Skip to comments.How to Lose Your Yob in Talk Radio (FR mentioned)
Posted on 01/12/2004 9:49:33 AM PST by narby
click here to read article
I don't remember any promenent Republicans arguing that Clinton should stop actions in Bosnia. There were some Reps that tepidly suggested that we were in there for the wrong reasons, but I remember none who suggested we leave after the action began.
Politically opposing a war is a move that litterally "aids and comforts" the ememy, giving them reason to hang on until the domestic political anti-war movement wins.
Almost 60k Americans were killed in SE Asia for nothing, because the anti-war people "won" it for the North. Books have been published since 1975 by North Vietnamese leaders saying they hung in there because of the US domestic help they were being given.
Between 2-3 million people died in SE Asia after the North "won" in 1975. The American anti-war people have blood on their hands.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are accomplishing anti-terrorism goals beyond their borders. I'm proud of what Bush is doing, and I support it.
Is there some specific required language the Constitution requires the Congress to use in order to "declare War"?
If the Congress authorizes "use of force", is that not making war?
The bottom line is that despite large numbers of very influencial people who are anti-war, none of them have gotten a case through the supreme court to halt actions in places from Korea through Vietnam to Iraq.
Under the Constitution, the SC is the arbiter, and obviously it hasn't stopped those actions, so my opinion is that all those actions were authorized. They just may not have used the exact phrase "Declaration of War".
Totally disagree with you on this war. But read your tagline and more than agree. It has got even worse since then. If Dean is the Dem nominee- there is a serious chance even Massachusetts will vote Bush. Dean will be defeated so badly it might even be the death knell of the Democratic Party.
Just a comment on the Democratic party now. When the McGovern faction took over - they were at least still idealistic and believed in their policies and ideology. They don't believe in anything anymore than pure power. Do you think there is one Democrat who actually thinks Federal no frills Welfare is a "good policy"? Or that their support of teacher's unions and their anti choice stances is going to "help kids?" Nope. They don't believe one word they themselves say anymore. I need only point to one example of how easily they betray anything they once stood for- the Impeachment vote and Senate trial of Bill Clinton. And who is the head of the DNC? Terry MaCauliffe- who resembles the small town near-do-well who peddles pyramid schemes in between used car sales jobs.
When the Dems critisize the war in Iraq it is worthless jibberish. If they were in power they would be calling any opposition to the war "treason" just as they did against Republicans who raised doubts and objections to Clinton's disgusting "wag-the-dog" wars.
Oh crap!!! I am hypnotized!!!!
That does it!!!
I'm gonna go burn down every AM Station in the country and blame it on FM.....wait.... is it the other way around???......regardless...my defense at trial will be.......It's not my fault!!!
If you would do your homework, you would know this. I wrote up seven "declarations of war" more than a year ago, in a UPI article that was published nationally. Please stop repeating this factually false statement that Congress never declared war with respect to Iraq.
John / Billybob
Excellent comments. More worthy of attention than the "look-at-me" article this thread follows.
Which just goes to show, conservative principles, once divorced from reality, are no better guide than their liberal equivalent. I don't hate this guy. I just find his screed silly and immature.
Piling on here...
I look at the New Deal coalition (updated of course), upon which Democratic power is based, as inevitably decaying as well. What platform can possibly satisfy outspoken gays, blue-collar workers, African-Americans, Latino immigrants, radical feminists, and limosine liberals? Kick out a single one of those groups and national power is gone for them. Yet the interests of those groups are in frequent conflict. And any balancing act eventually fails.
YES! And therein lies the paradox of the Dems. They seek to unite all these divergent groups into one party that seeks one law and standard of morality for the entire nation under the dictat of a liberal Supreme Court! Meanwhile - The GOP and Conservatives are more often than not to live and let live from one town, to country, to state, and are willing to accept many standards of morality at the local level outside of Federal control.
Yep. Unlike the smarmy college-set stereotype (and even that is a dated view, since smarminess itself is aging), federalism is the conservative ace-in-the-hole. To quote esteemed statesman and international man-of-mystery, Austin Powers, "It's freedom, baby! It's a very groovy bag."
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.