Thanks.
Lando 
Posted on 01/22/2005 6:59:14 AM PST by Pokey78
That's the difference between American Conservatism and conservatism in other countries and that is what makes American Conservatism unique.
God favors the bold.
President Bush is merely being responsible. He knows very well that Social Security is a boondoggle whose time is nearly up. He knows very well that a satisfactory level of security for the Western world requires more work. He is not a feckless buffoon like his predecessor - he sees work to be done and is embracing it. A pity there are not more politicians like him.
Regards, Ivan
This is the difference between Clinton and Bush. Clinton only cared what people thought of his presidency after it was over so he was frightened into doing nothing risky. Bush sees his presidency as a chance to make things better, and his reputation is irrelevent. It's called LEADERSHIP, something Clinton was completely lacking.
By that standard, North Korea is more free than the United States.
Semper Fi
Tommie
Pray for W and Our Troops
Another motivating reason is that Bush loves his country and will be all possible to make it better then when he first took office. He's a true patriot that steps up to the plate.
Clinton showed great leadership at Waco. Gassing school children is just so Machiavellian.
Bush is doing the right thing, addressing problems that were handed to him instead of passing them on to someone else. I think that his immigration reform proposals will be changed, though. I see no way they can survive as they are offered.
Which only reminds me of another moment of great leadership by Clinton. When the fire was still smouldering a reporter asked Clinton about what had happened and while I don't remember his exact statement it was something along the lines of "You'll have to ask Janet Reno, she ordered it." True leader that man, always blaming others when things went wrong.
Thanks.
Lando
True.
I still use that event when "discussing matters" with liberals. But, I always use the event of gassing the school children, because there is no debate at all on that issue.
Clinton and his friends bemoan the fact that he had no big issues to tackle or wars to fight. However, he could have done the same as Bush. The same problems were there, the same circumstances (even 9/11 could have been prevented), and the same rhetoric, except then the rhetoric was favorable to the President (Clinton). Even with all that support he was just too timid to act, frozen in fear of unfavorable polls.
Thank God for Bush.
And while I agree with you completely, it still begs the question of why did we feel it necessary to assault that ranch with ATF agents (poorly trained at that), then stress the residents out with lights and noise, and then assault the compound because the FBI got "impatient." The whole thing was a scandal which would have brought down a Republican president.
crime scene bulldozed over immediately afterward.
Did you ever see "Waco, Rules of Engagement" ?
It's worth it. Believe me.
Exactly. . .very well put!
yes indeed... people of faith do have courage
Exactly. Clinton had plenty of chances to "look" presidential. I laugh at liberals when they say"At least when Clinton lied, people didn't die."
I then bring up the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the first WTC bombing, the barracks in Rhiyad, our Rangers Somalia, and the high altitude bombings of Bosnia, etc.
Then I say..."At least you're admitting Clinton is a liar."
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.