posted on August 13, 2005 10:41:03 AM new
He (Bush) said he was working on a diplomatic solution, but was sceptical that one could be found.
How long before he gives Iran a 48 hour deadline?
Let's see the troops currently in Iraq will then be moved to Iran so Bush can say he has pulled the troops out of Iraq like he had promised.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on August 13, 2005 11:51:54 AM newDo you, logan, support the Iranians being allowed BY THE WORLD to have nuclear weapons with their history?
Yes I do. I don't believe the US should the be the POLICEMAN of the world.
So Linda. I suppose no other country should have the power to make or posses nuclear weapons.
Now Linda, which country has actually released nuclear weapons on other countries. Yes it was the United States. Do you think the United States should have nuclear weapons GIVEN THEIR HISTORY OF USING THEM? Did you forget about that.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on August 13, 2005 11:58:58 AM new
At least you're honest, logan, and have also proven why I see you as being un-American. You are against your own countries polities in regards to Iran. You side with our enemies and say they should have nuclear weapons.
You, sir, are in a tiny minority of American's who feel this way. That statement is even against what most, who represent us in Congress, in the democratic party feel. Even THEY don't hold your view.
So don't ever say I have no reason to call some of your postings un-American.....because they ARE.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 13, 2005 12:25:34 PM new
Bookends
Why the base--and some outside it--are standing by President Bush.
Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
In New York right now the sun is soft, not searing; the humidity just high enough that you feel like you're walking through pleasantly warm gelatin as you walk along the streets. A good time for a general political overview, I say. Let's start with the Bushes.
President Bush is under pressure from various parts of his constituency, but there is little sign he's noticed. Among conservatives there is rising frustration over immigration, government spending and the gradual, slow-mo, day-by-day redefining of what modern conservatism is and what the Republican Party stands for that has taken place during the Bush presidency. That is in fact the big, largely unspoken fact of the Bush presidency.
This will be argued over and may be at least partially resolved in 2007 and 2008, as individual Republicans choose which Republican contenders for the presidency to back. It will be an orderly process, because Republicans are orderly people. But if Republicans lose the presidency in 2008, things will get less polite. There will be an intraparty fight over what to do about America's borders, what to do about dramatically rising spending, what to do about the growth of government, how or if to lower deficits, what path to take on taxes, where we are going in foreign affairs. That's how Republicans will spend the Hillary Clinton years if we get the Hillary Clinton years: in a great big donnybrook.
But while Republicans are on the verge of a great struggle, the president continues to be supported and appreciated among the Republican base. I have talked to all kinds of Republicans this summer, and for all their questioning, the base is his.
How could this be? How could the reason for a coming party battle--George W. Bush himself--be the continuing object of unified party support?
There are many reasons. In a 50-50 nation, you back your guy. Tepid support won't do. If it weren't for Mr. Bush you'd have John Kerry, or some other avatar of a party led by a man, Howard Dean, who now freely admits his party doesn't know what it stands for. Or rather, as he puts it, the Democratic Party needs "a message." Well yes. They also need clear belief, a known philosophy, and a reason for being.
At any rate, this is no time for ambivalence, confusion and weak national leadership. Mr. Bush is a vivid figure who summons vivid reactions. Republicans may not always agree with his decisions, but they think they understand his thinking: In a time of high stakes and war you don't spend your political capital on secondary items like spending, which can always be revisited.
As for immigration, Mr. Bush and Karl Rove are not up against a tougher Democratic Party. They believe what Democratic political professionals believe: that he who owns the Latino vote owns the future. Washington's bipartisan establishment attitude toward immigration is: Don't upset Mexican-Americans. This is a dangerous game. It only works as long as it works. If a group of young Arab terrorists crosses the border illegally and takes out Chicago with a suitcase bomb, Mexican-Americans will be exactly as angry as every other American group, and will vote to fire those in power.
Mr. Bush as a person, as an individual, is as attractive to Republicans as he is unattractive to Democrats. Republicans like him because he seems like a normal guy--business, family, sports, Top 40 on the iPod. Democrats hate him for this--how common, how plebian; he'd have more elevated tastes if he were a more elevated man. Republicans like him for the one way in which he is obviously extraordinary: When he says it he means it, and if he promises it he'll do it. Democrats see this as evidence of derangement: He doesn't change his mind because he thinks he's God's other son, and in any case he can't think clearly enough to change his mind. Republicans see it more this way: As a West Point official said to me in passing, "He's got two of 'em."
Democrats try to tag Mr. Bush as lazy, but that will never work. He seems like an activist who's actively engaged. Every time cable news does a "Bush Is on Vacation in Crawford" headline they're forced to follow it with a clip of the speech Mr. Bush just made. In any case liberals are always trying to call Republican presidents lazy. They did it with Eisenhower and Reagan too. It never helps the liberal cause. They don't know half the country would be relieved to have a lazy president as he'd do less and make us less nervous.
