President Bush Is Not the Enemy

[Adam's Apple]

President Bush Is Not the Enemy
By Edward I. Koch
December 21, 2005

I wish The Times and members of Congress were not so eager to demean the president of the U.S. and his advisers, holding them up to scathing denunciation when we are at war. They should realize that the president feels very strongly his obligation to protect us from terrorists overseas and their supporters in this country–-in World War II, such supporters were called "Quislings".

The critics have short memories. In the 1993 and 9/11 (2001) attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the U.S. suffered nearly 3,000 deaths and more than 1,000 injured.

The Times has every right to disagree with the president's action in dispensing with the court set up for this purpose. But it harms the country when it treats the president unfairly with the language and contemptuous tone it now regularly employs.

The president is not a dictator, which, in effect, Congressman Charles Rangel called him when comparing him with disgraced Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos. Nor is he a criminal intentionally violating the U.S. Constitution and the civil liberties of our citizens, subjecting himself to impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

The president no doubt arrived at his position after being advised by career government lawyers that he is acting within the law. We are at war with millions of adherents of a fundamentalist Islamic creed who believe they have a duty to kill us-–Christians, Jews, Hindus and others who do not accept the supremacy of Islam over their own religions.

For several years Republican and Democratic leaders have been briefed on what the president was doing and declined to protest or bring the disputed procedures to the attention of the House and Senate. They could have done so using closed sessions so as not to alert the enemy. Instead, they allowed the president to continue the surveillance.

Now the press and some of those members of Congress by their public revelations have alerted the enemy to the surveillance program. And the media and some members of Congress have forgotten or don't care that we are at war and their disclosures may have prevented the administration from obtaining information otherwise available that would help military and law enforcement authorities to deter acts of terrorism here and abroad.

We are at war. There is a balance to be struck between protecting the security of the country and the personal privacy of individuals. During World War II all kinds of restrictions were placed on American civil liberties. Most horrendously, Japanese-Americans, and some Italian-Americans and German-Americans, were sent to detention camps with the approval of the Supreme Court. But when the war ended, the restrictions ended, and the Congress acknowledged we had gone too far. We returned to our core values.

The lesson is this: The survival of our country is paramount, but that survival must be achieved without destroying our core values as a society. Our Founding Fathers started a revolution in order to achieve "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." These are not just words. They are our fundamental beliefs and must be protected.

To see on the other hand the president as the enemy – which the savage and unfair attacks upon him convey to the world – is harmful to the security of our country and, therefore, injures us all.

for full article:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/12/20/204518/shtml

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I've always been amused at the fact that righties are always accusing lefties of not having original thoughts - yet righties are the ones who usually start threads which consist of absolutely nothing but a ver batim copy of another person's ideas.

 

[Working Man]

I've always been amused at the fact that righties are always accusing lefties of not having original thoughts - yet righties are the ones who usually start threads which consist of absolutely nothing but a ver batim copy of another person's ideas.

Here is an original idea. Most democrats suck. Palozi, Kenndey, Kerry, Clinton (both of those hose bags), Schmuker,,, oh yeah, we are so lucky to have these parasites in the Congress..

George W??? OK, so we didn't get a gold ring this time around, but it beats anything the otherside had to offer.

 

[Adam's Apple]

The purpose of a discussion board is to enable people to post anything they want for discussion, information, amusement, etc. You are not required to bring an original thought to the table. When libs reply to what has been posted with "talking points" obtained from the DNC or the MSM, I would not call that posting "original thoughts" either, so get "amused" and take a good look at yourself. We have been trying for five years now to make you libs understand that "President Bush Is Not the Enemy". Ed Koch, a real Democrat, just put together the message for you in a nice article, Spiderman.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I've always been amused at the fact that righties are always accusing lefties of not having original thoughts - yet righties are the ones who usually start threads which consist of absolutely nothing but a ver batim copy of another person's ideas.

and YOUR ORIGINAL IDEA was?????????

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Fact is, the thread wasnt started as a proposal for an original idea. Considering Kathiane does that more than anyone, I would consider TUBBY's post a direct personal attack on her!

But the purpose of the thread starter was to inform and create discussion.

