Al Qaeda's Wet Dream - One Term

PipeBombNews.com ^ | June 4, 2002 | William A. Mayer, Editor & Publisher PipeBombNews.com

[Mr. Jeeves]

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.

Well, gee, past experience wouldn't have anything to do with that, would it?

[Salman]

A good read, but who the heck are Pipe Bomb News?

Two consecutive terms of GWB would be nice, but Condi four years ahead of schedule would be OK too.

[RightWhale]

vote for or against someone for national security reasons

That's right. If a Democrat gets in instead of Bush in 2004, he might be far tougher on Alqaida and the others than Bush is. When military action is required, party doesn't matter at all.

[Tuor]

Traditionally a declaration of war was against a countty not a specific group, Jefferson and the pirates aside.

I really need to look up the history and legality of Letters of Mark, which, I believe, were placed on individuals.

Unlike you, I *do* care whether or not war has actually been declared. There are checks and balances in place regarding these things, and simply ignoring them out of expedience is not right or proper (or legal) IMO. Obviously, our government doesn't think so, but it should.

The idea the founding fathers had on war was this: the president would fight the wars, but could not declare them and could not sustain them: that was the job of the Legislative Branch.

It will not do for us to abandon our own laws, merely because they are inconvienent, in order to fight in a non-traditional war. One of the nice things about declaring war is that you have to identify an enemy, and once the enemy is defeated, the war is over. Perhaps this is why no war has been declared: we have no fixed enemy and the war will never end.

Tuor

[johnqueuepublic]

You could go there and find out

http://www.pipebombnews.com

[johnqueuepublic]

With all due deference, I think you are losing sight of the big picture, what if the bad guys already have nukes? You want to fool around with technicalities and find out that your precious con rights are preserved but 3 cities got nuked in the process?

This is serious!

[johnqueuepublic]

??????

Tough as in Clinton allowing 4 attack by bin laden and doing nothing but throwina few cruise missiles at him 3 days after the Paula Jones grand jury testimony?

[RightWhale]

Not talking about aberrations like that one. Talking about normal people.

[johnqueuepublic]

The last democrat that would have responded like you would want was probably LBJ and he has assumed room temperature.

Daschle?(that little fairy?)Gephardt? (maybe) Nadler? (puhhhleeze)Kennedy?(is he sober?)Preacher Joe L (ya right)Bwaney Fwank ($#%^&**)

No, aint gonna happen.

[Wolfstar]

Very well said, JohnQ! I am increasingly worried that the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Drudges, Kristols, et. al. of the chattering classes (along with the obvious Dem underhanded selective leak campaign) will stampede many to the right of center to abandon President Bush. It's not too difficult to do since far too many people do not use healthy skepticism when digesting media hype. Stampeding much of the base was successfully done before by Perot, Buchanan and various willing media shills, leading to eight years of the most negligent administration in our history.

It was under Clinton that Al Queda grew into the dangerous monster it is today, and when Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons technology from the Red Chinese. Bin Laden, himself, said on one of his videos that the nearly non-existant response from Clinton is what convinced him to undertake his bold stroke on 9/11/01. Bin Laden believed we were too weak to respond.

You are exactly right that the chatterers have their own agendas. In the case of talk radio hosts, probably to demonstrate independence from the Republican Party and show they can carp against Republicans just as easily as they can against Democrats. Controversy gins up ratings. In the case of Drudge, self-promotion. In the case of Kristol and his ilk, who knows.

Precisely because I am very fearful that a repeat of 1992 will lead to increased strengthing of radical Islam, late yesterday evening I posted this information about the media. I'm linking it to your thread because it is apropos your subject. A very important one, at that.

[Wolfstar]

WHAT?!!!! The best person for the job — man or woman — is the person who will put the security of this nation at the top of his or her administration's agenda. Since George Washington, our country's chief executive has also always been the Commander in Chief. First among the President's duties and responsibilities has ALWAYS been the security of this nation. The first cabinet positions were the Secretaries of State, War and Treasury, for heaven's sake!

[RightWhale]

What, are there no normal people left in the Democrat party? Our local Democrats are pretty much normal and indistinguishable from Republicans most of the time, but maybe the ones who get to top office are different somehow. They do seem like caricatures, walking, bleeting satire.

[Tuor]

With all due deference, I think you are losing sight of the big picture, what if the bad guys already have nukes? You want to fool around with technicalities and find out that your precious con rights are preserved but 3 cities got nuked in the process?

It's not as if the nukes are in the air and there's no time to act. It's been over 8 months since the WTC got knocked down. In WWII, we declared war the next day (IIRC) after Pearl Harbor.

There's common sense, and then there's completely ignoring the requirements of the Constitution.

Tuor

[justshutupandtakeit]

LoL that was screamingly hilarious. You did forget the sarcasm tag though.

DemocRATs being tough on terrorists, hahahaha man that is funny. My sides are aching. Do you write for The Simpsons?

[Wolfstar]

I don't know what the heck a "core" conservative is, but I sure don't want to be one, especially if their hallmark is the fair weather support on display from many here on FR, as well as from chattering heads like Limbaugh, Hannity, Kristol, et. al.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Why do you think it is so easy to caricature the conservatives as a bunch of brainless bozos? Look at the glee with which Bush is attacked on a daily basis around here, it is a miracle that any conservative can win and retain any office with the fair weather backstabbers who compose the conservative movement.

[Ole Okie]

Ron Paul has done exactly what?

Kinda reminds me of Larry Klayman without the charisma and without the judicial success.

LOL! Good one, johnqueue.

You could have substituted the name "Bumbling Brigadier Pitchfork Patrick J. Buchanan" and your sentence would have scanned equally well.

[dcwusmc]

You are absolutely right, Dems and Reps are indistinguishable from one another. Look at the "education" bill (W and Teddy no-pants) or farm subsidies or the tariffs on steel, etc., or the so-called USA-PATRIOT abomination. Did W offer to veto ANY of them? Nope. To him as well as the Rats, the Constitution is no more than a$$-wipe.

[Grampa Dave]

I am with you re what a so called core republican/conservative is.

It is a recycled buzz word/mantra in an attempt to disguise the reality that few have vote republican since Reagan. So we are supposed to be in fear when these real Corish Conservatives say for the 10,000 time, that they are leaving and will never vote for GW again.

I welcome the soccer moms, the Jewish Americans, the Mexican America citizens and the new wave of black conservatives since 9/11. We can learn a lot from each other in this November's election when we de Rat the senate by defeating those in old and new Bush country.

[Wolfstar]

I wish I knew the answer. Perhaps it is in the nature of some people to carp and complain — to see the glass as half empty instead of half full, to use the old cliche. Aside from the fact that there's already a lot of good that this President and his administration have done, there is one thing I know for certain. The Clinton administration was one long frat party. It was the most negligent administration in our history, and we have Bin Laden's own words to show that Clinton's negligence led directly to the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

In 1992, similar carping and far too easily withdrawn support from many who consider themselves to be right of center led to the defeat of Bush 41 (although is cave-in on taxes was a big part of it). That gave us Clinton. I hope to God we don't repeat the same mistake -- especially considering the pathetic bunch of Dems who are lining up to fight for their nomination.