Replies

"... had Algore been elected...our nation's enemies would be all the more emboldened..."

And I believe we very well could have seen follow-up attacks to 9/11 that would have brought this country under algore and the damnable Dims to our knees. Pray to God that they do not soon return to any kind of authority!

In my opinion, if we, the diverse conservative base in this country unite solidly behind Dubya, and we voice our support of Dubya to the sheeple so that THEY understand the consequences, we can ensure that the Dims do not return to power, and we can gain in the House & Senate. This undoubtedly requires that each of us recognizes that the good of the country is more important right now than some of our diverse, and sometimes divisive other issues.

When we can establish a confident base of conservatives in Congress to support Dubya, I believe we will see many of our other issues going the way we want them to go. Another very important part of this is judicial appointments. Long term these become of lasting significance. The tide of leftist appointments to the various judicial benches must be stemmed and reversed with the appointment of conservatives who do not buy the "living document theory" regarding the US Constitution.

Actually, I think that if Gore had been elected, he would have declared a war on terror as well. But it would have been more of the usual ineffective bombing of aspirin factories and such. And if Al had screwed up the courage to invade Iraq, he would immediately have handed it over to France and Germany and Russia for profiteering by them and by the U.N.

The author does make a good point though. Even future Demo regimes are now far more likely to look to the Bush example as a precedent for American unilateralism in the modern era. It is, after all, much easier than dialoging with Europe.

Even Clinton didn't particularly like being restricted by Congress which is why he didn't consult them much. One of the reasons American presidents are so powerful internationally is exactly because they have such scope for unilateral action with our military. And any Democrat president likes that power just as much as Republicans.

So, I think the writer is correct. Despite all the Dim blather about mulilateralism currently, any future Dim president is likely to take advantage of Bush's precedent when necessary. Or convenient. It remains to be seen whether we'll all think it's a good thing in the long run. Next time, it might be us objecting to a Dim president taking such actions.