 Media Credit: Michael Kleinfeld/UPI
Daschle keeps calling for proof that Saddam is hoarding weapons of mass destruction.
|
Posted on 03/04/2003 5:10:05 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
|
Madness has seized liberals, Democrats, Marxists, lady journalists and others. This has induced a kind of ideological feeding frenzy among those who cannot face up to the rank injustice of being outmaneuvered at every turn by a president they had dismissed as Jo-Jo, the Dog-faced Boy. It's mortifying that they no longer are in the catbird seat, and so they scream as if they were in a manicomium. We have a second-string columnist like Georgie Anne Geyer comparing President George W. Bush to Benito Mussolini, attacking Israel for "killing and bombing Palestinians" and writing about "Jewish neoconservatives," whom she possibly might like to send to the gas chamber.
The London Daily Mail focuses more closely. "Unelected in 2000, the Washington regime of George W. Bush is now totalitarian, captured by a clique whose fanaticism and ambitions of 'endless war' and 'full-spectrum dominance' are a matter of record," writes the Daily Mail's John Pilger, a staunch defender of former Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic. And he compares our president's State of the Union Address to a meeting of Adolf Hitler and his generals. The U.S. government, "as it now stands, will destroy or imprison its people and those of any other nation who dare challenge the Bush and Beveridge God-given right to rule the world."
And the Guardian, for years the voice of Stalinism in Britain, inveighs against Bush administration "policies" on everything "from lifting taxes on the rich to dropping bombs on the poor."
At home, the madness takes the form of demonizing and setting facts and reason on their ear. Helen Thomas, the leading Arab-American in the Washington press corps, informs us that Bush is "the worst president" in U.S. history. That's an opinion. As for facts, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and a host of other politicians and pundits, none suffering from Alzheimer's, cry out for "Proof, proof!" that Saddam Hussein retains a vast armory of weapons of mass destruction.
The people who were burning flags and skedaddling off to Canada some decades ago now are chanting that those advocating a military solution to the horror in Iraq are only interested in oil, and they fear that if Saddam falls, they will be cut out of the action. Germany is trying desperately to collect the vast sums it is owed by Saddam and is fearful that it too will be left holding an empty bag if there is a regime change. You don't hear Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D-Mass.) talking about this, though he knows.
Do the Democrats and the other randipole liberals really believe there is no connection between Saddam and Islamic terrorism? Are they serious when they argue that the defeat of the greatest terrorist of them all will encourage further Arab terrorism? Yet they continue to proclaim with a straight face that in taking on Iraq we are neglecting the war against Islamic terror by fighting Saddam.
War and peace is not the only area of contrived obfuscation. For decades, the federal government has been opening Fort Knox to the educrats. But the incontrovertible record shows that, in inverse ratio, the more we spend on education, the worse it gets. Education will continue to fail until we get rid of the neo-Freudian/neo-Marxists of the National Education Association -- and the Department of Education which it controls -- and return to the curricula and the teaching methods that once made American public education the best in the world. The function of education is to teach, not to hand out free condoms and massage the "self-esteem" of the young fry -- drugging them simultaneously with Ritalin and Prozac.
For almost a century, Democrats have defended federal deficits. Now they scream about White House tax-cut proposals, arguing that they will increase deficits. They don't mention that President John F. Kennedy gave us one of the biggest and most beneficial tax cuts -- and like President Ronald Reagan's in later years, it increased revenues. President Bush has proposed an economic program -- and more than 100 top economists (including three novelists) have endorsed it -- which recognizes that cutting taxes across the board is a standard measure to stimulate a lagging economy. FDR increased taxes, and by 1937 -- during the Roosevelt recession -- there were roughly the same number of unemployed as when he took office. These are facts that the Beltway madness ignores.
Outrage has greeted the president's proposal to end double taxation of dividends. Al Hunt, the Wall Street Journal's resident goo-goo, sneers that the benefits will go to "rich geezers." Some 80 million Americans are more or less directly affected by the stock market's performance, as is much of the economy. Oddly enough, the labor bosses support double taxation of dividends, even though they hold $400 billion in pension funds invested in the market.
But here's a suggestion: If the Democrats are looking for increased revenue, why don't they start taxing the multibillions that the labor bosses have in their treasuries? That will bring in a pretty penny -- and it won't come from the poor on whom they say Bush is busily dropping bombs.
Ralph de Toledano is the dean of Washington columnists and a frequent writer for Insight magazine.
Georgie Anne Geyer is an Israel/Jew basher from way back by the way. Nothing new there.
Yes, all the wingnuts are in a tizzy. Once again, the folks who underestimate GW Bush, get to eat his dust.
