My post was not meant to imply I like lawlessness or approve of it. Of course, the us constitution is the 'law of the land'. My post was meant to state that written laws, including all those in the constitution, have never been fully "obeyed". We're not supposed to be 'subjects' of a king of tyranny, or an arbiter of parchment. We're to be free, and accept the responsibility of defending that freedom. Laws, in and of themselves, DO NOT MOTIVATE folks to fight for freedom. Nor do judges.

My sense of the constitution, with its abundance of checks and balances, is that the founders knew lawlessness was always going to be the temptation of the day.

The spirit of the constitution is a)protect the sovereignty of the nation-state of the US and b) protect the religious freedom in the US. BOTH. But, both are being attacked by a thousand paper cuts.

My point it this: leftist have used LEGAL LAWS to OUTLAW RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION. They have twisted the spirit of the constitution, succesfully, through worshipping legalism. Ditto with regards to the multi-national organizations, esp the U.N.

The 'true' conservatives who hate Bush over the immigration issue, are using legalisms to justify their hatred of Bush. They are, in an unintentional way, following the model of the trojan horse islamo/communists that are DESPERATELY trying to bring on a major economic meltdown on earth.

Conservatives failed to keep Hoover in power. Keeping Bush in power advances what conservatives want long term. Why is this not obvious? How am I being so dense here?

I'm shaking my head here .... somehow I'm not connecting the dots well at all on this issue.

[NYCVirago]

I know this sounds cold, but I live in the rural south, and if God forbid D.C. or NYC were nuked by terrorist, it might be a GOOD thing for the rest of this country's future.

As a New Yorker, I'd like to tell you what I really think of you wishing that me and my fellow citizens be nuked by terrorists, all so you can prove some political point, but I don't want to violate the rules of this site against personal attacks and obcene language.

[NYCVirago]

I admitted it was a sick line of logic, so cut me some slack.

You sound like a right-wing Michael Moore. He said essentially the same thing on 9/11 -- that the terrorists should have attacked the red states where Bush voters live. And saying "it was a sick line of logic" does not excuse the horrible thing you said.

[nopardons]

Nonsense...you did quite well.b

[Prodigal Son]

They don't have nukes, if they had had them they would have used them up front.

Oh, well I guess it's ok then. Call the boys home. We don't need to rip up this nuclear black market out there. Miss American Pie says it's ok.

[MissAmericanPie]

I did not say it was ok. I said they do not have them at present, if they did they would have used them on 9-11. So why do you feel so secure with Bush in charge of the borders? You think the condition they are in precludes the delivery of a Nuke just because Bush is in the White House? It's not logical.

[Fledermaus]

Well, thanks for including me in that list gobucks since I only made idle chat with nopardons about movies in the thread.

But I do appreciate knowing your rules on what good FR posting is. I'll be sure to abide by them always.

[.30Carbine]

I'm not really being too clear on this.
...somehow I'm not connecting the dots well at all on this issue
How am I being so dense here?

You have presented yourself as a veggieburger smothered in mustard between two slices of Wonder Bread on this thread.

You are free to do so, but don't call me to such a meal.

[gobucks]

I said they do not have them at present, if they did they would have used them on 9-11.

Hmmmm. I'm not really following you here. You seem to believe that the audience for 9-11 was the USA for the most part. But, that's actually only true for the least part, the USA itself.

The Koran does not encourage outright murder for the sake of murder. It does encourage outright murder for the sake of spreading and maintaining pure ISLAM. These fanatics have a bigger problem to solve right now, this day, besides whatever feelings they have about us.

The problem? The total number of young men willing to die in jihadist operations is not big enough. 9-11 was, for the most part, a signal to western-supported middle eastern governments that they're days are numbered. Because, either way, the Jihadists will win, or democracy (ahem, W's current thoughtful, wise, and reality-based Iraq policy) wins.

