PDA

View Full Version : Yes, It's All Bush's Fault



thedrifter
03-04-05, 06:53 AM
Yes, It's All Bush's Fault

March 3, 2005



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Joe Mariani
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more than three years, the Left has characterised the War on Terror, and especially the liberation of Iraq, as "Bush's War." They've also referred to Iraq as "Bush's Adventure," "Bush's Crusade" and "Bush's Folly." They were calling it "Bush's Hastily Planned, Poorly Realised and Badly Executed Diversion From the 'Real' War," but pretty much stopped when they realised that it wouldn't all fit on a Volvo-sized bumper sticker. Liberals don't understand the strategy of defeating terrorism by changing the totalitarian governments that support it. They don't get the concept that freedom reduces frustration, which in turn reduces the ability of terrorist groups to recruit. They refuse to acknowledge that Congress voted the Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Iraq into law. They insist that the war was all Bush's idea (when they don't consider him a puppet, that is), and that every setback and problem is all Bush's fault.

Well, that's just fine with me. Let's establish that in plain English: President Bush is solely responsible for sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter decision made in spite of a corrupt United Nations and a compromised France, Russia and China. Therefore, he should be considered responsible for all the results of his decision -- the positive as well as the negative. So far, it's all been about the negative.

How many countries have been changed for the better by the War on Terror? Afghanistan has become a democracy in which women vote and hold positions of power, and has even sent female athletes to the Olympics for the first time in history. In Pakistan, Pevez Musharraf has handed the government over to civil rule but maintains his permanent position as president. However, Pakistan has been a staunch ally, and provided us with critical information by exposing the activities of Abdul Qadeer Khan. Khan supplied nuclear weapons related technologies, equipment, and know-how to Iran, North Korea, and Libya, and attempted to do the same with Syria and Iraq. Freeing Afghanistan (especially Afghan women), revealing the corruption in the UN and discovering Khan's activities, none of which would have happened without the War on Terror, must therefore be all Bush's fault.

In the Middle East, the central cesspool of terrorism, things have also changed dramatically. While the death of terrorist leader Yasser Arafat was not part of the War on Terror, forcing him to give up some power to a Prime Minister was... and this led to free Palestinian elections upon his death. The liberation of Iraq led to the first truly free democratic elections in that country, which the naysaying Left swore would never, could never happen. Eight million Iraqis defied the death threats of terrorists (and the dour predictions of Liberals) to cast their votes as the rest of the region watched. Elections in Iraq, elections in Palestine... and suddenly, the Lebanese people took to the streets in protest. After the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, they demanded the end of Syrian occupation of Lebanon. The Syria-backed government spontaneously resigned, paving the way for elections. The fact that it happened without direct action on our part shows that democracy is developing its own momentum in the Middle East. And since Iraqi elections were the catalyst, that's all Bush's fault, too.

Now, inspired by the Lebanese protests, the Syrian people are beginning to demand a greater voice in their government. Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt, has announced that the next election will include opposition candidates for the first time, although candidates must be approved by Parliament. Saudi Arabia, which just had its first elections at the municipal level, has announced that women will be allowed to vote in the next local elections. Women will also be allowed to work in the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Baby steps, to be sure... but steps in the right direction.

Whose "interference" in the Middle East is responsible for these changes? The Left certainly didn't want the liberation of Iraq to take place. Senator John Kerry, representing the Democratic party in the 2004 election, repeatedly called Iraq "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time." President Bush has been labeled a warmongering cowboy for sending troops to Iraq. If the blame for Iraq is laid at his feet, then the credit must go with it... and if he has earned the label "cowboy," then also "liberator."

Joe Mariani

Ellie

jo1753
03-04-05, 12:53 PM
I guess I have more questions then answers on this topic.......

ONE Q 4 anyone.........just how much is this war going to cost these kids who are over fighting right now..........NO i'm not just or simply asking how many will be killed........H*ll no one can answer that one at this point.

Inseted............... In light of the cut-backs that are about to be set into motion........ BY You-know-who....... Mr. "liberator." and his crew... How many of these kids are going to wake up 3-6-15- yrs later......to find hey.........wheres the VA system alot of the hospitals that used to be are no longer.

And after keeping track of several wounded or killed troops. And the way their families are being jerked around........H*ll one was ran over..........and just because this person wasn't killed directly by the ENEMY........his family is S.O.L.

The travel pay for us vets.............looks like if someone and crew has there way.........thats down the S*ITTER also.

Hell I could go on and on...........Some one please tell me......when Mr. someone and crew is going to be a "liberator/s." for us who've already given to this great nation.

Because if they have there way...........these kids MIGHT come back to a hand share and a swift kick in the A**.

Just in the state I live........they want to close down 3 Va centers.
People....do the math here...........ruffly 50 times 3 H*ll lets say 50 times 2...........we don't have enough of them now.

And it's only going to get worse..........with the aging Nam vets and now these young people coming back.

I'm not trying to take away one thing from these brave young people fighting now.............But lets face it.........Us vets ultimately
will be paying once again for this as well.

Once the powers-that-be........start trying to figure out......we've over-loaded the budget and now we have to take away from WHATEVER we can to fix it the problem. SEMPER-FI

HardJedi
03-05-05, 06:48 AM
ok, so lets do away with unemployent and welfare. Sorry, but I am a bit of a Social Darwinist. How many MILLIONS a year would THAT free up?

ivalis
03-05-05, 08:13 AM
unemployment is funded by the states, woudn't save a penny. welfare as most picture it was eliminated during the Clinton administration.

if ya want to save some big bucks get rid of agricultural subsidies, missle systems that don't work, import export bank, and a submarine or two.

hrscowboy
03-05-05, 09:06 AM
I would like to know what agricultural subsidies your talking about ivalis?? as far as missle systems that dont work get rid of them.

ivalis
03-05-05, 10:04 AM
cotton subsidies paid about 12.5 billion from 1999-2003. there are similar subsidies for corn, soybeans, milk.

federal water projects provide artificially cheap (subsidized) water to farmers in much of the arid southwest.

while tecnically there is no subsidy for sugar, import restrictions keep the price artificially high (in the nickle a pound range, which is a ton of money when ya consider the sugar use in this country).

tarriffs keep the price of lumber high. the gov't builds roads in the national forests & other federally owned land in order that lumber can be sold at a loss (that's a puzzler too).

i find it toubling that the argument for free trade which suggests that the consumer is enjoying lower prices (which they are) does not apply to food stuffs.

jo1753
03-05-05, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by ivalis
cotton subsidies paid about 12.5 billion from 1999-2003. there are similar subsidies for corn, soybeans, milk.

federal water projects provide artificially cheap (subsidized) water to farmers in much of the arid southwest.

while tecnically there is no subsidy for sugar, import restrictions keep the price artificially high (in the nickle a pound range, which is a ton of money when ya consider the sugar use in this country).

tarriffs keep the price of lumber high. the gov't builds roads in the national forests & other federally owned land in order that lumber can be sold at a loss (that's a puzzler too).

i find it toubling that the argument for free trade which suggests that the consumer is enjoying lower prices (which they are) does not apply to food stuffs.

Ya....well what about........Georgie " The Liberator " ?????????
Liberating......the vetrans administration.....instead of fleecing it...

:banana:
Semper-Fi

God bless the Corps