Posted on 02/14/2004 4:22:39 PM PST by mhking
By the time NBC's Tim Russert finished interviewing President Bush last Sunday, viewers were either frightened or flabbergasted or both.
Frightened because Bush -- announcing himself a "war president" -- used variations of the words "war," "terror," "kill" and "danger" more than 70 times in an interview that lasted less than an hour. It prompted memories of Cold War school drills and hiding beneath the desk.
Flabbergasted because you may have thought you had been mysteriously transported into an episode of the "Outer Limits." Was it Dec. 8, 1941? Or April 18, 1961, the day after the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion? Perhaps Sept. 12, 2001?
Actually, Bush wants you emotionally stuck in the horrible aftermath of the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. The weeks following the atrocities saw the president transformed into a forceful commander in chief and brought him sky-high approval ratings. With his ratings now down to about 50 percent, he'd love to flytrap American voters in a 9/11 mind-set until November -- which, he thinks, would ensure his re-election.
But the strategy won't work. The president's fear-mongering merely created a strange discordance, since most Americans don't consider the war on terror the most important issue facing the country. A January poll by the Pew Center showed that only 37 percent view defense and security as the nation's most pressing concern. Thirty-five percent list the economy, while nearly 20 percent list other domestic issues as the most important. (The rest chose other issues or none.)
Barring another attack on U.S. soil, the presidential election won't be won or lost on the war on terror. Bush beats the war drum too late; for the past two years, he has spent precious little time enlisting the average American in the war effort.
Wars, after all, demand broad sacrifice; but the president has been reluctant to call upon an America coddled by "affluenza" to make any sacrifices. Indeed, a few weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, the president suggested patriotic Americans return to their routines -- starting with a trip to the nearest shopping mall.
Instead of raising taxes to pay for soldiers and materiel, Bush pushed through a set of tax cuts that heavily favored the wealthy, meanwhile producing a budget deficit that threatens to make America the next Argentina. Instead of insisting that Americans reduce their dependence on foreign oil, the Bush administration went along with granting a tax exemption to small-business owners who buy the biggest and costliest SUVs. Instead of emphasizing the hardships that would accompany an invasion of Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney et al. made absurd predictions about American soldiers being greeted as liberators and an oil-rich nation that would pay for its own reconstruction.
And didn't they tell us we were safer with the capture of Saddam Hussein?
The simple truth is that the United States should be engaged in a grueling, long-term campaign against Islamist fanatics. But that sort of war would likely have entailed an invasion of Pakistan instead of the distraction of Iraq. Pakistan has done everything that Bush falsely claimed Iraq had done: it sheltered al-Qaida, and its scientists sold secrets and parts for making the mother of all WMD -- the nuclear bomb -- to North Korea, Libya and Iran. But a war against a nuclear power like Pakistan may have involved thousands of U.S. casualties. It would have been a real war.
Instead, Bush told us we'd stroll into Iraq, overthrow Saddam, implant democracy and watch it bloom throughout the region -- ultimately bringing peace between Israel and the Palestinians. In fact, the president still says that. (Yet, he continues to fertilize the soil with American blood.)
If there's a war on, shopping malls and SUV dealerships seem unlikely battle fronts.
I've maintained for years that liberals don't have use of that part of the brain which processes common sense and reason.
Hmmm. One would think a dyke like Cynthia would be all for more Bush.
Sorry, but that one was just too simple to pass up...
The weird thing is, that one lucid column in twenty is sometimes a fair, well composed piece.
My guess is it's the moon phases. She's got canine in the bloodline.
But the strategy won't work. The president's fear-mongering merely created a strange discordance, since most Americans don't consider the war on terror the most important issue facing the country.
They are in full swing, aren't they? Even her pretense of objectivity is out of the window.
A good many people are tired of sluts and liars and con men and adultery and parading homosexuality and terrorism and everything else they had tolerated from 1992 - 2000. It seems like more and more people know it's time to get down to business. The left has played its ridiculous hand. It does not stand a chance in this election.
Nothing President Bush said prompted memories of Cold War school drills and hiding beneath the desk. Watching the Twin Towers go down and knowing the enemy was on my soil prompted more that Cold War memories.
President Bush does not have me emotionally stuck in the horrible aftermath of the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. I have myself there and I will never forget.
Are you saying you have forgotten?
I thank my Lord everyday President Bush ia a forceful Commander-in-Chief.
The President is not fear-mongering - merely telling the American people the truth. Most Americans do, and the others should, consider the war on terror the most important issue facing the country. This January poll by the PEW CENTER needs more research from you. I think you will find quite a connection between Tides Center for Pennsylvania, Teresa Heinz Kerry, Heinz, the Pew Center and many more.