Conjoined with that signal is that jihadist operations always have as an objective hero worship for the surviving family members back home - 9-11 is, now, still a huge recruiting drive operation, for what is to comes next.

Nuke weapons, if used, and I think they will be, will be used only to further the overall plan, which is to resume the efforts of global Muslim conquest.

Prodigal Son has it right; you need to get a bit more informed about what motivates these crazy communistic black hearted killers.

fwiw, the Koran emphasizes purify the homeland first .... expect to see Lots and Lots of headlines from Saudi Arabia for awhile, of increasing intensity.

And as for nukes, I'm satisfied the bad guys have the dirty bomb at minimum, likely many.

Once they have enough 'guys' to carry out operations, they'll have no problem setting off a few of those, and sitting back and watching the Great Economic Collapse of the 21st century. (Women and shoe shopping in radioactive malls don't mix well - kind of suppresses the urge to shop overall really).

Then, they'll sit back, and watch with glee while the leftists come to power due to the fact so many people end up out of work. Do you have any idea WHY islamo nutcases (really smart, clever, long-term-planning capable, nutcases) would love to so the USA go red? History - and Afghanistan shows clearly that reds are easy to beat. For before we took that country, they took it from the mighty USSR, and without losing that many men. That alone convinces them someone who is RED is easier to beat than what they're dealing w/ now. Let's be clear - islamo nutcases want Bush beaten this year.

Now, fwiw, I do, in reality, share your feelings of dismay about how our borders are being managed. But, I pretend I'm Bush, and one problem for the future of our United States story is simply not going to go away - getting the majority of hispanics to CONSISTENTLY vote Republican, despite what the economy is doing. Bush, a former governor of TEXAS, gets the reality of this picture.

He is going to make political decisions that first and foremost acknowledge that it is real easy to incite a minority group to vote in an insane manner as a block, year after year, by making little mistakes.

Miss A.P. (and all you 'true' conservatives out there), our country is suffering by bleeding from millions of little mistakes - Bush, not perfect by any means - is at the least accounting for those wounds we conservatives have sat by and let happen. And that makes him more of a conservative than most of us.

[gobucks]

I actually clicked the links. Ha ....haha..... ha ha, hahahahahah. Actually, I am chuckling a bit. fwiw, i'm on an atkins diet. It's been good for my golf game too.

Look - I've actually traveled to 3rd world countries where only the despot army dudes and the bandits have the guns, and everyone else is threatened w/ long jail time or death if they get caught w/ a gun (by both the bandits and the army dudes).

I own guns. The idea of someone in our country voluntarily choosing to NOT own a gun in our country I see as actually a dangerous choice for the future of American liberty.

How is it that I'm failing to connect w/ you?

[gobucks]

Hey, it sounds like you believe in the reality that kids generally rise to the expectations of their parents. And that's a good thing. Conservative or liberal, there's not enough of us!!

But, idle chat notwithstanding .... where's your paragraph?

(And please note - I did include qualifying language in my original post ... and you chose to see the worst side of the qualifications as opposed to seeing the intended best side ... which is fine. You even chose to respond, which is better than fine. So, now I really am curious regarding what your efforts at the paragraph would look like, given of course that your feelings and pride would be able to endure the effort required ... *smile*. And, of course, assuming you actually like our president).

[NittanyLion]

All I did was thank John Huang2 for the ping, on that old thread.I usually do give a John a " thanks " or a " hi ", or a good evening....since he and I are old FRiends. Trying to stretching that to mean anything else, is just bait. If you had bothered to look at my remarks, on ALL of her columns,you would have seem a very mixed bag of comments,made by me. And she is a " hack "; look up the meaning of that word. :-) You want to stir up trouble/start a flame war, go find someone else.

If you call great conservatives "hacks", expect some pushback. Especially when it's blatantly obvious that you had no problem with Noonan prior to her last two columns.

It's your earlier comments that were likely to precipitate a flamewar, not mine. So no sense in playing the injured party here.