|
Posted on 02/21/2003 6:25:53 PM PST by Spidey
In the days, weeks and months following September 11, 2001, George W. Bush both surprised and impressed me with his handling of a national crisis.
Like many who watched Bush squeak into office via the Supreme Court’s intervention, I didn’t expect much of Dubya.
Yet he appeared to grow into the job and handled 9-11 with an adroit mixture of compassion and anger. Maybe, I thought, this guy might be up to the job after all.
That was then. This is now.
Now I’m not so sure.
As Bush prepares to lead us into war with Iraq, a war that even some of the uniformed hawks at the Pentagon still question, I wonder if Clem Kadiddlehopper has somehow gained access to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Just a little over two years ago, Bush stood on the steps of the Capitol and took the oath of office, promising to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Now he seems hellbent on destroying the Constitution and, along with it, the Bill of Rights and just about every freedom and right that Americans starting fighting for after tossing several crates of tea into the Boston Harbor.
Back then, the 13 colonies faced the daunting task of getting out from under the tyranny of a man named George.
Now, 227 years later, we’ve got another madman named George saying it doesn’t matter what the majority of Americans want because, by God, he’s in charge and he will do whatever he damn well pleases.
Last week, Bush said he didn’t care if a majority of Americans thought he should wait and let the United Nations finish its work before invading Iraq.
“Sometimes you have to ignore popular opinion and do what’s right,” Bush said in a speech to a group of cheering veterans. “The President must govern, not be governed.”
Say what? Excuse me, King George, but this country was founded on the belief of “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”
Taking that Oath of Office didn’t suddenly endow you with great intellect or the ability to ignore the voice of the people you are supposed to represent. As I recall, your grade point average in school wasn’t that hot anyway.
A lot of people who know better have been telling you to cool your heels on this Iraq thing, to slow down and let all the cards fall into place before sending young men and women into harm’s way. Hell, even your father has stayed quiet on the issue but those who know him say he’s not all that happy with your cowboy attitude.
I’d listen to daddy, George. He used to run the CIA and he has something you don’t – an election to President where he actually won both the popular and electoral vote.
And that Oath of Office also promised to uphold the Constitution. You know, the one you have left in the hands of John Ashcroft, the attorney general who never saw a wiretap he didn’t like, and Tom Ridge, the man whose Department of Homeland Security wants to lock ‘em all up and let God sort it out?
And while you’re so preoccupied with getting Saddam Hussein and turning America into a police state, what are you doing about North Korea and its nuclear weapons program?
Talking? Just talking? They are close to having the capability to deliver nukes to the West Coast and all you want to do there is talk? Why do you have such a pair of big brass balls when it comes to Iraq, which hasn’t developed nukes (but probably will one day) but turn into a wimp when it comes to be much more pressing threat from North Korea?
Doesn’t make sense, but then a lot of things that are happening at your end of the National Mall don’t make sense.
Saddam Hussein may not be the only madman who threatens a place called America.
Typical....This moron doesn't even give one example to back up his ridiculous argument.
What exactly constitutes a majority? A herd of the great unwashed masses? I'd say a majority would be those who did not take part in the joke that was an anti-Bush march.
That disqualifies him as a thoughtful conservative, IMO.
Say what? Excuse me, King George, but this country was founded on the belief of “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”
Bush is correct, the author is not.
We have representation in Congress that has authorized any actions President Bush makes, for starters.
It sounds like the author is advocating leadership by gauging poll numbers. (And even that doesn't support Thompson's point since a majority in polls support the President's position on Iraq.)
People like Stefanopolos, and now, Thompson, make me puke.
By "this author", are we to assume that you're referring to yourself in the third person?
|
You've offered nothing to support that assertion, other than a vulgar personal attack against him.
I've noticed this common tactic in debates, particularly from the left. "Your approach won't solve all of our problems, so why try it?" is the basic theme. Should we get rid of cops since they don't completely eliminate crime? Or since washing my underwear doesn't dry clean my suits, why wash it? A completely nonsensical argument.
There's a very compelling breakdown of the world's security situation in this month's Esquire. We clearly do have a need to take out Iraq -- the author of this article is an advisor to DoD.
He wasn't invited to serve in any capacity and has not been consulted on any appointments.
...and unlike Rush, he has no audience so it makes him cranky.
I suspect Mr Thompson doesn't give two turds that NK has nukes. He uses it as a straw dog to attack Bush on Iraq.
If and when Bush shifts his attention to this other axis of evil, I hope Thompson's words are shoved back down his throat as he furiously back pedals and accuses Bush of again being too warlike dealing with North Korea.
And he will.
Sorry, but the only occurance of the word "democracy" in this thread is your own posting. He quite correctely said that this was supposed to be a government "of the people, by the people and for the people", which I must confess to recognizing as somewhat familiar.
