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.
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.
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.