• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Who's side are you on?

RightConservative

New member
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
WHO'S SIDE ARE YOU ON?
By: Edward L. Daley
RightConservative.com 06-14-05

I constantly hear liberals decry the policies of George W. Bush, using catch-phrases like "out of the mainstream" and "dangerously irresponsible" to describe them. Apparently, if you repeat something often enough, using the same carefully crafted terminology, and applying to it the same condescending tone each time, it magically becomes the truth... at least in the minds of leftists.

And, of course, the primary policy target of left-wingers in Congress remains the war in Iraq, even though nearly all of them supported it initially. As recent polls show support for the war waning, liberals all over the country are redoubling their efforts to convince average Americans that the Iraq conflict is "Bush's Vietnam." What you won't hear any of them admit to, however, is that this decline in approval is primarily due to their own anti-war propaganda efforts.

Just take a look at the type of war coverage we are inundated with these days. For example, every morning I check out the Associated Press wire on the internet. This is one of the main sources of information used by both the print and broadcast media in the United States. Over the past several weeks I've made a point of noting what the top stories posted on the AP have been on a daily basis, and while it may come as a shock to some folks, I was not surprised to find that over the course of about a month's time, only a half dozen of the lead stories presented there were about something other than American soldiers or Iraqi civilians being killed by "insurgents".

Not once in did I see a story about something positive happening in Iraq or Afghanistan, yet well over a thousand suspected terrorists have either been captured or killed by our forces since the middle of May, and massive stores of weapons and other terrorist appurtenances have been seized.

While some people think that such one-sided war coverage is merely the result of laziness, or a proclivity on the part of the popular media to focus on tragedy, it is quite clear to me that a strong anti-war bias permeates the entire news industry nowadays. To believe otherwise is to be utterly dismissive of the available evidence.

If only half as many positive war stories as negative ones were being reported every day, few Americans would fail to support our efforts over there, and the seditious ravings of addle-brained hypocrites like Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, who like to throw around terms like "quagmire", would be dismissed out of hand by the vast majority of people.

But that issue aside, the president has managed to stick to his guns on the issue, in spite of the fact that a growing number of people in this country are starting to go wobbly in the knees. Frankly, it doesn't matter what they think. The war is going to continue no matter how many people get brainwashed into thinking it's a mistake, because the president knows better, and he's a very serious individual.

Perhaps people like John (I voted for the war before I voted against it) Kerry have forgotten why the vast majority of U.S. Congressmen backed Bush's plan to dethrone Saddam Hussein, but I haven't. They did so because for decades the Iraqi leader was a known terrorist supporter, who used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, ignored every U.N. resolution ever created to prevent his regime from developing WMD, sought refined (yellow cake) uranium ore from Africa, and fired upon U.S. and British war planes in the Iraq no-fly zones hundreds of times, breaking the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement.

Even the liberals in Congress couldn't argue with his reasoning, since Bush was saying exactly what his predecessor Bill Clinton (not to mention John Kerry) had said only a few years earlier, and there was certainly no reason to think that Saddam had suddenly decided to stop behaving like a psychotic dictator all of the sudden.

Of course now those same liberals want us all to believe that Bush lied to them, even though they had access to the same intelligence he did at the time. They also want to everyone to think that the war is now unwinnable, even though we've already accomplished every major objective that we set out to achieve. Sure, there's still plenty of terrorists running around Iraq, and we'll do everything we can to wipe them out while we're there, but the immediate goals of the invasion were to overrun the country, prevent the enemy from setting fire to the nation's oil wells, depose and capture Saddam Hussein, and set up a democratically elected government in the place of his brutal regime.



Read the full article
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Good Speech Galenrox! I totally agree with you 100%.

Oh and by the way the yellow cake uranium that Saddam supposedly got from Africa (Niger) was proven to be faulty British intelligence ages ago. I don't know why you put it on that article rightconservative.
 
Last edited:

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Of course now those same liberals want us all to believe that Bush lied to them, even though they had access to the same intelligence he did at the time. They also want to everyone to think that the war is now unwinnable, even though we've already accomplished every major objective that we set out to achieve. Sure, there's still plenty of terrorists running around Iraq, and we'll do everything we can to wipe them out while we're there, but the immediate goals of the invasion were to overrun the country, prevent the enemy from setting fire to the nation's oil wells, depose and capture Saddam Hussein, and set up a democratically elected government in the place of his brutal regime.
The folks who dislike Bush have their own version of events, so you are wasting your time trying to get through to them. They spin it and twist it to suit themselves.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,996
Reaction score
6,098
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I think you might need to burn another one and chill a bit.
Remember there are youngsters that can read this forum. Thanks. :)

The president is human too.
 

RightConservative

New member
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
If anyone should be held to a higher standard, and be held accountable for things that don't work out, it's the f*cking president!
Funny, I didnt her this argument when Clinton cheated on his wife and lied about it under oath. I guess that is for another thread. ;)
 

RightConservative

New member
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Oh I see.

galenrox, is it EVER ok for a President to lie under oath?

By the way, I do not support a good portion of what Bush does, and God knows I am not Republican, but I do not at all believe he lied to us. :roll:
 

RightConservative

New member
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
And regardless of whether or not Bush lied to us, he should've known better.
That may be the case. I honestly have no way of knowing.

I just dont understand how Congress, Senate, CIA, FBI, UN, Britain and many others do not get mentioned in these discussions. If your theory is correct, should they not ALL apoligize for making a "mistake" as you call it?

If I own a business and I ask two of my managers who they watched steal a few dollars from a register and they both tell me it was Dan, should I not fire Dan?

If the two came back later and said "we were wrong afterall", shouldnt some of the blame go towards the two who actually made the mistake? Bush goes off of what he is told. He is not a CIA spy, he does not hang out in bars in Turkey to try and find out for himself, he simply listens to those whom he is supposed to trust and acts on what he is told.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,410
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Who cares? According to the majority of voters, Bush didn't lie and the best representative the Democrats could come up with was John Kerry.
 

BigMoose67

New member
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi
I think a lot of people have a problem with bush not because he is stupid, but he comes as someone is. Just like how JFK won his election. He was passionate and looked smart so naturally America voted for him. I usually agree with Bush but Americans want a confident Powerful looking person running the country. The president has always been a symbol to us.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,410
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It really doesn't matter how many votes John Kerry got now does it? The majority, for whatever reason, preferred the better candidate.
 
Top Bottom