igloo Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 Guess Which Candidate Our Enemies Want to Lose in 2004? BY JAMES LILEKSc.2004 Newhouse News Service \ More stories by James Lileks Let's just be blunt: The North Koreans would love to see John Kerry win the election. The mullahs of Iran would love it. The Syrian Ba'athists would sigh with relief. Every enemy of America would take great satisfaction if the electorate rejects the Bush doctrine and scuttles back to hide under the U.N. Security Council's table. It's a hard question, but the right one: Which candidate does our enemy want to lose? George W. Bush.And some conservatives will be happy to help, it seems.Woe and gloom have befallen some on the right. Bush has failed to act according to The Reagan Ideal.The actual Reagan may have issued an amnesty for illegals, but the Ideal Reagan would have done no such thing. So unless Bush packs freight cars full of gardeners and dishwashers and dumps them off at the Mexican border, some voters will just sit this one out.The Ideal Reagan would have eliminated the National Endowment for the Arts; the actual Reagan proposed a $1 million increase in his final budget. But Bush increased NEA funding -- perhaps an attempt to placate people who wouldn't vote for him if he showed up in performance with Karen Finley and a can of Hershey's syrup. So angry conservatives might just sit this one out.And if a Democrat takes office, and the Michael Moores and Rob Reiners and Martin Sheens crowd the airwaves on Nov. 3 to shout their howls of vindication? If the inevitable renaissance of Iraq happens on Kerry's watch, and the economy truly picks up steam in the first few years before the business cycle and Kerry's tax hikes kick in? If emboldened Islamist terrorists smell blood and strike again? Fine. Maybe the next Republican president will do everything they want.Oh, sure, Bush is fine on the foreign affairs stuff, and yes, there's a partial-birth abortion law, and the tax cuts were nice, and come to think of it, Sept. 11 wasn't followed by blow after blow after blow, for some reason. The nation endures, at least at press time. But that's hardly enough. Where's that bill requiring 60-foot Ten Commandments monuments in every capitol rotunda? Let Kerry win. Teach the GOP a lesson, it will.So both sides have elements that seem unserious about the defining issue of the day: the war. But the right's malcontents snipe from humid redoubts of Internet message boards. The left's biggest spokesmen are parading their delusions.No less than Al Gore has practically accused the president of treason. In a Feb. 8 speech in Tennessee, Gore went on an alarming rant, performed almost in an arr-matey pirate voice. "He betrayed this country!" Gore bellowed. "He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."We've been manipulated into a state of fear, Gore shouted. Really. Which administration spent most of 1998 warning us about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, only to launch some missiles and walk away? Gore saw all the intel on WMDs. Gore was part of an administration that pushed for regime change because it viewed Saddam, correctly, as a danger to the region and to America. Does Gore think we don't remember everything Democrats said about Saddam and WMDs, when they felt responsible for the nation?As for that state of fear, well, anyone out there feel afraid of Saddam today? Didn't think so.Gore should give this speech at the convention. Why not? Why not stand up and give vent to all the poisons hatching in the muck? Why not tell America that Bush lied about everything, that he took the country to war for reasons he knew would be discredited, just so Halliburton could make another buck or two? It's what they seem to believe, after all. The delusions of their fringe have become articles of faith for the mainstream. Bush was AWOL! Bush knew! Bush lied! Bush never flosses! Skull and Bones! Plastic turkey!At least we'll have a clear choice in November. Bush is serious about the war. The Democrats are serious about the war against Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattbateman Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 i posted this question beforewhich candidate would anyone wishing harm on the US want to win??????can you honestly answer that and say bush???no i didnt think sowe should start a poll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 Originally posted by pattbateman i posted this question beforewhich candidate would anyone wishing harm on the US want to win??????can you honestly answer that and say bush???no i didnt think sowe should start a poll u should go to the Miami board...seems that many are in favor of anyone BUT Bush... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeygk Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 Originally posted by mrmatas2277 u should go to the Miami board...seems that many are in favor of anyone BUT Bush... I favor ANYONE over Bush b/c I am not willing to sacrifice my civil liberties to fight a war on Terrorism. Our current administration is chipping away at the very heart of what we are fighting to protect.....there has to be another way. "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Ben Franklin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 Originally posted by joeygk I favor ANYONE over Bush b/c I am not willing to sacrifice my civil liberties to fight a war on Terrorism. Our current administration is chipping away at the very heart of what we are fighting to protect.....there has to be another way. "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Ben Franklin Name one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattbateman Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 please. name another way??