Posted on 02/20/2004 6:04:02 AM PST by SJackson
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:51:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I think that is certainly the reflex move by all on the left, and certainly a good one line analysis.
However, the urgency and universality of this reaction by many Democrats is the sign of something bigger as well.
Since '94, the seventy year stranglehold on the Federal Government and governments in general has held firm until '94. Reagan could be passed off as a freakishly powerful personality, but he was checked by a Democratic Congress.
The 2000 election clearly illustrated that the leftist view of society no longer held a simple majority at any level in the ballot box. Bush was no Reagan. Inarticulate, untelegenic, a favored son of influence from a family of foggy power, and hardly a long-term achiever in government, Bush still was picked by the electorate. Why?
The electorate, disgusted with the Clintonian-Democrat Party nexus of power, and truly turning from a leftist vision to the traditional view of our Republic, would no longer be able to stomach the agenda of the left.
The leftists see their coalition for a surmounting of the American dream vanishing just a surely as the Soviet Union. Hence the panic. Hence the driven and shrill nature of their cries.
Desperately, they have turned to the supposed weaknesses of the President as a candidate in general, added malfeasance and are looking to make his image so unattractive that the undecided will turn away from their general conservatism.
I thought that the sound of the Americans landing on the pavement below the burning Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 was enought data for me. How about you, Coop?
A Freeper made an excellent post a week ago about "ironclad proofs" needed by our political opponents in order to take out the trash.
He pointed out that "ironclad proof" needed in the case of Saddam Hussein appeared to be a dirty mushroom cloud standing over a large American city. "Yeah, well - I guess Saddam does have WMDs, and the will to use 'em. Yup, yup."
Thus saith John "Festus" Kerry, after the fact.
You have to look behind the easy catchwords at the actual numbers. Do you know how "poverty" is defined? Many of the folks the "progressives" define as poor aren't poor by any normal meaning of the word. (Just like the supposed "rich" that they plan to soak are what you and I would describe as middle class. There's not enough money to be made by taxing the actual rich, because there are just not enough of them. The middle class is where the money is, purely by the numbers.)
Unfortunately, many who receive various forms of government assistance have adapted to a culture that teaches them to accept government largesse rather than work to improve themselves. And this is a tremendous drain on the economy because they are consumers and not producers. Any increase in that number will reduce the strength and wealth of the nation - putting those folks back to work will increase it.
As for the single mothers, consider that you get more of what you reward. The AFDC program is probably the single most important impetus behind the breakup of the working class family. If Uncle Sam will support you as you keep cranking out little babies with whatever man wanders by, so long as you do not set up housekeeping with a man, the government is subsidizing illegitimacy and broken (or nonexistent) families. While the individual mothers excite pity and private charity whether religious or secular should relieve their necessities, the government has to take the long view. Look at the numbers.
Back to the issue of WMD and intelligence. Anybody who's worked in the military will tell you that intelligence is at best a guess - particularly when trying to figure out what's going on inside a despotic country with layers of deception - particularly when humint has been gutted starting with Carter. All you can do is weigh the information you have. Bush weighed the risk against the likelihood that Saddam had major chem or nuke capability or was on the verge of attaining it. Given the information we did have, plus the nasty stuff that's circulating in the world (like the Pakistani guy, and Soviet nukes that have never been accounted for) and Saddam's wealth and proclivities, certainly that was a serious possibility.
Now, you're the president. Do you wait (we've already waited 12 years) to see if we can get a better handle on what's actually inside Iraq? Or do you act to forestall the possibility before the threat is imminent? Bearing in mind that if Saddam has managed to assemble something courtesy of rogue scientists and missing nukes, the next 9/11 might be a large smoking radioactive hole where Washington D.C. used to be.
You see the problem, I hope. You may disagree with Bush's decision to act at this time, or the method he used. But you can't call him a liar. And that's what the Democrats are doing -- and that's why it's both dangerous and treasonous to do so. It undercuts the efforts Bush has made to defend you and me from cataclysmic attack.
