Posted on 06/03/2002 10:04:46 AM PDT by hchutch
Just the headline
Quayle shrugged and said, "Every five years Congress has to pass a farm bill. That's just the way it is." IOW, "don't try to lay that all at Bush's feet and, furthermore, get a life (and a political education)."
If you want to be mad about the farm bill, flame the Congress. Yes, the president could veto, but that would have accomplished exactly zero except for the Rats' 30-second spots in November.
The candidate that espouses every single item on the Bush-bashers gripe list is surely Mr. Forgettaboutit.
Others can vote for Mr. Forgettaboutit if they like, but I won't be jumping off that cliff, thank you.
Take 1994, when Conservative Republicans took over both houses of Congress. They started out like a wild fire and then the Treasonous/Rapist illegally acquired all of their FBI files and then the Republicans went way left after the Treasonous/Rapist and Newty shared a wet kiss in front of all those Seniors. Going left, the Republicans thought they would hold onto seats or even gain some and what happened? They lost seats and in each election since then, they have lost more seats and they lost the Senate. Going left does not gain the Republicans any more seats. You see the Commies in the other party vote as a block, they stick together no matter what and they always will and going left to get these partisans' votes, will never work.
Klinton was the worst Commander-in-Chief ever and Algore would have been worse. That's just one example and in an area that is of critical significance not only to us as Americans, but to the entire free world.
Would Algore be pushing abortion and anti-death penalty policies and gun control and fantasy fuel efficiency standards and homosexual agendas and women in the combat arms and engaging in corrupt dialing for dollars and . . .???
Uh, yes.
Is this president doing those things?
Uh, no.
Excellent point!
After all that, what would you think of FDR's leadership?
Would you think that he had done his job as President and as Commander-in-Chief?
Is this not the situation with W now?
Why are there thousands of muslim operatives in our country still?
Why are not the borders sealed?
Why are we not at war with the country that is the center of our latest attack on our soil, Saudi Arabia?
Would FDR have been as weak?
I see it as Bush not doing his job as POTUS, as defined by the Constitution.
You, in the Beltway, probably consider me a fool for still believing in the Constitution.
But it is what got us here, and it is, when we are again in a really threatening situation and on the verge of losing our country,
The only thing that will save it and restore it is adherance to the Constitution as written.
You have been in the Beltway too long, IMHO.
Although I concede politics was involved in FLA, the big difference is: the people in Alaska WANT the drilling and the people in Florida DO NOT!
Sorry for shouting Jane.
Everything is not GW's fault, and I never said it was.
But maybe you can explain how the person in charge is not
responsible for anything that goes wrong, but he still gets
to take credit for everything that goes right.
As an added bonus, we have people on this forum who seem
to believe that nothing wrong has happened, that it is just
Bush bashers who have nothing good to say about GW, that
are the problem. Peruse this for edification
Our enemies the Saudis
Our enemies the Saudis
US News | Nation & World 6/3/02 | By Michael Barone
Nation & World 6/3/02
By Michael Barone
Fifteen of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudis. Perhaps as many as 80 percent of the prisoners held at Guantánamo are Saudis. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi, and al Qaeda was supported by large contributions from Saudis, including members of the Saudi royal family.
The Saudis' cooperation with our efforts to track down the financing of al Qaeda appears to be somewhere between minimal and zero. They got us to let members of the bin Laden family scamper out of the United States on a private jet shortly after September 11. They refuse to provide–as almost every other country has–manifests of plane passengers flying to the United States.
Such behavior is nothing new. The Saudis stymied the FBI investigation of the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing. The Saudis refused a U.S. request in 1996 that they take custody of bin Laden; he went to Afghanistan instead. They refused in 1995 to hand over Imad Mughniyah, believed responsible for the bombing of a Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983.
Far from aiding our efforts against terrorism, the Saudis have worked against them–to protect the terrorists in their own ranks. Also, the Saudis have praised suicide bombings and raised money for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
Government-controlled Saudi media have frequently spread the vilest kinds of anti-U.S. and anti-Jewish propaganda.