But, as usual, when the lefties are wrong and have no retort to strong accusations against them, they try to change the topic to "posting original ideas"

But that wont work.

DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

The hatred for PRESIDENT BUSH is deeper than anything I have ever seen.

One reason is because many do TRULY believe he stole both elections. As deluded as that thinking is, it is what drives them, and with the credo "the end justifies the means" it permits them, within their own limited minds to believe they are morally right to do ANYTHING to oppose Bush.

In their minds, the terrorists are less of an enemy of Bush, and if we have to temporarily allow terrorists powers to grow in order to weaken PRESIDENT Bush and the repbulicans so they can regain power, then it is morally proper.

Untill they gain control and impose their elitist superior will over the farmers and workers of America, they will not be happy.

RonK

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Here is an original idea. Most democrats suck. Palozi, Kenndey, Kerry, Clinton (both of those hose bags), Schmuker,,, oh yeah, we are so lucky to have these parasites in the Congress..

George W??? OK, so we didn't get a gold ring this time around, but it beats anything the otherside had to offer.

I disagree. I think PRESIDENT Bush is more than a gold ring.

He was the perfect man for the perfect time.

It takes a man with his determination to see this thing through. A smarter man, like Carter would whimp out. Carter would have boycotted the olympics, and saddam would still be in drive mode.

A president more concerned with public polls and sex would be getting a BJ while reading polls and tell his Iraqi advisors to have a seat and wait.

Reagan would have defeated Saddam, but hey, he already defeated the Commies, if he gets toooo much credit under his belt, well, he will become greater than George Washington himself, and we just cant have that!

 

[OCA]

President Bush Is Not the Enemy
By Edward I. Koch
December 21, 2005

I wish The Times and members of Congress were not so eager to demean the president of the U.S. and his advisers, holding them up to scathing denunciation when we are at war. They should realize that the president feels very strongly his obligation to protect us from terrorists overseas and their supporters in this country–-in World War II, such supporters were called "Quislings".

The critics have short memories. In the 1993 and 9/11 (2001) attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the U.S. suffered nearly 3,000 deaths and more than 1,000 injured.

The Times has every right to disagree with the president's action in dispensing with the court set up for this purpose. But it harms the country when it treats the president unfairly with the language and contemptuous tone it now regularly employs.

The president is not a dictator, which, in effect, Congressman Charles Rangel called him when comparing him with disgraced Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos. Nor is he a criminal intentionally violating the U.S. Constitution and the civil liberties of our citizens, subjecting himself to impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

The president no doubt arrived at his position after being advised by career government lawyers that he is acting within the law. We are at war with millions of adherents of a fundamentalist Islamic creed who believe they have a duty to kill us-–Christians, Jews, Hindus and others who do not accept the supremacy of Islam over their own religions.

For several years Republican and Democratic leaders have been briefed on what the president was doing and declined to protest or bring the disputed procedures to the attention of the House and Senate. They could have done so using closed sessions so as not to alert the enemy. Instead, they allowed the president to continue the surveillance.

Now the press and some of those members of Congress by their public revelations have alerted the enemy to the surveillance program. And the media and some members of Congress have forgotten or don't care that we are at war and their disclosures may have prevented the administration from obtaining information otherwise available that would help military and law enforcement authorities to deter acts of terrorism here and abroad.

We are at war. There is a balance to be struck between protecting the security of the country and the personal privacy of individuals. During World War II all kinds of restrictions were placed on American civil liberties. Most horrendously, Japanese-Americans, and some Italian-Americans and German-Americans, were sent to detention camps with the approval of the Supreme Court. But when the war ended, the restrictions ended, and the Congress acknowledged we had gone too far. We returned to our core values.

The lesson is this: The survival of our country is paramount, but that survival must be achieved without destroying our core values as a society. Our Founding Fathers started a revolution in order to achieve "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." These are not just words. They are our fundamental beliefs and must be protected.

To see on the other hand the president as the enemy – which the savage and unfair attacks upon him convey to the world – is harmful to the security of our country and, therefore, injures us all.

for full article:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/12/20/204518/shtml

Yeah well he certainly hasn't been a friend to conservatives either what with Bush outspending Clinton, I REPEAT CLINTON, domestically. When will we hold Republicans responsible who run as conservatives and govern from the center-left once elected? When will we hold Republicans responsible who run a war from the Oval Office and tie the hands of generals on the ground? What will it take for conservatives to finally quit acting like sheep and back or form a party that will truely adhere to conservative values and positions?