The presidential election will be won, not on terror, it will be won on truth and honesty and character. Or the Presidential election will be lost due to VOTER FRAUD.
For the past two years the media and the democrats have spent precious little time enlisting the average American in the war effort. They have spent their time spueing haterd.
President Bush never told us we'd stroll into Iraq, overthrow Saddam, implant democracy and watch it bloom throughout the region. The media did!!!!
American soldiers are being greeted as liberators, much to your denial and displeasure
You close with-- "(Yet, he continues to fertilize the soil with American blood.)" And I close with "shame on you!"
As it happens, Cynthia is a name for the moon goddess.
but..but... thats all we have to argue about. =o)
This statement is an insult to the memory of those who have died in Iraq.
Frightened because Bush -- announcing himself a "war president" -- used variations of the words "war," "terror," "kill" and "danger" more than 70 times in an interview that lasted less than an hour. It prompted memories of Cold War school drills and hiding beneath the desk. I was gratified, not frightened, that we have a President who have properly understood the seriousness of the challenge we face. Unlike idiot Presidents like Carter, who used the "moral equivalent of war" to address the need to wear sweaters around the house, Bush is using "war President" properly here. We ARE at war. If Tucker wants to hide beneath the desk or put her head in the sand, that's her choice.
Flabbergasted because you may have thought you had been mysteriously transported into an episode of the "Outer Limits." Was it Dec. 8, 1941? Or April 18, 1961, the day after the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion? Perhaps Sept. 12, 2001? What a moronic statement. NO. We are in Feb 2004, But in this past month alone, terrorists struck in Iraq, and now we know they are Al Qaeda cells that are bombing UN buildings, mosques, Kurd officials, and Shi-ite leaders. We also see the terrorists at work in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And in previous attacks in Bali, Istanbul, Morocco, India, Saudi Arabia. So *I* wonder if Cynthia Tucker shuts out the truth of the war on terror from her mind as effectively as the liberal media shuts out the truth from the front pages.
Actually, Bush wants you emotionally stuck in the horrible aftermath of the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. The weeks following the atrocities saw the president transformed into a forceful commander in chief and brought him sky-high approval ratings. With his ratings now down to about 50 percent, he'd love to flytrap American voters in a 9/11 mind-set until November -- which, he thinks, would ensure his re-election. Only a liberal moron would be more concerned with poll numbers than with the *content* of the action ... Do you get the strange feeling that Cynthia Tucker is stuck in strange timewarp, where Clinton is still president and we dont care at all what happens in the world, just how it affects the presidents poll numbers. Mideast peace could collapse and the worst handwringing would not be over the deaths to come, but whether it would increase republican influence in Washington DC, a far worse fate in liberal media's mind than a new intifada.
But the strategy won't work. Listen up CT, you bonehead. This is the stragegy:
The president's fear-mongering merely created a strange discordance, since most Americans don't consider the war on terror the most important issue facing the country. A January poll by the Pew Center showed that only 37 percent view defense and security as the nation's most pressing concern. Thirty-five percent list the economy, while nearly 20 percent list other domestic issues as the most important. (The rest chose other issues or none.) Note that security is the #1 concern, and had CT wanted to highlight this as a major concern, she would have. Now the poll reflects I am sure some satisfaction with our success in the war on terror, and so it is less than it otherwise might be. Moreover it is a slander to call Bush's description "fearmongering" - we dont have to be sold on the dangers of terrorism. It's real, and to deny it is
Barring another attack on U.S. soil, the presidential election won't be won or lost on the war on terror. Bush beats the war drum too late; for the past two years, he has spent precious little time enlisting the average American in the war effort. ANother Wars, after all, demand broad sacrifice; Another moronic statement. Wars just require beating the enemy for victory. We won in Afghanistan with just a few hundred men, suitcases of cash to buy warlords, well-placed bombs, and an effective C3I effort. CT is a historical illiterate so only thinks in terms of a few past wars.
... but the president has been reluctant to call upon an America coddled by "affluenza" to make any sacrifices. Indeed, a few weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, the president suggested patriotic Americans return to their routines -- starting with a trip to the nearest shopping mall. And why not? CT is horrified at the idea of war not being dreary drudgery ... she wants war to be painful so she can be a defeatist and whiner in the effort to remind us it isnt worth it.
Instead of raising taxes to pay for soldiers and materiel, Bush pushed through a set of tax cuts that heavily favored the wealthy, meanwhile producing a budget deficit that threatens to make America the next Argentina. Counterpoint: The Tax cuts of 2003 helped reignite the stock market, growth (fastest GDP growth in 20 years), Instead of insisting that Americans reduce their dependence on foreign oil, Ah that myth again ... problem is - would Bin Laden have less power, motivation and hate for America if our oil consumption was 10% less? And if the problem is mideast oil, why wont CT beg for ANWR to be drilled? It's a national emergency after all ... oh wait, no she doesnt think it is a n emergency after all. She's just mad that Liberal policies arent being proposed using the war as a pretext.
