Why can't liberals work with Bush?
From the Blade letters forum, April 4, Tim Mohler of Perrysburg writes:
Finally the President has realized that the liberals' agenda is to personally destroy his presidency and our nation as well. President George W. Bush has spent most of his terms giving Ted Kennedy an education bill ladened with money, increased social spending on every front, and seeking bipartisan Democrat support in hopes of generating good will.
While being called various names by Democrats and charged with trumped-up scandals, President Bush has responded with open humility and generous terms to his enemies. George Bush has drawn the line with his unwavering support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales against recent attacks. The liberals will not stop with Mr. Gonzales but will, like sharks, continue to seek blood from Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Condoleezza Rice, etc.
The Democratic Congress has decided once again it has the right to undermine executive privilege, knowing that many Americans understand very little about the separation of powers as stated in our Constitution. Presidents Clinton and Carter routinely fired their appointed attorneys as well.
Instead of offering the positive agenda promised with their new leadership, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid seek only to further their lust for power by character assassination. I hope we will see more of President Bush's fighting spirit against these liberals.
I had hoped that the new Congress and Democratic leaders would work with the President for what is best for our nation. Instead they undermine our soldiers and economy with calls to redeploy (surrender in the war on terror) and invest more (increase taxes) and using other "terms" designed to cover their socialist anti-American agenda. author: Tim Mohler
I don't know Mr. Mohler, but I couldn't agree more with his view of Pres. Bush as a good president, unfairly maligned. It irritates me that some conservatives have distanced themselves from Bush because he DID SPEND like a democrat, and not just on the war on terrorism. He sought consensus with democrats by allocating monies for social programs like No Child Left Behind and African AIDS relief as part of his compassionate conservatism.
Some conservs have listened to polls and comedians--(whom do they poll? not me or anyone I know)--and reversed themselves on Iraq, fearing they can't get re-elected. We need better publicity on the good things in Iraq. We need eloquent people to get out there and make the case for staying the course. Instead, media focuses on a veterans hospital situation that historically has not been as good as private --because it IS gov't. -run. (Yet, even with Bush as president, there seems to be no expense spared to help our veteran amputees, et al, with high tech equipment and remedies --such that their spirits seem upbeat despite their injuries --many hoping to rejoin their units.) Conservatives need to pull together and stop taking seriously the skewed polls and comedians who comment on politics. We are not getting the facts.
I heard John Edwards speak at a town meeting on tv last night. I surely do feel sorry for his wife, having to place her health on the back burner while he runs around as glory boy--the guy who made all his millions from doctors in malpractice cases he should not have won, thus causing doc shortage in his state.
It would make a conservative gag to hear him promise that he as leader of the democrats could solve every problem in the world after blaming Geo. Bush and GOP for those problems. Edwards, like Gore, is a big energy consumer and contributor to global warming --every time he opens his mouth. He can't solve the doc shortage problem and malpractice crisis he caused, however, without tort reform, opposed by attornies like him. Instead, he wants a gov't run system with their tendencies toward problems like the VA hospitals, their need to ration as in Canada, and their 2 tiered welfare system in Europe --where you pay privately if you want the best health care.
I'm not up on the energy issues --but understand that engineers believe nuclear power is the best option--and note that other nations are going for it. A friend of mine says it was Gore (as senator? or what) who led in shutting down our nuclear power proliferation --for fear of harm to the environment --and that friends says coal burning is worse when it comes to global warming theory. He thinks there are solutions for nuclear waste managment.
In the Edwards forum, an engineer brought up the issue of nuclear energy, and Edwards blathered away about nuclear waste. You could tell the engineer wanted to enlighten him, but wasn't given another chance.
As I've said before, the liberals are maniacal about getting the presidency back, for fear of judicial appointments that will support states' rights or even federal legislation on matters of gay marriage and abortion, primarily. Affirmative action is their issue for votes from the racial minority communities.
As for IRaq: FACT--TIME magazine said 70% of the Iraqis want us to stay there, according to a poll. That's the poll we should heed --our country is under another impression based on liberal hysteria about the military deaths. (Yet, you hear them say nothing about the fact that we lose nearly as many of our youth annually to alcohol-related driving than we lost altogether in Iraq in 3 years. Liberals won't protest college-age drinking, being former MJ-smoking hippies themselves.)
I've mentioned before my nephew in Iraq --who says one Iraqi either did or wants to donate his farm, complete with camels and sheep, to the U.S. for a permanent base there. My nephew is a college grad, a writing major, and he feels progress is being made against the rebels. My neighbor's grandson is there and says the Iraqi army surely does need our help and training. Another neighbor who worked in Saudi Arabia for years said even THAT country was glad we toppled Sadam.
Iraq does need external policing because of their sectarian violence and the inexperience of their new gov't army. They also need to hear appeals regarding the value of peace and forgiveness for their children --a little more from their prophet Jesus than their prophet Mohammad.
Our departure will not bring them peace --but another Darfur for the democrats to blame on GOP. Ironically, Dems suggest we should be helping Darfur with THEIR sectarian violence --that would be like helping Iraq, I should think. We can only handle one mess at a time; a democratic, peaceful, prosperous Iraq would be an oasis in a political/religious desert.
The more I consider the long range implications, Bush's Iraq strategy could turn out to be a real blow to terrorism --if only the democrats would unite --as they promised to be uniters. We need to stay and impose order --and let them experience what it's like to live in a peaceful and free country. Otherwise, the Iraqiis will want to immigrate here in droves --from all three sects --and they'll bring their strife with them! if they don't kill each other off first --and yes, THEN ALL THE MUSLIMS WILL THINK THEY HAVE EVEN MORE REASON TO HATE US --instead of seeing that their failure to get along with their religious brothers is entirely their fault --or the fault of their inadequate religious beliefs which justify enmity and hatred and wanton killing of people just because they have different beliefs. Yet many of these Muslims rejoiced at Sadam's downfall because of his threat and cruelty to fellow Muslims.