Posted on 01/30/2007 11:48:24 AM PST by presidio9
After the State Of The Union speech a few days ago, a muttering chorus of media critics told us endlessly that Bush was irrelevant, a loser, out of touch, even pitiful. NPR actually had Merle Haggard, the Okie from Muskogee, claim that the state of the nation had never been worse. And suddenly it hit me. The media is staging a coup against Mr. Bush, just the way they did against LBJ and Nixon and tried to do against Reagan. They cannot impeach Bush because only Congress can do that. But the media is doing what it can to basically oust Mr. Bush while still leaving him lifting weights in the White House. Look, Merle Haggard is a great singer. But he knows nothing of what's up in America right now.
The truth is that we are in a huge economic boom. We are coming off a mammoth real estate explosion that put the most Americans in history in their own homes. We have totally full employment. After decades of stagnation, real wages are rising. The nation is wealthier than it has ever been (although this is very unevenly distributed). Most important of all, there has not been one major or even minor successful terrorist incident against the U.S. homeland in over five years. Bush may not have done it by himself, but he had something to do with it.
True, we are mired in a war without end, costing us far too many great young and old Americans and too many limbs and wrecked families and vastly too much money. But we all know we're getting out soon.
It was a huge mistake, but I'd like to see a President who did not make immense mistakes. What about Vietnam? What about Korea?
True, the rich often get away with murder in the executive suite. Bush is partly to blame, but all politicians cater to the rich. What America's high degree thieves suck out of the system is nauseating and I fight it constantly, but that's life.
Let's be honest. Let's admit that Bush has presided over a lot of success in addition to some serious failures.
But no one elected the media to anything. In the TV studios and newsrooms, there is a lynch mob at work. Let's see it for what it is. Mr. Bush is the only President we have, and, with all his faults, I trust him a lot more than I trust the unelected princes and princesses of the newsroom.
This alone tells you Stein has no political acumen and no faith in capitalism.
"It was a huge mistake, but I'd like to see a President who did not make immense mistakes. What about Vietnam? What about Korea?
True, the rich often get away with murder in the executive suite. Bush is partly to blame, but all politicians cater to the rich. What America's high degree thieves suck out of the system is nauseating and I fight it constantly, but that's life."
Iraq has not been a mistake. Viet Nam was not a mistake -- until we left. Korea was not a mistake.
His comment about the "high degree thieves" who "suck (money) out of the system" is pure Marxism. If he wanted to talk about removing barriers to entry and achieving a more Laissez Faire system, then that's one thing. But his comment makes it sound like no CEO is worth hundreds of millions in compensation -- that they must be thieves instead. This is right in line with other comments of his, so it isn't just taken out of context. He writes constantly about how the rich should pay more in taxes. Sickening.
That one line has made me change my opinion of Mr. Stein. I used to like him, now I want to kick him in the balls (as if he had any).
And that is because some people run businesses, and some turn cogs, and some don't work at all. It's called capitalism.
What the hell is wrong with Stein? I only clicked on this thread because I really enjoy listening to him. It seems his environment is finally getting to him.
There are so many things wrong with this article, I would almost swear it was written by a left wing loon.
Agreed. Had I known then what I know today, I still would have invaded Iraq, but based on the intelligence we had at the time, it was a no-brainer. Liberalism is about thowing wet spaghetti at the wall until something sticks. First it was "Afganistan has never been conquered. Then it was "no blood for oil." Then it was "no unilateralism." Then it was "where are the weapons of mass destruction?" Currently it is "Iraq is in the middle of a civil war." Where it stops, nobody knows.
Merle who? We are now resorting to hearing political opinions from Merle Haggard? Whether it's a good or bad opinion, I don't give a rats rear end about what some country singer thinks about our President.
Yep, everyone seems to have forgotten about the alternative. For one thing, Zarqawi would be running Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, and the scattered terrorist cells in the US and Europe would have had the benefit of trained facilitators and smuggled weapons.
Haggard a great singer? Not.
"There's a Visine for that..."
We simply do not need this right now--our troops do not need it...
I think Ben is saying the "mistake" is how the war has been run up until now, which is the truth. Going to war, getting rid of Saddam and putting an end to his support of Islamic radicalism will never be a mistake. How it has been run (ie. we're just theatening Iran to stay out of Iraq now; not being able to follow enemies on the battlefield, just flush them out of cities and wait for them to come back) is a mistake.
That paragraph explains why CBS would run an article from a usually reliable conservative.
Hey Benny - why don't you and your AIPAC friends discuss this: U.S.: Israel may have violated cluster bomb use The United States said on Monday Israel may have violated an agreement with Washington in its use of U.S.-made cluster bombs during last July's war with Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16870496/from/ET/
Why doesn't veryone check this out - don't think it's even mentioned on CBS - lots of kids playing in their yards now are either dead or without arms, legs, eyes, hands. IDF ers are real humanitarians - if you're a Jew, anyone else is just a "human shield". Right.
Posted by karlimhof at 07:05 AM : Jan 30, 2007
Going there was not a mistake. How it was handled afterwards, BIG mistake. The "we'll be greeted by everyone as liberators and everything will be cool" mentality was not a conservative one, and left us unprepared when the violence erupted.
ROFL That is TOO much.
Must be really creepy over there with all the zombie children.
Libs is so much more smarter than me.
I believe he's from Bakersfield.
Deleting all my Merle Haggard MP3s.
every King's court needs it jesters. Just let them start running the place.
He was a lawyer, law professor, economist, White House speech writer (Nixon, Ford), and author before he entered the entertainment field.
Not in reference to the "high degree thieves" at companies like Enron. Methinks he was deliberately vague with his phrasing, though.
IMO the mistake was not invading Iraq but staying there. Had the US withdrawn in May '03 after Saddam was overthrown, or in December after his capture, they could have left as victors having delivered a clear message that an aggressive regime will not be tolerated. By choosing to engage in "nation building" after the victory, defeat is all but inevitable now because there is no honourable way out.
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.