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeygk Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 It's not my job to name another way, I'm not in politics. But that doesn't mean I should support an administration who cursory dismisses constitutionally protected freedoms ----- once you start to side step the rules, there is no going back.I actually supported George W. Bush (fiscally), and even the war in Iraq, but I just feel that he and Ashcroft have superseded constitutional boundaries and created an impermissible government intrusion under the guise of "fighting terrorism." I'm sorry but I went to a very liberal law school and hold up civil liberties ABOVE ALL ELSE. GW is going to get slammed by the Court this summer over denying american citizens access to counsel by classifying them as "enemy combatants." Even Renquist won't be able to scoot around this one!!!!!!!!!!! GW is going to take a hit, and even his administration knows it, that's why they were lobbying the court to put off hearing the case until after the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 thats what i like about Joey...he can argue the way its meant to be done....no propaganda from the left or the right...just straight talk.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattbateman Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 i like coming from the left and the right everything else is boring!!!!i argue the straight talk in PS class Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamiroguy1 Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 Seems to me, that 'terrorists' are emboldened more by Bush. He says, "bring it on!!" and the terrorists say, "it's already been brought-en"How many 'terrorists' are we creating by killing 11,000 innoncent Iraqis? 'Terrorists' are stronger than ever...thanks to Bush. So who do our enemies want to win the 2004 election? Our enemies want Bush for another 4 more years. He didn't quite finish bringing on the apocolypse and there still are some innocent people he needs to waste before he leaves office.Was that too much propaganda? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattbateman Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 so you are HONESTLY telling me that if you sat down with terrorist, and asked them, you think they would say: yeah bring on bush 4 more years!!!!you have to have more common sense then that douche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 Originally posted by pattbateman i like coming from the left and the right everything else is boring!!!!i argue the straight talk in PS class spanish word of the day: masoquista Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 Originally posted by jamiroguy1 'Terrorists' are stronger than ever...thanks to Bush. some stuff i agree with ya...but not this...dont worry, i will still buy ya a drink at WMC:tongue: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattbateman Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 masochism??????what does that have to do with anything??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 Originally posted by pattbateman masochism?????? b/c u dont like "straight talk" in CP..instead u like to get worked up on left and right propaganda... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattbateman Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 isnt this what masochism means???The deriving of sexual gratification, or the tendency to derive sexual gratification, from being physically or emotionally abused. The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from being humiliated or mistreated, either by another or by oneself. A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted February 18 Report Share Posted February 18 Originally posted by joeygk It's not my job to name another way, I'm not in politics. But that doesn't mean I should support an administration who cursory dismisses constitutionally protected freedoms ----- once you start to side step the rules, there is no going back. Huh? You mean you went to law school and you're complaining about the infringment on ncivil liberties and can't cite one example in the law that was written or an incident due to enforcing it and your excuse is"Im not in Politics" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted February 18 Report Share Posted February 18 Originally posted by pattbateman A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences. ok..i thought we agreed that u like hearing left and right propaganda and getting "worked" (stressed...heated....pissed off) up? dude...forget it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeygk Posted February 18 Report Share Posted February 18 Originally posted by mr mahs Huh? You mean you went to law school and you're complaining about the infringment on ncivil liberties and can't cite one example in the law that was written or an incident due to enforcing it and your excuse is"Im not in Politics" I did cite an example in my second post regarding 'enemy combatants' - if you bothered to read it. My biggest problem comes about from the administrations championing of the Patriot Act. I work for the legal dept of a major international investment firm working on government regulatory and compliance issues --- I work w/ the Patriot Act everyday ---- the long term effects are going to be hard felt across the board b/c many of the principles are far too overreaching & do not afford many of the people being investigated proper notice of governmental action. Result = due process violations. Furthermore, I hold Bush responsible for John Ashcroft - who authorized DOJ officials to monitor the discussions that attorneys have with clients who are in federal custody, helped draft the presidential order creating secret military trials which bypasses the US court system and contains significant due process violations, continued issuance of "sneak & peak warrants," and I could go on but I having a meeting in 15 minutes.......... Jesse - this board is fun, when did you become the moderator? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.