What Americans MUST Know About the Incoming Senate Intelligence Chairman
So you think the Left fringe of the Democratic Party is part of the loyal opposition? Hardly! ChronWatch clearly documents how the Democratic fringe did everything it could to disable the success of President Bush’s execution of the War on Terror. Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democrat from West Virginia, just after 9/11 made it his mission to inform nations surrounding Iraq that President Bush intended to invade Iraq. Rockefeller included Syria on this mission, a nation on the State Department Terrorist Watch list.
I have no doubt this outright lack of unity and (at least near) treasonous acts of Democratic Party leadership hindered effective strategic planning to emerge by the Bush Administration. Thus President Bush’s plan to invade Iraq was valid; Left Wing Bush hatred is probably a contributing factor for Bush Administration bad prosecution of the post invasion period of Iraq.
Comments
The use of the word “effective” in reference to the Bush Administration’s “prosecution” of anything would not reflect the view of many of We-the-People. When asked for a single word that expresses their assessment of President George W. Bush, the most frequently used term was “incompetent.”
As for your suggestion that Bush “hatred” might be a contributing factor, I suggest that the term is just too namby-pamby for a lot of folks. I would thing “abhor,” “detest,” or “loathe” would more accurately express the heartfelt sentiment.And that is my point: Left Wing interference hampered good decision making on implimenting a solid plan to win in Iraq. I suspect if the Left Wingers were more behind winning rather hampering Bush, better decisions on strategy to attain goals would have happened.
Now the namby-pamby cut-n-runners are intent on giving to terrorists which will come back and bite even the Lefties in the future.
There is NO flaw with the Bush Administration, the flaw was in the Bush Administration strategy. The Bush strategy has allowed the growth of terrorism. If Bush would have stuck to the "rogue nations that harbour terrorists will be held accountable" strategy, then it is unlikely the terrorists would have flooded into Iraq. Syria and Iran harbour and finance anarchist terrorism in Iraq. Bush should have started with the smaller Syria to send a message to Iran. Instead the PC appeasers tried to enlist the aid of an enemy that hates America as much as the Lefties of America.
I repeat: Lefties have hampered the victory by slipping into the radical Mohammedan propaganda and violence. Lefties put their head in the sand expecting that out of sight out of mind will preserve American Rights and Liberties. That was not true in the Revolutionary War and it is not true now.
Liberals have a long record of not only establishing American Rights and Liberties under law but expanding their enjoyment to more and more people. Jefferson was a liberal, as was Lincoln, as was FDR. These liberals served this nation at important times in our history. There were also great progressive leaders, like Teddy Roosevelt, that served this nation well.
It is difficult to name a conservative leader that has been instrumental in promoting our liberty.
The peace and progress of mankind is threatened by rightist religious fanatics at home and abroad—they do not understand that peace is not an inactive state of human affairs any more than love is but the absence of hate. Peace is an active pursuit of justice and goodwill for all of God’s children. It is at the heart of Christianity.
Let see, the Father of America George Washington was a conservative.
Jefferson was hardly as much a liberal in today's sense as we was the loyal opposition that believed in limited government. Oh, that would be Conservative.
Lincoln was NOT a liberal. He was considered a radical that made the conservative South give up Slavery while submitting to the conservative industrial North. Lincoln was a Republican - the First.
FDR flirted with Communism from his main advisor Harry Hopkins. In case you forgot Communism was discredited as an authoritarian despotic ideology that placed the State above the people. The discredit came at the Soviet demise.
The Soviet demise was largely due to a military build up by the great Republican and Conservative President Ronald Reagan.
A Voice, I finally caught you with your blinders on.
theway2k: you wrote, “A Voice, I finally caught you with your blinders on.”
I think it would be more accurate to say that you finally think that you have hoodwinked me. That is a hard thing to do to an old Irishman that has seen winkers come and go.
I find it interesting that more than one neo-conservative pup has tried to co-opt some noted liberal in an effort to legitimatize his thinly-veneered nova-religio conservatism.
Rather than listing classic conservative luminaries such as Ayn Rand or Barry Goldwater, these neo-conservatives sneak back and try to lay claim to such liberals as Jefferson.
Of course it may be discomforting to accept Rand’s atheism or Goldwater’s disdain for the religious right. I can still remember Goldwater saying that good Christians ought to line up and kick Jerry Falwell’s ass. Now mind you, I am not suggestion that any members of the religious right should bend over.