Such has been the behavior of those the State Department has long referred to as "our friends the Saudis." It would be more accurate to call them our enemies the Saudis.
Freedoms? Zero for seven. The Saudis run a totalitarian society. Not one of the seven freedoms identified by President Bush in his State of the Union speech–the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, private property, free speech, equal justice, religious tolerance–is honored by the Saudis.
There is no free speech and no freedom of religion (during the Gulf War the Saudis did not allow President Bush to conduct a religious service on Saudi soil), and women are restricted and physically assaulted by religious police who prowl the streets (and, by some accounts, would not allow teenage girls to leave a burning school, lest they not be properly clad; 15 girls died).
But the Saudis are not content to run a totalitarian society at home; they are trying to export their totalitarian Wahhabi Islam around the world. Since the Gulf War, the Saudis have financed Wahhabi clerics and Wahhabi-run mosques and schools in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Western Europe, and the United States.
The results can be seen on the Edgware Road in London or Leesburg Pike in Northern Virginia: Journalists have no trouble finding young people spouting the most vituperative anti-U.S. and anti-Jewish propaganda and swearing that they would fight for Islam against the United States. The Saudis are waging war against us, financing the spread of the idea that our free society must be overthrown and totalitarian Wahhabi Islam must be imposed by force.
So why do some still call the Saudis our friends? Because they have the power to keep oil prices down? That leverage is being reduced by increased oil production by our friends Russia and Mexico. Because they are anti-Communist? Communism is no longer a threat. Because they are used to heeding the mellifluous advice of Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar? What has he done to stop al Qaeda or the propagation of totalitarian Wahhabi Islam? Because we depend on Saudi military bases? Despite Pentagon denials, it seems we are wisely dispersing our forces in the gulf.
It may not be prudent yet to speak the truth out loud, that the Saudis are our enemies. But they should know that it is increasingly apparent to the American people that they are effectively waging war against us. And they should know that we have the capacity to destroy their military, presumably in a matter of hours. The Saudis' eastern provinces, with their oil, could be given to their Shiite Muslim majority, now oppressed by the Sunni Muslim Saudi rulers.
The holy cities of Mecca and Medina could be returned to the custody of the Hashemites (Jordan's King Abdullah's family), who unlike the Saudis are direct descendants of the prophet Mohammed. Let the Saudis have the sands of central Arabia and their bank accounts in Switzerland, hotel suites in London, and villas on the Riviera.
President Bush has said that we must have regime change in Iraq to be safe from terrorism. It is increasingly clear that we must have regime change in Saudi-ruled Arabia as well.
It is not over forever, just because the supreme court makes a
ruling. Is the abortion issue over?
I remember this sort of article during X41's presidency, when his polls were 90 percent approval rating.
These numbers, coming at the same time, did not get his dad reelected, and, I am afraid, may not get him reelected.
But the bigger issue was raised well by usmc_chris:
Is the whole purpose of this exercise just to get W reelected?
I thought it was to restore and rejuvenate the USA, get it to be closer to the Constitution, get people to join our conservative party because they saw it as the best way to strengthen the republic.
What does it matter if we reelect W and he is just another Clinton?
This is not like the NCAA finals or the NBA finals, where you have a favorite and are happy when he or it wins.
It's about living up to the Constitution.
Why do you assert that people who don't agree with your particular criticism of Bush are goosesteppers? Puh-leeze. Do you really feel the need to question my integrity to act on my principles just because you disagree with my call on a dumb global warming report?
Care to tell me how many anti-abortion bills have been introduced
since the Supremes made the murder of babies legal?
Besides there is no gurantee that it will be overturned, all
or in part.
This kind of stupid legislation never goes away, they just rename
it, change a few items and back it comes.
I believe he caught hell for letting a couple of Aleutian islands fall to the Japanese, but things worked out over the long term. Methinks that Admiral Nimitz's strategy of picking your fights is one we ought to adopt.
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.