Posted on 06/04/2002 9:20:43 AM PDT by johnqueuepublic
Al Qaeda's Wet Dream - One Term
By William A. Mayer, Editor & Publisher
June 4, 2002
A few weeks ago, agent provocateurs in the American press - via yet another convenient leak of an internal FBI document, provided by congressional Democrat fellow travelers - commenced the now only too familiar attack on President Bush.
Milking the opportunity, Time, Newsweek, the New York Times and the Washington Post have gone into an exquisite 3-card-Monty ruse about how “”Bush Knew” – of course absent any facts that would prove the allegation and ignoring Mr. Clinton's less than stellar stewardship of the military/intelligence apparatus charged with preventing terrorist incidents.
The disease has even affected the pointy heads at the Wall Street Journal who last week, in a fit of pique, mistakenly called for the resignation of FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, over lapses in security, which in their wooly headed manner of thinking, somehow led to 9-11-01, despite the fact that Mueller had assumed the directorship only one week previous to the Islamic sneak attack.
This week, in a pincers operation, the New York Times - who now apparently touts its articles by feeding them first to Matt Drudge - is alleging that the Bush administration is back peddling - flip flopping - on “global warming” and by extension the Kyoto treaty. This is really Byzantine; the Times claiming that Bush is confounding them by not being as hard right as it has been alleging all along – oh well.
The Times lashes out at Bush by misrepresenting the “UN Climate Action Report 2002” [a 263 page - 5.7 MB Adobe file] - the lead-in paragraph:
“In a stark shift for the Bush administration, the United States has sent a climate report to the United Nations detailing specific and far-reaching effects that it says global warming will inflict on the American environment.”
If one takes even a few minutes to glance through the report one will see nothing of a “stark shift.”
What you will find is a thoughtful treatise on the complexities of climatology; it is no revelation nor is it capitulation that human activity has some bearing on the .6 degree C warming effect that may have been in play since 1900 – a single cow’s flatulence also has an effect – one, given the obvious spin intended by these sordid efforts disguised as journalism, possibly more salutary.
The intent here is to frame Bush as having caused 9-11 through inattention and, additionally, and having abandoned his core beliefs - thereby hoping to dishearten the conservative core of his support, a tactic which seems to be gaining traction.
The ultimate goal?
To destroy the Bush administration by any means and at all costs.
Aided in its effort to cast Bush in the worst possible light are a bevy of hot air devices, also commonly referred to as conservative radio talk show hosts [who shall here go unnamed - but you know who they are] who shifted into hyper-drive with wild crazy suppositions borne with sanctimonious scorn on the wings of their, undoubtedly superior, intellects – intellects, many of whom, having “risen” without the vexing influence of much formal education.
Lets cut to the chase.
Conservatives are on the verge of pissing away all that they have worked for, and they are doing so simply because they are reacting to headlines and stories contrived to sow internecine warfare. They are taking the bilge dished out by the DNC because, for some deep-seated pathological reason, Republicans and conservatives innately believe that their leaders will sell them out - it is almost a matter of faith. In this case they are making a preemptive strike and dropping their loyalty at the time when it is most desperately needed.
The formerly much feared conservative shock troops are now in a near autistic state of self-flagellation, which if not checked could well result in the demise of this movement and indeed this republic.
You heard me, the DEMISE of this republic – under what passes for Democrat leadership, this Nation has a less than 50-50 chance of surviving to 2010 – greenhouse gasses be damned.
Last week the Bush administration issued new surveillance guidelines allowing the FBI to monitor public Internet sites as well as attend church and political meetings to help prevent acts of terrorism.
The broadside from the ACLU was to be expected; the idiotic response on “civil liberties” grounds by the right - again driven by the lunatic element in talk radio - was not.
It was neither appreciated, called for, nor in any way justifiable.
Why now?
Ok we will tell you - the Islamic Jihad already has some version of the ATOMIC BOMB or are imminently close to having it or another similar psychologically devastating weapon of mass destruction – the actual mechanism is not that important.
That’s right, no we don’t have sources that close to the scene, but most anyone should be able to read the tea leaves.
The delivery of such a horrendous weapon, wielded against, let’s say the White House and/or Congress could conceivably throw us into a death spiral and ignite a worldwide thermonuclear exchange.
For some mysterious reason the so-called conservative movement has contracted an early onset of senile dementia - not only betraying their president in wartime but also abandoning their party when their poker hand consists of four aces.
The problem is not in the Bush administration abandoning conservative principles, the problem is that many self appointed leaders of conservatism - drawing from the Jessie Jackson/Al Sharpton playbook - are elevating their own agendas over that of this Nation.