And saying that he has to govern from the center and abandon principle for whatever reason is like saying well "I hadn't had any for a while so even though the sex was bad, i'll take it".

 

[OCA]

I disagree. I think PRESIDENT Bush is more than a gold ring.

He was the perfect man for the perfect time.

It takes a man with his determination to see this thing through. A smarter man, like Carter would whimp out. Carter would have boycotted the olympics, and saddam would still be in drive mode.

A president more concerned with public polls and sex would be getting a BJ while reading polls and tell his Iraqi advisors to have a seat and wait.

Reagan would have defeated Saddam, but hey, he already defeated the Commies, if he gets toooo much credit under his belt, well, he will become greater than George Washington himself, and we just cant have that!

Oh but Bush does look at polls, why do you think the caving in on torture(humiliation) and his reluctance to wage proper war in Iraq?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yeah well he certainly hasn't been a friend to conservatives either what with Bush outspending Clinton, I REPEAT CLINTON, domestically. When will we hold Republicans responsible who run as conservatives and govern from the center-left once elected? When will we hold Republicans responsible who run a war from the Oval Office and tie the hands of generals on the ground? What will it take for conservatives to finally quit acting like sheep and back or form a party that will truely adhere to conservative values and positions?

And saying that he has to govern from the center and abandon principle for whatever reason is like saying well "I hadn't had any for a while so even though the sex was bad, i'll take it".

Our political reality is only one of the two major parties have a shot at winning. Bush is not the enemy. The terrorists are. Trashing him only assists democrats, that's the truth of the matter.

 

[no1tovote4]

Oh but Bush does look at polls, why do you think the caving in on torture(humiliation) and his reluctance to wage proper war in Iraq?

He's also started to cave on his immigration policy, his base has not been pleased with him.

 

[OCA]

Our political reality is only one of the two major parties have a shot at winning. Bush is not the enemy. The terrorists are. Trashing him only assists democrats, that's the truth of the matter.

So let me think...reality is we have to keep getting buttfucked by both parties and then in the next election say "thank you sirs, may I have another?"

Thats pretty spineless.

 

[no1tovote4]

So let me think...reality is we have to keep getting buttfucked by both parties and then in the next election say "thank you sirs, may I have another?"

Thats pretty spineless.

The reality is we need to get more like-minded people to the caucuses to choose the right candidates for the two major parties. We cannot keep ignoring the local politics and expect that the religious right, who doesn't ignore them, will send the right candidates to office.

Vote in your Primaries, even if it does seem futile. How you vote does change the face of the Party, even if the candidate already has enough votes to get the nod. The candidate will listen if enough votes keep going to a Primary opponent even after his/her apparent victory.

There are many different ways people in the parties can get their views across, those are just a few.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Bitch, bitch, bitch about President Bush all you want, OCA, but do you think the alternatives--a President Gore or a President Kerry--would have governed any better? You don't get everything you want in politics, so be grateful that President Bush has been our president these past five years instead of Gore or Kerry. At least, when things get hot, President Bush listens to his base and responds to what they are saying.

 

[OCA]

Bitch, bitch, bitch about President Bush all you want, OCA, but do you think the alternatives--a President Gore or a President Kerry--would have governed any better? You don't get everything you want in politics, so be grateful that President Bush has been our president these past five years instead of Gore or Kerry. At least, when things get hot, President Bush listens to his base and responds to what they are saying.

I just can't fathom this attitude of "well he's the best we have, might as well take the shit he shovels us". It doesn't matter who the alternatives were, has nothing to do with it, he ran as a conservative and has governed for the most part as a lib. Look at the issues, social issues, are we seeing any progress, any action? Heck no. Its just another case of lie to get elected then screw the base.

We can do better, as a party and a nation we must strive for better. Look at the Repub frontrunners for '08: McCain...he's a Demo, Giuliani....he's pro abortion and pro special queer rights...............LMFAO! But hey they are better than Demos.....right?