And there is Iraq. Republicans on the ground do not believe Mr. Bush & Co. lied to get us into war. They believe he had reason to believe what he believed, and to move. Saddam had had weapons of mass destruction and used them on the Kurds. It wasn't a huge leap to think he still had them, and would use them again. In any case the die is cast. Republicans are practical. They will continue to back Iraq as long as they think victory (the creation of a stable, nonterrorist Iraqi government) is achievable. If they come to think it's not, they'll peel off until they're gone.
But I think Mr. Bush's continued popularity with his base, and actually with a lot of Americans who don't quite say this to themselves, is the bookend effect.
In the national imagination Mr. Bush's presidency started on the day of 9/11/01. After a few unsure hours he did what he had to do. I'm a loving man but I've got a job to do. . . . I can hear you, and soon the people who knocked down these buildings will hear you. . . . Al Qaeda is to terrorism what the Mafia is to organized crime.
We've been though a lot since then--code red and code orange, war and rumors of war, Homeland Security, reports of hidden terror cells, attacks on Spain and London. And yet--the other bookend: For all the fear and even terror of those days four years ago, for all the reports of Mideastern-looking men videotaping structures across America, for all the talk of plastic sheeting and fill-the-house-with-enough-water-for-three-months--for all that, America has not been attacked on its soil again. We have not been airplaned, nuked, bio'd or suitcase bombed.
That's the otherbook end. It started with terror and has ended with no-terror-since.
That's a big reason his base is still with him, and that's why a lot of Americans, when you come right down to it, are with him.
Those are the bookends. And the great question of course is: Will the second bookend hold? Every fact of our domestic political future rests on the answer to that.
A word on Mrs. Bush. Everyone knows she is popular and admired, but I don't think it's been sufficiently noted that Laura Bush, in almost five years as first lady, has never made a mistake. She has not struck a false note or made a single misstep. This is remarkable. And our country has never seen anything like it.
Most first ladies five years in have made themselves look foolish at some point, or have been made to look foolish. Jackie Kennedy was the focus of sniping over her taste for luxury and long vacations, and was not loved until she was a widow. Lady Bird Johnson, with her well meaning, slightly clueless earnestness, was regularly lampooned. I remember someone doing an imitation of her in which she took the stage and introduced "My two semi-beautiful daughters." No one much liked the tightly wound Rosalyn Carter, and no one much disliked her. Nancy Reagan was reviled as a Hollywood airhead until she was reviled as a secret Machiavellian. Hillary Clinton was hated in many corners, and not only because she chose to interpret her husband's election to the presidency as her elevation to a co-presidency. That was only part of it. When they made fun of her changing hairstyles it was because she seemed not to be in search of a good look but trying on new blond helmets in which to grimly wade forward like Brunhilde.
Even Barbara Bush, probably the most liked of recent first ladies, got tagged as the Gray Fox or the Velvet Hammer. She was called tough as a boot and tagged as sharp-tongued. But no one has ever laid a glove on Laura. It is as if she were born to be first lady--easygoing, gently humorous, demure, ladylike. It takes enormous reserves of emotional discipline to sustain graciousness, to do the job right, to so disarm the press with what must be called, vulgarly but inescapably, natural class.
She has never embarrassed our country. Of how many leaders or their spouses can that be said?
Well done. Well and amazingly done. Someone should do a monograph on what it is she did and how it is she did it. And it should of course be noted that she is another reason for her husband's popularity with his base, and outside of it, too.
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper." --Robert E. Lee
posted on August 13, 2005 12:36:28 PM newYou are against your own countries polities in regards to Iran. You side with our enemies and say they should have nuclear weapons.
Spoken like a true dictator. You still don't get it Linda do you. Being American does not mean I need to bow down and support every thing this country does or its policies. I guess you are learning some things from Saddam's way of running a government.
Every country should have the right to defend itself. If Iran believes it needs nuclear weapons to defend itself against radical countries, then they should have the right to build them as part of their defense program. Do I believe they should build them as first strike weapon, no.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on August 13, 2005 12:48:38 PM new
I can't agree with you Logan. Iran should not have nuclear weapons or any other womd. You can't get much more radical than Iran, imo.
posted on August 13, 2005 12:52:59 PM new
KD,
I know we will not agree on everything, but I don't feel the US should be the only country that has them. I also feel the US shouldn't be telling other countries what they should or should not be doing. It is this kind of mentality that fuels the hatred of the US around the world.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on August 13, 2005 12:56:30 PM new
Sorry Logan, I was going to edit my post and say that I agree with you that the U.S. shouldn't be the country that sets all the rules by deeming who should and shouldn't have nuclear weapons.
posted on August 13, 2005 01:29:26 PM new
I think we should be the ONLY country in the world to have nuclear weapons, think of how much nice everyone would be.
posted on August 13, 2005 02:10:29 PM new
I've always loved her, bear. She's slow to get angry or upset and always writes in such a clear fashion - while speaking the truth.