You insist that Lincoln was a conservative, although when he was asked about his religion he said he was a Liberal.
Though both Lincoln and Jefferson used the word god, they professed to be deists and not Christians.
However, Lincoln was a slightly different kind of deist than Jefferson and other liberals of Jefferson’s time. To Jefferson the deity was pantheistic—the transcendent watchmaker that had set existence to ticking. Lincoln’s deity was panantheistic—a deity that was both transcendent and imminent.
The imminent deity of Lincoln was not the personal god of the rightwing bible-oriented Christians of today. Like liberals in general, Lincoln was primarily other-directed and not self-centered. Thus he did not fashion the deity of his faith into a Big Kind of Guy that reflected his own persona—something that members of the Christian-right seem prone to do.
Lincoln’s deity was the Creator and Good Harmonic with whom mankind attempted to attune his progress. To wit, when during the Civil War a cabinet member suggested that they pray that God was on either side, Lincoln corrected and said, “Let us pray that we are on God’s side.
In his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln’s “conceived in Liberty” reflects the same liberalism that was born in France and espoused in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. This declaration was made in direct opposition to the conservatism of the Crown. It liberally contends: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
The followers of Jefferson’s liberalism and the actions of German, Italian and American political operatives would be seen as an evil promotion of modernity by “conservatives” of a mid 17th Century hiccup that tried to turn back the hands of history and deny the possibility of progress—this was a fleeting period of conservative outrage much like the far-right’s tantrum of today.
Your comments on my fellow Iowan, Harry Hopkins, fellow Democrat, FDR, and the nature of Communism do not square with my fist hand experiences. I lived during the Great Depression and World War II and grew up in a village that bordered a Communist community. To me it is not history; it is just a part of my life. If you would like a boots-on-the-ground assessment, just ask.
Though both Lincoln and Jefferson used the word god, they professed to be deists and not Christians."
You are so tunnel visioned, the Deism practiced was Christian Ideology. They merely did not beleive the Creator is actively involved in the Divine Influence. It was a kind of Christian neo-platonism that believed in a prime mover on Nature. The ethics and foundation was still Christian.
The Liberty that was proclaimed in France was not the same Liberty of America of the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers in the majority were abhorrent to the near Leftism and totalitarianism of the French Revolution. Dude you got to do more reading if wish to provide plausible arguement.
There appears to be no bounds to a neo-conservative's willingness to revise history, and he also seems to be willing to come up with new definitions, terms, and names to reference people and things. This is the first time in my life that anyone has ever called me Dude.
I assume that “Divine Influence” is another way of saying that God is imminent. Jefferson did not consider the deity to be imminent, just transcendent. He was not into supernaturalism—Jefferson’s rewrite of the Gospels, “Jefferson’s Bible,” might be informative.
As for your comment on the Founding Fathers and the French Revolution, your revision of history is rather obvious. Both the American Revolution and the adoption of the Constitution occurred prior to the French Revolution. It would be interesting to see how this error in historic chronology can be reversed in service to the neo-conservative cause—but maybe accurate-historical chronology is just another leftist plot. How about a suggestion that the Founding Fathers were clairvoyant?
As for your use of the term “leftist,” it appears that neo-conservatives are also free to place the etymology of a term into a time in history that is more “utilitarian” than historically accurate. Thus, your suggestion that the Founding Fathers were abhorrent of the “Leftism” of the French Revolution is rather imaginative. The term left in reference to political leaning did not come into fashion until “after” the seating of Legislative Assembly of France and that was half of a decade “after” the French Revolution. But, this may be just an inconvenient fact of history that can be easily twisted into neo-conservative propaganda. How about suggesting the Noah Webster was voyant? I have no idea what “voyant” can be made to mean, but a neo-conservative ought to be able to inerrably state its God-given meaning.
At times I have always suspected that conservatives desired to return to the good old days, but it never occurred to me that they actually thought that they could shuffle around the historic past to better suit their symptoms.
I can understand if a neo-conservative does not want to directly address these egregious misstatements of history. But if you don’t mind, I think that I am going to pass on that reading list of yours.
http://theway2k.vox.com/library/post/founding-fathers-and-americas-culture-today.html#comment-form
:-)