 

[archangel]

I just can't fathom this attitude of "well he's the best we have, might as well take the shit he shovels us". It doesn't matter who the alternatives were, has nothing to do with it, he ran as a conservative and has governed for the most part as a lib. Look at the issues, social issues, are we seeing any progress, any action? Heck no. Its just another case of lie to get elected then screw the base.

We can do better, as a party and a nation we must strive for better. Look at the Repub frontrunners for '08: McCain...he's a Demo, Giuliani....he's pro abortion and pro special queer rights...............LMFAO! But hey they are better than Demos.....right?

It never ceases to amaze me how some toe the party line blindly...if some of us did not bitch then they would never take notice and continue down the road to self destruction...and yes we can do better!

 

[Mr. P]

I just can't fathom this attitude of "well he's the best we have, might as well take the shit he shovels us". It doesn't matter who the alternatives were, has nothing to do with it, he ran as a conservative and has governed for the most part as a lib. Look at the issues, social issues, are we seeing any progress, any action? Heck no. Its just another case of lie to get elected then screw the base.

We can do better, as a party and a nation we must strive for better. Look at the Repub frontrunners for '08: McCain...he's a Demo, Giuliani....he's pro abortion and pro special queer rights...............LMFAO! But hey they are better than Demos.....right?

I gotta agree with OCA, W has let us, his base, down.
That base is not the Christian right, nor the social program promoters, or big business.
Those "groups", seem to be who he has catered to. Not his true republican base.

With the exception of the war on terror, he’s a failure as President, IMO.

 

[OCA]

It never ceases to amaze me how some toe the party line blindly...if some of us did not bitch then they would never take notice and continue down the road to self destruction...and yes we can do better!

Yep, I mean I admire their dedication, albeit blind dedication, but the case remains that feet must be held to the fire.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The conservative PRESIDENT Bush bashers here are not living in the real world.

Fact is, the conservative base, nor the republicans are a majority. We live in a democracy.

Which ever of those two groups grabs ENOUGH of the middle will win. Without it, you can sit and pat yourself on the back how you stood to your principles and support only true conservatives, while the moderate Democrats run the nation.

Straw man arguements just make one look foolish, leave those to the liberal posters here. Try arguing the facts, thats what true conservatives do.

Fact is, Bush BARELY won both elections, had he "pleased his conservative base" we would be staring at Kerry making presidental decisions.

Now, dont go and put words in my mouth and claim "oh, so you think its better to get buttfucked by both parties?" cuz I dont, nobody does.

What I prefer is a President who at least can at times govern the way I would like him to rather than having someone like Kerry not only buttfuck me, but my family too.

Now, as for the polls, Bush's concerns with the polls are ONLY pragmatic. Clintons concern with the polls were both pragmatic and he wants to be liked. THATS THE DIFFERENCE.

 

[archangel]

The conservative PRESIDENT Bush bashers here are not living in the real world.

Fact is, the conservative base, nor the republicans are a majority. We live in a democracy.

Which ever of those two groups grabs ENOUGH of the middle will win. Without it, you can sit and pat yourself on the back how you stood to your principles and support only true conservatives, while the moderate Democrats run the nation.

Straw man arguements just make one look foolish, leave those to the liberal posters here. Try arguing the facts, thats what true conservatives do.

Fact is, Bush BARELY won both elections, had he "pleased his conservative base" we would be staring at Kerry making presidental decisions.

Now, dont go and put words in my mouth and claim "oh, so you think its better to get buttfucked by both parties?" cuz I dont, nobody does.

What I prefer is a President who at least can at times govern the way I would like him to rather than having someone like Kerry not only buttfuck me, but my family too.

Now, as for the polls, Bush's concerns with the polls are ONLY pragmatic. Clintons concern with the polls were both pragmatic and he wants to be liked. THATS THE DIFFERENCE.

neither a DNC or GOP kinda guy...just a ultra conservative registered American Independent I find fault with both parties...having said that there is a difference between bashing and corrective criticism...I use the latter...!
Are you telling us that the Border policy is good for either party....and shipping our production jobs overseas...or bringing in cheap labor is good for middle America...I for one think not!