Yes, all the wingnuts are in a tizzy. Once again, the folks who underestimate GW Bush, get to eat his dust.You may be interested in this article also.Credibility, Resolve, Leadership
Source:INSIGHT magazine; Published: March 3, 2003; Author:Jennifer G. Hickey
Left-wing politicians serve notice they will try to bludgeon the president's proposals to death, whatever their merit.
Under Bush's plan, states would be allowed to decide how to use federal Head Start funds.
"In reviewing again the history of the eight years from 1930 to 1938 we can see how much time we had. Up till 1934 at least German rearmament could have been prevented without the loss of a single life. It was not time that was lacking," wrote Winston Churchill in The Gathering Storm, the first book of his six-volume history of World War II.
Decrying him as a "die-hard," Churchill's colleagues in the British Parliament raised questions about his judgment and credibility, seen as prescient leadership through the lens of history. Without the benefit of historical distance, the judgment and credibility of leadership again has emerged as the issue of the day.
"If the council responds to Iraq's defiance with more excuses and delays, if all its authority proves to be empty, the United Nations will be severely weakened as a source of stability and order. If the members rise to this moment, then the council will fulfill its founding purpose," said President George W. Bush in a speech before the American Enterprise Institute. For the administration, the judgment and credibility of both the nation and the international community are at stake if Iraqi violations of U.N. Resolution 1441 are without consequence.
Others perceive the disarmament of Iraq in personal terms. Former president Jimmy Carter and some Democrats have used survey results, which found that 70 percent of respondents viewed the United States as the greatest threat to peace, as reason to question the policies and credibility of the Bush administration. In a world where public opinion is a function of the immediate flow of information, the credibility of all parties is in question..............."
It makes me want to scream: Terrorist attacks on 9/11! Saddam Hussein building WMDs and dealing with terrorists (rewarding suicide bombers)! The PLO-Israeli problems which were blowing up as soon as Clinton left office! The great North Korea agreement that Bubba/Carter signed and believed! The collapsing economy! The destruction of the stock market tied to bubble-burst and corporate governance scandals (all started under the previous Administration)! Trying to rebuild a depleted military (while addressing the added challenges of globabl terrorism) after 8 years of neglect and budget cuts!
Take a blanking-look in the mirror, EJ: This is what your GREAT HERO left the current President. Along with all the appeasers in Europe who are hectoring him into compromising American independence in its foreign policy and defense programs: thanks in large part to the braying liberal media and Demo weaklings in Congress.
This president is facing challenges virtually unheard of -- in some respects, Reagan had worse challenges but it was at least a more stable and understandable set of challenges that the Great Man conquered. I would like to see more cohesion and less bluster in how we present our plans and policies, but please EJ: give the man a break and consider that lousy set of challenges he's been dealt.
Another rant: have you heard the recent Demo talking point about "what's this war and its aftermath going to cost?" I've even heard it translated into "it's going to cost the average tax-paying family $1,000 per year for the next 10 years!" When was the last time you ever heard any major Government program translated into a cost projection vs. the average tax-payer like this? Do farm subsidies get translated into a cost/tax payer? But now I'm thinking: why don't the Republican's respond by saying: this war isn't going to cost the "average family" hardly anything: they AREN'T paying any taxes! The top 10% will bear the tax burden just as they bear the tax burden for everything!" Just some thoughts as I rant at the beginning of the day.
Trying to rebuild a depleted military (while addressing the added challenges of global terrorism) after 8 years of neglect and budget cuts!
However, I would suggest a modification of this sentence. The Clinton years were not eight years of neglect of our military, they were eight years of purposely weakening our military, i.e., depleting our supply of cruise missles by firing 400+ of them into Iraq, at $1,000,000+ a pop, in a wag-the-dog senario and not replenishing them, and simultaneously strengthing our enemies such as China and the Islamist. As you know, there are many more examples of each case.
As far as a poll showing 70% of those polled are against the war, I am certain it is a typical liberal poll that not only carefully selects the target audience to be polled but also phrases the question(s) in a way to get the desired answer. It is amazing they failed to get the other 30% to agree.
Oh, I'm sorry, their forty year plan to corrupt American culture, weaken education, and destroy our defense and intelligence forces has had great success. It's time all leftists were exposed and the bums thrown out. 2002 was a great start. Throw the rest out in 2004.
I remember the first time I ever heard of her. I subscribed to TV Guide at the time and was reading about new show descriptions. There was a Bloodworth/Thomasson show that starred Markie Post as "Georgie" (It might have been "Hearts Afire) and the article explained how her character was based on Georgie Ann Geyer, and it went on to say, famed for the rumor that she once slept with Castro. I am not kidding. I have always remembered this. Not only that, the way it was written we readers were clearly supposed to think this was a very hip and cool thing to have done. I am pretty sure it was late eighties before I'd ever heard of clinton.
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.