The left would just as soon see a major commercial center nuked as lose in 2004, as long as they can lay the blame on the Republican Party.
Bottom line:
We are at war, start acting like it, those who fraudulently attack your Commander in Chief, attack your Nation, your family, and your way of life.
Suck it up, gut it out and start standing up to the left [and gently – if possible – our lost sheep on the right] to do otherwise cedes the battle to the enemy.
That is simply unacceptable.
© PipeBombNews.com, all rights reserved.
Even up here, where something like 1/3 of registered voters are Independent, and they are all the same, too. Then there are Greens and Libertarians, who really are different, but in the minority. That leaves RightWhale all by himself, registered R, but kind of bemused at the alternatives.
Well tour, far be it from me to correct you on Constitutional matters, but Article 8, section 11 calls for the Congress (not the Senate acting alone) to declare war.
This is what was done on December 8, 1941.
But in 1951, Harry S Truman went into Korea under the aegis of the United Nations, calling it a "police action". Unless I am mistaken, there have been no formal Congressional declarations of war since.
However, Congress holds the purse strings, and if they don't provide money for any given military activity, it will wither on the vine.
Bush 41 was abandoned because he showed no predilection to a cohesive conservative vision whatsoever. Though a good and decent man, raising taxes was merely one outward expression of hs lack of ideology. George W. is better at this than his father, though he is still lacking a great deal.
I welcome them too, as long as they become a part of the conservative, moral vision of the Republican Party.
I wish this guy would shut up. He tells too much truth. ;)
I've sent this one on to my State Rep. Maybe it will keep him from being demoralized by the local dems.
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
Molon Labe !!
Because we know that human beings are corrupt and tend to corrupt what they touch, we wish to keep government as small as we can to protect against tyranny and a loss of freedoms. To keep government small we have to keep taxes low. Low taxes encourage economic growth and charitable giving unencumbered by government shackles.
This, then, forms the core of conservatism - human freedom limited by law that stem from an unchanging moral code that in turn comes from God.
If the badguys manage to detonate even a dirty bomb, make a stinger type missile attack against the capital, all bets are off - the economy goes into free fall, martial law is declared, you name it the sky is the limit
I have nothing but contempt for Limbaugh now, Hannity, Michael Savage and the rest of these imbeciles who would cut the legs off Bush just to spike their ratings.
Screw them I will never listen to them again.
What is it with you Libertarians, deal with alqaeda? You dont even believe in defending your own borders. Mecca into Las Vegas, that is hallucinatory, you cant conceivably know anything about radical islam.
Fortunately the Libertarian party has $2.03 in the till and no prospect of even electing dog catchers.
I was thinking of China and Taiwan; Pakistan and India since the Pakistanis had obtained nuke technology from China on Clinton's watch; North Korea; the International Criminal Court treaty which Clinton signed, etc. I wasn't necessarily thinking of massive terrorist acts on our soil. But my point is that anyone paying attention during the Clinton years saw danger building in lots of areas while that (expletive deleted) was having himself a riproaring good time on his extended frat party. I don't think there are words strong enough to express the depth of my disdain and disgust for that man.
The truly sad thing is how quickly so many people forget. We now have a truly decent and good man in the presidency, but all some can focus on is areas in which they disagree with him. They'd rather ditch a good man who's doing his level best to protect this country, and risk getting someone as bad as or even worse than Clinton because their expectations are impossible for anyone to meet. It isn't possible for any two human beings to agree 100% on anything all the time, but that is what some demand of this president.
Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1835
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established, b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change.
The founders were NOT conservatives as many today think of the term. When they wrote the Constitution, they had only recently overthrown the old British order, something so exceedingly radical that it had never been done before in history. Some were small 'r' republicans who argued for a weak, minimalist federal government but reasonably strong state governments. Thomas Jefferson is the most prominent proponent of this view. Others were outright statists as we understand the term today. They wanted to eliminate the states entirely and have only one unified country with a strong federal government. Alexander Hamilton is the most prominent of this group, and he even went so far as to propose a hereditary monarchy during the first Constitutional Convention.
A number of compromises were written into the Constitution in order to accommodate and balance this wide range of views. For example, elections for the House were based on proportional representation. Representatives were to be elected directly by the people. But in order to protect states rights and provide a check on the power of the federal government, each state, no matter how large or small, was to have two senators, and they were to be appointed by their state legislature. This is called the Great Compromise because it balanced the concerns of small states and large, and balanced direct federal elections with the selection by each state of two agents (senators) to act on the state's behalf in the federal structure of government.
I like it! Whatever keeps the Damocrats out of the White House.
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.