I'm a "rabid" conservative, but I'm not at all in tune with this targeting of Iraq under these circumstances. I do, however, vote we blow the hell out of North Korea first thing in the morning.
>>“Sometimes you have to ignore popular opinion and do >>what’s right,” Bush said in a speech to a group of >>cheering veterans. “The President must govern, not be >>governed.” >> >>Say what? Excuse me, King George, but this country was >>founded on the belief of “government of the people, by >>the people and for the people.”
We're not an absolute democracy. Hell, we're not even a democracy. But, that's beside the point. The point is that real leaders LEAD. It takes gutless wonders like Clinton to follow "public opinion" rather than do what they believe is Right.
Didn't we pass a law resricting the first admendment rights of these type of individuals after Clinton left office?
Of course this is part of the closing line of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address; ending with "shall not perish from the Earth."
A thorough search of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America, reveals no exact equivalent. Taking the Declaration as the document that created the nation and the Constitution as the "operating manual" one might draw different conclusions than did Mr. Lincoln.
In studying the founding documents, it seems to me that what we have here is a representative republic. That is we choose our leaders and they are to lead...as did Mr. Lincoln. Mr. Lincoln did not ask what the will of the people was. He acted as the presiding executive and even suspended the Constitution. It was, in my view, quite hypocritical of Lincoln to utter those words: "of the people, by the people and for the people."
Regardless of what one may think of my rant it is an historical fact that Lincoln did not amend the constitution with the Gettysburg Address.
I'll offer nothing also, except the fact that I read the article.
The author is a dumbass.....
Here's some logic: I read the article, I recognized the fact that the author's words don't pass the smell test for lunacy, and I came to the logical conclusion that the author is a dumbass. Nothing personal against the author; he merely made many statements which are BS. No, I won't enumerate them for you; they're self evident, just like 2 + 2 does not equal five. In other words, any rational person would read this tripe and decide that the author is a dumbass....
It's a good thing you're here, cause the left hasn't had a new idea since Roosevelt. Stick around, you may learn something from us.
If you don't like what President Bush does in this term, don't vote for him next time around. That is how the whole thing works, friend. So, in the meantime, don't offer spurious arguments against Bush's determination to do what he needs to do--i.e, arguments based on philosophical positions which are not consistent with American Constitutional government in the first place.
Besides, the Gettysburg Address, although a noble document, is not our nation's framing document. Our government definitely is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people--but it is more specifically Constituted as a republic of the people, by the people, and for the people.
In other words, Thompson is making the standard mistake which the Democrats make. Because of their ideology of merely pandering for power, they refuse to grasp the fact that this nation was constituted as a Republic, not as a mere democracy.
That, of course, is precisely why we have to elect men of good character to the Presidency. We have to elect men who are basically trustworthy even when the electorate doesn't always have good sense on a day-to-day basis.
I gather that the real reason why you are complaining about my discussion of basic Americanism is that you are in the latter category (grin).
Come on, now, man, it's obvious that we have to get Saddam.
I know a number of other hard core conservatives that agree with you. For much different reasons than liberals though. I agree about NK. I would also like to see Saddam whacked.
Allow me to offer what I believe is a rational response to this article.
First and foremost, there are numerous Congressional Research Service and unclassified Defense Department Reports detailing the risks Saddam poses if he remains in power. May I direct your attention to this link, at a relatively liberal web-page (The Federation of American Scientists) for a copy of just one report.
We also know the following facts: he has used chemical/biological weapons against his own people, he invaded another country (Kuwait) in a blatant attempt to seize control of their natural resources, and has directed humanitarian aid away from his starving people and towards the building of grand palaces for himself and his flunkies. He has continued to fire on planes patrolling the no-fly zone.
If you dig through any of the CRS reports on China, you will find that he has been caught purchasing dual-use technology from China (in violation of a number of nuclear non-proliferation treaties) in the hopes of securing his own nuclear weapons.
All of the above are violations of 16 previous United Nations Resolutions, several of which already authorize the "use of force" in retaliation.
Here are several additional salient points, enumerated in this article, along with sources that you can read for yourself:
"First and foremost, as I have already shown, President Bush was not the one who changed our nuclear first-strike policy: President Clinton did. In November of 1997, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 60, which allowed the United States to “consider using nuclear weapons against attackers who hit American forces with chemical or biological weapons. “ It was made to address the “worrisome possibility that nations such as Iraq might turn chemical or biological arsenals against U.S. troops.” If one were to listen to the mainstream media and Democrat party, however, this little nugget of truth would not be shared.
