Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Lacking any substantive argument, Libruls are confronted with but two possible attitudes if they are to participate in political disscussions; they can acknowledge reality and repudiate their own positions, or they can troll.

God, I love the sight of Libruls whining on the internet - it reads like ... like VICTORY! (apologies to Robert Duval)

It is true that Europe's economy is in a mess, or at least important parts of it like Germany, France and Italy. But the Centre for European Reform, a hugely respected think-tank on EU affairs, recently wrote that it would be wrong to write off the Lisbon Agenda. In a table of heroes and villains compiled for its annual Lisbon review, the CER states that almost all EU members have "passed a raft of measures" many tackling labour market and pensions reform.

Far from showing that deregulation is the only answer (although it is an important one) the review describes the state-coddled Scandinavians as Europe's most dynamic: Sweden tops the ranking followed by Denmark and Finland! The other strong performers are Austria, the Netherlands, Britain and Ireland with many new members rapidly rising up the chart. Even the supposed laggards like Germany and France are making headway, the former on reform of its labour laws, the latter by revamping its pensions system.
Source

As to Tico's "blatham's cut and pastes"...there's no small irony in the fellow's charge given that I paste in - with rare exception - a minimal portion of any link (the reader may choose to go deeper if he has curiosity or courage) whereas Tico's fondness is to paste entire columns from, pretty much exclusively, townhall and the Weekly Standard.

And as to 'polite requests'...several years ago I sent a letter to the President politely requesting he do no initiate a war which would mutiliate so many thousands of women and children. Had he been polite, I too would be.

BUSH GETS IT RIGHT

Last night President Bush spoke for just under a half hour to the soldiers gathered at Fort Bragg, North Carolina and explained why the United States of America is not going to cut and run out of Iraq. Naturally, Democrats came unhinged at Bush's confident assessment of how things were going in Iraq. Among the points the president made:

* The war in Iraq is a vital front in the war on terror that began on September 11, 2001. Any mention of 9/11 in the same sentence as Iraq sends Democrats into a state of hyperventilation. The facts are the facts: Saddam Hussein supported terrorism, sheltered terrorists, had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction and would have sold those weapons to terrorists.
* We are not going to cut and run. The United States invaded Iraq, liberated that country and has promised to stay until the job is done. The left, in an attempt to relive their Vietnam war protest days, would like us to just pull out and Zarqawi and his boys take over Baghdad.
* There will be no announced pull-out date. For some reason, Democrats and a few Republicans think we should leave Iraq on a date certain. This would be the worst possible strategy for the reasons Bush mentioned last night. The biggest reason is that the Islamic terrorists would just wait until we left, then take over. And take over they would. I think it's fair to say that any person who states that we should set a date for our withdrawal from Iraq is either (a) as dumb as a load of bricks; or, (b) actually desirous of seeing the U.S. suffer a defeat in Iraq.

The Poodle was on Larry King Live last night complaining that Bush said fighting terrorism was now the "third rationale" for invading Iraq. If he would put down his 'baby killers go home' sign from the 1960's long enough, he would realize that we're long past the point of talking about the invasion. That was over two years ago. What we're dealing with now is establishing a free and democratic Iraq (which we have done,) writing a new Constitution and democratically electing new leaders (we're almost there,) and training security forces so they can take over when we leave (a work in progress.) By any measure, we're succeeding in Iraq.

The job in Iraq takes as long as it takes. The Islamic killers won't let up, and neither should we. There is only one choice here and that is to stay the course and get it done.

THIS IS AN OBJECTIVE INTERVIEW?

I heard a TV news anchor this morning questioning a Republican Congressman Robin Hayes about the president's speech and our efforts in Iraq. Here are some of the questions the anchor asked Hayes:

"One of our listeners wrote to say that Bush should really be making this speech at Arlington National Cemetery, Not at Fort Bragg. Was it appropriate for President Bush to speak there?"

What? Did a journalist actually ask a politician whether or not it was appropriate for the President of the United States to make a speech about a war before the very people who are fighting that war? The very people who are expected to put their lives on the line in that war? Did I really hear that? [Yes ... and sounds an awful lot like some on A2K, doesn't it?]

"Isn't he in part using Ft. Bragg as an appropriate backdrop to cheerlead the war in Iraq?"

Oh ... Arlington National Cemetery wouldn't be a backdrop? And stating the reasons we're at war is "cheerleading?" "Gimme a W! Gimme an A! Gimme an R!" Gimme a break.