"There are many reasons. In a 50-50 nation, you back your guy. Tepid support won't do. If it weren't for Mr. Bush you'd have John Kerry, or some other avatar of a party led by a man, Howard Dean, who now freely admits his party doesn't know what it stands for. Or rather, as he puts it, the Democratic Party needs "a message." Well yes. They also need clear belief, a known philosophy, and a reason for being. LOL nail hit, directly on it's head.
----------------------
clueless...forever cluesless...are those who think we are the ONLY country who has these weapons. no wonder the dem party is in such bad shape.....geeze.
Never heard of the International agreement between country's who don't support letting terrorists countries obtain nuclear weapons, huh? shame on you....get informed....
At any rate, this is no time for ambivalence, confusion and weak national leadership.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 13, 2005 02:20:49 PM new
logan - I'll try one more time to point out a big difference that you're just not grasping....are you slow?
A dictator like saddam would have cut your tongue out, raped your sister and hung her head on your doorknob... for speaking out against him or his policies.
While here in America I wouldn't silence you when you post your un-American statements....but I too have the right to speak out by stating MY opinion of you being anti-American policy.
Can't you STILL see any difference. One doesn't allow free speech at all....the other allows it and totally disagrees with it. Calling it exactly what it is....anti-Americanism.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 13, 2005 02:23:51 PM new
Hey Logan I see Linda_K said to you.
"logan - ONCE AGAIN you sadly show your lack of knowledge about the situation."
Join the list of uninformed because Linda_K's list of uninformed is a long one.
Her list of the informed is very short like only Linda_K.
I am glad while working I check in here a couple times a day. I get my laughs that way. Linda_K and dblfogger have been very funny lately.
Bush already used up all his political war power in Congress by being a LIAR OVER AND OVER. Most Countries that were once our Allies are not longer helping us out. Iran knows all this and are now thumbing their noses at BUSH.
posted on August 13, 2005 02:28:03 PM new
oh peepa.....you are SO VERY WRONG AGAIN.....
we have a ton of support on this Iranian nuclear weapons issue.
But...there you go again....just like so many of the misinformed dems/liberals here....stating mistruths because they don't have a clue as to what's really going on in the 'real' world.
sad state of affairs....for so many in the dem party.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 13, 2005 02:31:51 PM newA dictator like saddam would have cut your tongue out,
While here in America I wouldn't silence you
So someone fancies herself to be a leader who has the same power Saddam did? Like she would ever be in the position to have the power to silence logansdad? Hahahahaha.......
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper." --Robert E. Lee
posted on August 13, 2005 02:49:53 PM new
LOL....I beginning to believe that more and more peepa, especially when I read all these totally incorrect statements you dems have been making lately.
YOUR last one was on jobs...remember? Boy were you wrong again..
---------------------
kiara - Your poor brain is just malfunctioning once again. I can't help you...you are, imo, WAY beyond any help from anyone. It's a permanent problem....unlikely to find a solution to help you with your 'twisting' what's said problems vs. reality.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 13, 2005 07:12:18 PM new
Wrong again Linda_K. Jobs yes but good jobs no. Make sure you keep posting your good news so you can get shot down again and again. Its great fun to watch.
posted on August 13, 2005 08:12:38 PM newWhile here in America I wouldn't silence you when you post your un-American statements....but I too have the right to speak out by stating MY opinion of you being anti-American policy.
Linda please show me where the Constitution of the United States or any other document say every American must agree with the policies and views of it law makers. Please show me that. Because unless it does, I can speak out against the views and policies of this country without being called Un-American or being labled as Anti-American. MY VIEWS ARE PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
You Linda are trashing everything our Founding Fathers worked so hard to establish when they wrote the Constitution. You are the one that is trying to take away our freedoms.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on August 13, 2005 08:20:22 PM newAt least you're honest, logan, and have also proven why I see you as being un-American. You are against your own countries polities in regards to Iran. You side with our enemies and say they should have nuclear weapons.
The dictator has spoken once again. Every citizen must bow down before the ruler or they are being labeled as siding with the enemy.
Please explain how I am aiding the enemy Linda just because I don't agree with some of the policies of this government. More of that Republican brainwashing.
So Linda what countries should have the ability to posses nuclear weapons. I know you wouldn't want any violent country to posess them. But yet the US has used them on other countries. The US has invaded another country without provocation.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on August 13, 2005 08:24:46 PM new
LOL...where in the Constitution....
boy you are really off the edge.
I'll try another way since you're ARE REALLY slow in getting this.
Yes, you can say whatever you want to.....well almost whatever you want to...within the law.
AND.....this is the part YOU'RE not getting
SO CAN I. I can say anything I wish to say...including calling you anti/un-American because that's the way I see your posts. You have just stated above you are AGAINST American foreign policy that has been, in this case, established for years and years by both dems and republicans and independents.
For some reason, logan, you see to be under the impression that you are free to say what you wish.....but I am not.
Guess what? That's wrong. Totally wrong.
Got it now? If not....there is just NO hope of getting through to you.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
Boy were you wrong again..