(Page 3 of 10)
None of your suggestions are going to have any impact on Iraq. How does declaring the Palestinian Government a terrorist organization help us in Iraq? If anything it hurts us. As does some silly dinner date with the Danish PM. And I’m sure Zarqawi will immediately cease hostilities once that Security Resolution is blocked by China and Russia.
Forget Buckley. He was against Iraq from the start. This is the second decade in a hundred years war. There are going to be darker days than this in the future.p>Get yourself a good 2x4 and strap it to your back. It needs stiffening. br> — Don Herion /p>
To defeat the power of the religious symbols of those we fight, we need powerful symbols of our own — our own “national religion.” Currently, that consists of a conglomerate of things usually mentioned in every Bush speech — the “religions” of free speech, democracy, free markets and consumerism, and human rights (which to most Americans now means “the right to do as I please.”)
These do not hold the same power to provide the will to win as the religion of our enemy. These “religions” are materialistic gods who will fail just as much as the god of socialism has apparently failed. (Although that one is still alive and kicking about…)p>Socialism and our current national religion of liberal democracy are really two sides of the same coin — they both seek to build a Heaven on Earth, and draw attention away from our Creator. Until America returns to the worship of the God of our Fathers, we fight without a soul, and without a belief in something above and beyond ourselves — something that requires real sacrifice because sacrifice is a foundational part of its teachings. Any nation that fights a war without such a belief is at a disadvantage from the outset, and is set on a dangerous course. br> — Marko /p>
Jed Babbin brings up some very disturbing points in his article, all the more so because what he said about Bush is probably being felt by a lot of us conservatives who have stood by him, even when we probably shouldn’t have.p>I wouldn’t compare him to Johnson, though, though there are similarities in some respects. No, Bush has lost his way because like Jed said, he never really defined it to himself. He started out to topple Saddam, conquer Iraq, remove them from the terrorist equation and he did that. He didn’t have a real plan on how to form them into a pro-western nation because he refuses to accept the fact that Muslims are our enemy really. Their culture is so opposed to ours that there can be no melding of the two. He refused to acknowledge that Iraq was in reality an occupied country subject to our rule. He let them set the tone of the occupation. On the home front, Bush has shown a complete disregard for domestic issues that are of concern to conservatives such as spending, border security, immigration, and leaks. He has let others form the issues. He did good with the Supreme Court (so far as we know) but that was after we pounded on him a bit. His political missteps are far too serious to just brush off anymore and his silence is too deafening. We have many a warrior putting their life on the line for us and their CIC just keeps mouthing the same old phrases. Could it be that Bush was not really up to the tasks he set out for himself and now the media (the real enemy) is winning this war?
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?