... the Bush administration went along with granting a tax exemption to small-business owners who buy the biggest and costliest SUVs. Instead of emphasizing the hardships that would accompany an invasion of Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney et al. made absurd predictions about American soldiers being greeted as liberators 'absurd predictions' that have come true. Most of Iraqis appreciate what we have done. .. and an oil-rich nation that would pay for its own reconstruction. Finally she gets one right. 1 out of 10, er, aint bad for a liberal.
And didn't they tell us we were safer with the capture of Saddam Hussein? And they told the truth David Kay reports that Saddam was actually more dangerous than he feared. He had more programs and was more likely to leak it to terrorists than they had feared.
The U.S. was right to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. We freed Saddam's victims and unearthed his killing fields. We closed Saddam's terrorist camps (like Salman Pak) and ended his funding and aiding of terrorists (like Ansar Al-Islam). We stopped his dangerous WMD developments, e.g., bioweapons and missiles. We ended the 'oil-for-corruption' program that supported Saddam's sycophants worldwide. And our success in Iraq led countries like Libya to come clean on WMDs. Saddam killed over half a million of his own people, and overthrowing and capturing Saddam has given Iraq a chance for freedom and democracy, and set the entire Arab world in a course away from tyranny towards moderation. This certainly will help us win the war on terror and advance freedom worldwide. Never in our history has such a well-justified and successful liberation effort been so maligned and second-guessed.
(Yet, he continues to fertilize the soil with American blood.) What an ugly despicable comment. to lay the violence sown by terrorists at the foot of Bush.
The simple truth is that the United States should be engaged in a grueling, long-term campaign against Islamist fanatics. The campaign needs to be grueling for THEM not US. Here is the latest news: It is; we are winning.
But that sort of war would likely have entailed an invasion of Pakistan instead of the distraction of Iraq. That is a despicable lie that actually would do HUGE DAMAGE to our war on terror if followed. Pakistan is a powder-keg and we have a friendly ally running that country right now. If we invaded, the Iraq bombings we've seen would pale in comparison. The reaction would be 1000 times worse. And there would be no justification, geo-politically nor morally for such an act. Pakistan has done everything that Bush falsely claimed Iraq had done: it sheltered al-Qaida, and its scientists sold secrets and parts for making the mother of all WMD -- the nuclear bomb -- to North Korea, Libya and Iran. What a dork she is. Look, we only know about this nuclear technology network BECAUSE OF OUR VICTORY IN IRAQ! It pressured Libya to come clean, and the termite nest got busted wide open. Turns out Iraq was another potential customer and the US and others are finding where else the trail goes to. Now the US and the Bush administration have smartly and correctly said that each country is a unique situation - for Iraq, their defiance was rewarded with invasion and liberation. For libya, now, an example of coming clean and then rehabilitation will be set. For syria, Iran, and North Korea they are pursuing diplomacy but the jury is still out. For Pakistan, there has been cooperation since September 2001, in basing Americans for the Afghanistan invasion, cooperation in catching Sheik Lhalid Mohammed and many other Al Qaeda. CT is being an utter ignoramus to even hint that punishing Pakistan or war is at all a suitable option.
But a war against a nuclear power like Pakistan may have involved thousands of U.S. casualties. It would have been a real war. Ah, now we get to her problem ... war in Iraq was SO SUCCESSFUL it wasnt a "real war". I am sure the 500 families of the brave men and women lost in Iraq will find cold comfort in such idiocy. But the fact is that we liberated a country of 24 million souls, an accomplishment greater than most wars acheive (think about it, the US civil war kept a country united, when that country was not much bigger in population, yet it cost nearly a million lives; the Iraq-Iran war cost over a million lives over 8 years and acheived absolutely nothing for either side). Rarely before in history has a war done so much with so little cost in lives on the victors. And that great, wondrous, marvelous and blessed fact that we succeeded without spilling more of our soldiers' blood just TICKS HER OFF.
Instead, Bush told us we'd stroll into Iraq, overthrow Saddam, implant democracy and watch it bloom throughout the region -- ultimately bringing peace between Israel and the Palestinians. In fact, the president still says that.
If there's a war on, shopping malls and SUV dealerships seem unlikely battle fronts. That's because they are not battle fronts at all. They do represent a failed attempt by liberals to co-opt the war on terror for their own ideological hobby horses. They are mad that the President's not biting on the bait. Tough. Higher MPG wont bring Bin Laden in and wont stop terror bombings. But taking out the Al Qaeda network piece by piece will.
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.