"President Bush in his speech said that we're there to fight terrorists, but he failed to explain how a war to remove a dictator who was bent on using nuclear weapons has turned into a fight against Muslim militants. Doesn't he owe us an explanation?"

It's been explained, over and over again. That dictator was, himself, a Muslim militant with access to massive destructive power. Doesn't a news anchor owe us a little more intellectual diligence?

"But there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to Al Qaeda."

Sorry ... factually wrong. That evidence does exist. The 911 Commission itself reported on efforts by Saddam Hussein to make contact with Al Qaeda for the purpose of providing support and training. At least Congressman Hayes had the guts to say "Ma'am, I'm sorry, but you're mistaken."

"I know of no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda, and also there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

Wrong, Wrong. Wrong. How can she say that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What in the hell did Saddam use to gas hundreds of thousands of his own people? Cheese Whiz? What about those implements used in the creation of nuclear weapons that were found buried in the back yard of one of Saddam's nuclear scientists? That's not evidence found in Iraq? What about the artillery shells containing sarin gas? That's not evidence? What about the documents detailing Saddam's weapons program? Not evidence? What about the statements from Saddam's scientists that they were ready to reinstitute their weapons program the very moment that UN sanctions were lifted and the inspectors were gone. Not evidence?

It was an amazing segment. Both a Republican and Democratic congressman were interviewed in this segment, but the argumentative interview style was saved for the Republican. The Democrats was not challenged .. not once. Remember, though ... there is no bias in the media.

HOW THE D-DAY INVASION
WOULD BE REPORTED BY TODAY'S PRESS

NORMANDY, FRANCE (June 6, 1944) Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more were wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated, and that reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason, "said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler." The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, thus threatening the species with extinction. A representative of Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate greed." Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded, said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to 'big beer'," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune." Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret weapon -- a so-called "atomic bomb". Such a weapon could produce casualties on a scale never seen before, and cause environmental damage that could last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany. Shortly after the invasion began, reports surfaced that German prisoners had been abused by American soldiers. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at their so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored, but so far this remains unproven. Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion, and French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it up."

People
Ethnic groups: Indigenous Swedes, ethnic Finns, ethnic Lapps.
Immigrants: Finns, Bosnians, Iranians, Norwegians, Danes, Hungarians, Iraqis, and Turks.

PEOPLE
Sweden has one of the world's highest life expectancies and one of the lowest birth rates. The country counts at least 17,000 Sami among its population. About one fifth of Sweden's population are immigrants or have at least one foreign-born parent. The largest immigrant groups are from Finland, Serbia-Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iran, Iraq, Norway, Denmark, Hungary, Turkey, and Poland. This reflects the Nordic immigration, earlier periods of labor immigration, and later decades of refugee and family reunification immigration.

Let me be sure I have this straight: The lack of response from President Bush to a letter you sent him several years ago is your justification for being rude today?

tico

Quote:

Let me be sure I have this straight: The lack of response from President Bush to a letter you sent him several years ago is your justification for being rude today?

His lack of response was fine. Being directly and personally responsible for the mutiliations and deaths of thousands of innocents (though I do admit that the number of innocents killed as a consequence of his initiated war is tens to hundreds more than were killed in 9/11, he wins the red ribbon for killing innocents) changes my notion of 'rude' a tad.

I don't expect many postings.

on 11/3/04, Ticomaya wrote:

I don't expect many postings.

237 pages later...

I blame the trolls.

Ticomaya wrote:

I blame the trolls.

Sorta smacks of projection - blame-shifting - as a means of avoiding acknowledgement of personal responsibility :wink:

Walter--

The Finnish Diary that you were reading is from the same site I got my information.

I used to imagine Sweden, Norway, et al were so superior. They stay out of global tangles, they keep to themselves, you hardly hear a peep out of them. I thought it was because they were so incredibly disciplined. Seems now, it's because they can't stand other people.

Why haven't any blacks tried Australia out? What about this drive to mistreat Asians in Australia so they'll leave and dissuade others from immigrating?

Region Philbis wrote:

on 11/3/04, Ticomaya wrote:

I don't expect many postings.

237 pages later...

I blame the trolls.

Nimh-- So, Australia is a black-free zone soley due to the absence of slavery? That is your assertion?

Australia has a lot of Asians - 7% is not a low number for a population born in recent immigration. It compares roughly with the number of Hispanics in the US (9%).