(Page 2 of 16)
When the world was smirking at the U.S. after our retreat from and subsequent abandonment of South Vietnam the liberals were content. The U.S. had been rendered harmless. When Jimmy Carter was unable to stem the resultant tide of Communist expansion and consolidation and failed miserably to effectively deal with the crisis in Iran, the liberals praised him. After all he continued to prove that the U.S. was no threat to anyone. When Ronald Reagan effectively dealt with the Iran hostage crisis simply by being elected, they were appalled. When he then began to verbally and economically attack communism in general and the Soviet Union in particular, his demonization began in earnest. George Bush, 41, was subjected to the same liberal attacks as Reagan and for much the same reasons. Bill Clinton was the liberal dream; a likable hick who couldn’t keep his pants on around women or jog past a McDonalds. His Presidential military forays were against people who could not possibly be a threat to the U.S. and could be justified, in the liberal mind, as “helping the less fortunate.” And, of course, the U.S would not be acting unilaterally. Our troops would be working for someone else [the UN, NATO, etc.]. His idea of handling the problem of North Korean nuclear development was to give them everything that they asked for, then to ignore them. Terrorist attacks? Send the FBI to the scene to collect bomb fragments, then ignore them. George Bush, 43, was everything that Bill Clinton was not. And for that, he has been castigated by the liberal media and liberal politicians since before his election.p>For George W. Bush, the Presidency has not been a popularity contest or a means to line his pockets, but a duty to be performed. And though I regularly disagree with many of his policies, I admire him for his devotion to duty. He should rank as one of our greatest Presidents. It will depend, of course, on who writes the history books. br> — Michael Tobias /p>
Anyone who understands liberal ideology knows why George W. Bush’s liberation of Iraq makes them insane: the president actually “walked the walk” instead of just “talking the talk.” What “talk” is that? The reams of published quotes by leading Democrats as to the necessity of removing Saddam Hussein from power.p>Liberals have always worshipped symbolism over substance. Anyone challenging the bankruptcy of that concept will always get hammered. More so if they are successful—which is why Democrats have shamelessly tried to undermine anything that resembles success in Iraq. br> — Arnold Ahlert br> Boca Raton, Florida /p>
Iraq as the first liberal democracy in the Muslim world — the notion ignores Turkey.p>Error of fact, or opinion? br> — Steven Bassion
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?