A Conservative President?

"name the alternative..."

The alternative is to call it like it really is. Terrorism is being created by Russia and China for the express purpose of dragging the USA into a endless line of wars to drain our resources.

All it takes to work is Bush (or any other American politicians) not being willing to announce to the Americans the real enemy is Russia and China. Given that Russia is our "friend" and a "democracy", China finances our debt to the tune of billions, and any president would have to have something to show as a response to the attacks; sounds like the Russians and Chinese have a plan that will work to bring down the USA. Invade Iraq, invade Iran, there will always be a nation for Russia and China to use.

The question then becomes who will win between Russia and China?

That is not an alternative.

You advocate we call them out on a national stage. Great.

What then? There are practical obligations behind the President's strategy to follow to meet the objective. Yours is brash, I give you that, but if you wish it to be taken seriously you will have to define a practical strategy to encourage a solution to China and Russia, which is not the use of our military, that the President has not already taken. You will have to construct a way to guide the fall out to the end objective of peace.

You have not done that. Without a solid construct the words you suggest will do more harm than good.

"practical strategy..." is that what you call an endless line of wars against proxy states?

When David heard the challenge from Goliath, his first response was "who is this that challenges our faith?"

Its not a matter of brash, its a matter of having the faith that there is a God that cares about right and wrong and is strong enough to prevail.

It wasn't "practical" in a military or economic sense (Given the structure of trade at the time, it was economic suicide) for the founding fathers to call out the British Empire. However, convinced that they had been wronged, by taxation without representation, the founding fathers had the faith that God, not them, would right the wrong.

Fast forward to today and the spiritual decline in the USA is clear. With all the power we have today, we, as a majority, lack the faith in God to have right prevail over wrong.

Right v. Wrong, that should be the only consideration.

Was it wrong for Reagan to call the Soviets an evil empire?

Bush's speech did not reflect core American values.

"We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."

Nonsense, our liberty depends solely on our ability and willingness to defend it.

"In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence."

Nonsense, freedom doesn't guarantee anything and isn't an economic based value. It's a spiritual based value. The President's definition has more in common with socialism, than liberty as demonstrated by the founding fathers and generations of Americans.

"To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools, and build an ownership society. We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance - preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society."

Nonsense, since when have schools (education) been a federal issue? We didn't even have a dept of educ. til Eisenhower.

And what is an "ownership" society? The Nazi approach to socialism was let the people keep title in their own name and the govt will regulate ownership so that in effect the govt owns all the property but the people still feel like they do. Is that an ownership society? The core American value term would be "private property".

What is meant by "preparing our people"? That sounds like social architecture. Freedom requires personal responsibility, not social architecture.

"By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal."

Nonsense, Core American Value is that "freedom" from want and fear come from faith in God and one's own self. Bush indirectly states that a person's freedom from want and fear comes from the govt, not God and the individual's values.

I could go on but you get the point. Bush is using terms familiar to Americans, but his association of then with the federal govt is consistent with socialism or communism, but in direct conflict with core American values.

As Ben franklin said, when you allow a man freedom, you accept what he has good to offer as well as what he has bad to offer. That's Core American freedom, taking the good with the bad. Not this Utopian society Bush is describing.

"By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal."

Nonsense, Core American Value is that "freedom" from want and fear come from faith in God and one's own self. Bush indirectly states that a person's freedom from want and fear comes from the govt, not God and the individual's values.

I think you are reading things into Bush's speech that aren't there.

I read it as taking power OUT of the hands of Gov't, and giving it back to the individual.

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.