Yes, and I guarantee you the decisions were made with the most up-to-date intel available from worldwide sources. But that doesn't mean it's 100% accurate. And even if it were, VP Cheney's comment occurred well before we rolled into Iraq.
Also keep in mind Iraq was constantly stalling and deceiving the inspectors. Not to mention they had four years of no inspectors in country at all, thanks to a previous feckless Administration.
Congratulations on the baby! Go enjoy time with your family, and I hope to see you back on the forum. I'll locate those AQ links.
Ah! But we didn't have the Democrat media surround sound system as an amplifier for our views.
There IS a difference.
Thanks. Trying to make amends, I suppose, for the times when I certainly didn't deserve such praise. :-)
Good point that intelligence is perishable. Especially with relatively small and portable material.
And private institutions are the way to go, because as you say they provide more personal support and oversight. When Reagan cut taxes, you could see a jump in charitable giving - if the government takes less, folks will give more generously and help in their own communities. "All politics is local," and the best charity is local too.
Not to be overlooked is the fact that locally administered charities quickly figure out who really needs help, and who is just gaming the system. That saves serious money and gets help more efficiently to the proper folks. It was fashionable in the 60s and 70s, as the Great Society gained steam, to mock the old-fashioned Victorian charities aimed at the "deserving poor." But surely the goal is to help those who "deserve" it - i.e. those in actual need - and avoid handing out assistance to those who don't "deserve" it - i.e. the Alfred Doolittles of the world who are just trying to let "someone else do the bloomin' work." Government, especially the feds, don't have the time to learn this - they just file the forms and cut the checks.)
I disagree. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was treated in a Baghdad hospital before the US went into Iraq last year. That could not have happened without the the blessing of Saddam Hussein.
Welcome.
Perhaps you have been abroad, at length, and don't get the sense of the nation. It isn't just GWB using the phrase, "after 9/11 the calculus has changed." If the Ron Silvers and the Dennis Millers of the entertainment world can rethink our global stance, millions of the electorate have done so as well.
Watching kids being taught basketball years ago, left me with the image of how, when making an rebound, and surrounded by the opponents players in unknown and unfixed positions, the youth is taught to press the basketball close to his chest, between his hands, and with his hard elbows out and turning sharply.
When America was attacked, that is just what we did. All on the floor, threatening opponents and nonthreatening, had better stay clear of those elbows.
The terrorism that was our enemy had a history and method of surrogate state symbiosis and sponsorship. Iraq was simply a logical host for such efforts and a looming affront to UN and American mercy as shown in the first gulf war cease fire.
Most Americans are tired of letting the judgment of others limit our ability to defend ourselves from the leftist governments like the Baath Socialist Party and the Theocracies like the Taliban. Now they simply feel that we are on the rebound. Elbows Out! And let any and all take care.
Have a nice evening with the kids.
#50 is right on the money!
Canadian man called key in Iraq terror cell: Iraq terror cell links Al Qaeda, Saddam
Memo Shows Iraq/Iran Tried to Contact Bin Laden
Clark Spins 2002 Statement Linking Al Qaeda/Iraq
Since I'm limited on time, I took the liberty of pinging a few others that know about this topic as well.
* A February 1998 State Department study found Saddam was "making every effort to preserve them."
* A January 1999 U.N. inspectors' report said Iraq failed to account for previously declared weapons, including 1.5 tons of VX gas, 8,000 liters of anthrax, 7,000 liters of botulinum toxin and almost 1,000 liters of aflatoxin, a potent carcinogen.
* A June 1999 CIA report said Iraq likely hid 6,000 chemical weapons.
* An August 2002 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report said Iraq "almost certainly does have large numbers of chemical weapons and some biological weapons."
* In January 2003, U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said Iraq hadn't accounted for 1,000 tons of a chemical agents or its anthrax stockpile.
Now imagine trying to find 8,000 liters of Coke or Pepsi.......that I have hidden in Texas....all the while your detractors are screaming at you to produce the WMD RIGHT NOW!!!!!!
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.