"Second, we do not need an official declaration of war to begin a military campaign with Iraq. Congress already authorized the use of force in our first entanglement with Iraq under President H.W. Bush; the conditions set forth under the cease-fire still exist. United Nations Resolution 678 and 687, both written under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, allow the “use of military action” to enforce them. These two resolutions allow Britain and the United States to enforce no-fly zones to protect Kuwait and surrounding countries. In these no-fly zones, our military men and women have come under repeated attacks by Iraqi ground forces using surface to air weapons. During the first few years of inspections, the United Nations recognized these attacks as provocation deserving a military response; however, once inspections began to break down, the United Nations no longer acknowledged the attacks, realizing it would give just cause to the United States for a military assault. Nevertheless, the attacks continue to this day. Whether the United Nations chooses to officially recognize them or not, we have endured enough provocation to warrant a military response.
"Further, on March 2, 1998, the United Nations passed Resolution 1154, demanding Iraq compliance and warning that failure to comply would result in the “severest consequences for Iraq.” May I direct your attention to Operation Desert Fox, the poorly named military campaign begun under President Clinton in December of 1998, against Iraq? What did President Clinton use to justify that fruitless engagement? Resolution 1154, of course.
"At that time, there was no hue and cry from Democrats in Congress. They supported President Clinton throughout his ineffectual three days of bombing. The general sentiment was not doubt and hesitation, but action and righteousness. Why all the hand-wringing now? Who knows, but back in 1998, when Congress passed the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998” and President Clinton signed it, everyone saw the wisdom of removing Saddam as soon as possible. After listing 11 brutal grievances against Saddam Hussein, including the butchering of 180,000 people, Congress advised, “it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”
"Isn’t that fascinating? When President Bush says the same thing, certain individuals who shall remain nameless suddenly begin expectorating in fury and gasping in horror.
"Anthony Sivers, in his 1998 editorial in the Washington Times entitled “Just Cause on Iraq,” offered this insightful commentary: “Just Cause: The first just cause is the anticipatory self-defense of the international community from the threat of use entailed in Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) (U.N. Security Council Res. 687). His use of poison gas in aggressive wars, torture and mass murder are sufficient evidence for probable cause assumption of malice aforethought on his part, given opportunity, with any WMD capabilities possessed. Inaction to forestall such opportunity would be morally irresponsible.”
"But if President Bush wants to really get nasty, he can remind the Democrats in Congress, those self-same Democrats who are screaming about “the process” now, how they fell into lock-step support when President Clinton, without an official declaration of war or the blessings of the United Nations, launched a full-scale military assault against Serbia. He committed troops without the consultation of congressional Republicans and before any military spending has been approved. Congress never gave Clinton any authorization for it, other than to timidly offer appropriations after our troops were on the ground; in fact, it violated Public Law 105-262 (HR4103, section 8106a).
"So tell me again, Senator Daschle, Congressman Lee, why we saw fit to bomb the bejeesus out of a former ally, whose internal wrangling resulted in approximately 1,500 deaths (on both sides!) over a 5 year period, and marked their leader as Hilter’s clone, but experience great trepidation over tackling a man who has killed 180,000 people, invaded neighboring countries, thwarted numerous United Nations resolutions and nuclear non-proliferation treaties, and harbored terrorists?...
1 Associated Press, “Report outlines conditions for nuclear first strike,” Diamond, John, December 8, 1997.
2 Ibid.
3 Congressional Research Service Issues Brief #92-117, “Iraq: Compliance, Sanctions, and U.S. Policy,” Katzman, Kenneth, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, Rev. September 6, 2002.
4 United Nations, Security Council Resolution 1154 on the Situation Between Iraq and Kuwait, March 2, 1998.
5 H.R. 4655, “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998”
6 The Washington Times, “Just Cause on Iraq,” Sivers, Anthony, November 25, 1998.
7 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1999, Public Law 105-262.
That's about right.
I'm not sure I understand what your point is, however.
In the days after Pearl Harbor a majority of Americans still opposed war with Germany.
In the days before the Gulf War public opinion was divided on launching a war.
Public opinion is fickle - but it always rallies around the president when the bullets start flying.
That will be especially true once the liberation is consumated and the horror stories of Saddam's regime start unfolding.
The only reason we're bothering with a Security Council vote is to help out Blair domestically.
I'd almost just as soon we didn't. I have no desire to continue supporting the fantasy that the UN retains even a shred of moral or political credibility.
What "circumstances"?
That's as far as I go
(All kidding aside, I say you need to re-think the whole matter of the looming war with Iraq. I believe the matter is immeasurably more serious than you have even dared to believe. I urge you to think deeper.)
What "circumstances"?
It's being done by a Republican named Bush.
He will get to N.Korea, as soon as he finishes off Saddam. Then you will be bitchin about that.
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.
I guess we can put him in the 'no' pile.