« Top Gun Bush | Home | Slow Down »
The Two Faces of the Democrats
By Matt Margolis | May 13, 2003
So here it comes… An al Qaeda terrorist attack in Saudia Arabia is going to be another vice for Democrats to try and criticize the Bush Administration for not doing enough on the War on Terror.
Okay, lets get a few things straight. Most Democrats/liberals were against going into Iraq, and yet, when it is convenient for them, they’ll criticize Bush for “not doing enough” on the War on Terror. Some may even suggest going into Iraq was a diversion of military resources on the War on Terror… which is just as ridiculous. We have an incredibly large military, and we have the manpower to fight a war on several fronts… We’d never be diverting resources - we’d be bringing more in to do another part of the job.
Democrats will with one hand will hinder the President’s efforts in fighting the War on Terror, and with the other they’ll criticize him for not doing enough.
This has been, (and will be) a major attack strategy for the Democratic candidates for President. They’ll take an issue that is important to the American people, one they’ve been extraordinarily weak on, and start pulling an “I can do it better” routine.
In the days ahead, we’ll see them go about their usual ways… looking for ammo where there is none.
Topics: War Journal |
Related Posts:
May 17th, 2003 at 11:38 pm
fuku
May 28th, 2003 at 4:21 pm
Iraq was joke… your precious administration changed the pre-war rationale for invading Iraq (al-qaeda, WMD, UN violations) nearly as much as they change their reasoning behind perpetual tax-cuts (more jobs, more revenue, we have too much revenue). The problem with you conservatives is that you whole-heartedly believe whatever the GOP tells you regardless of what reality and history dictate. Don’t forget that the Bush administration can lay claim to the worst terrorist act committed on American soil and the largest deficit in the country’s history… all on their watch. Wow. Now that’s a reformer with results. And by the way, where are those weapons of mass destruction? Where’s Saddam? Where’s Osama? Where’s Cheney?
May 28th, 2003 at 7:53 pm
Clearly Jack, you are the victim of the exact crime you accuse me and other conservatives of. Since the war started, there has been lots of documentation found proving a link between Saddam’s regime and Al Qaeda. Just the other day, it was reported on The Drudge Report that Saddam Hussein had stolen billions from the UN by abusing the Oil-For-Food program. You also ignore the fact that its been 12 years and several months since Iraqs weapons program were resumed and they have had all that time to hide the evidence or distribute it to other terrorist nations. In a country the size of California, you can’t expect these weapons (which Saddam obviously knew to hide and pass off) to be found immediately.
You remark about the Bush Administration “laying claim” to 9/11 is a result of your obvious prejudice against conservatives and is not based on reason and logic. Several attacks against the United States and its interests during the Clinton Administration. Clinton was repeatedly offered Osama bin Laden by the Sudanese government and he repeatedly refused the offer. If you look at the reality that history dictates, President Clinton was the American most responsible for the 9/11 attacks due to his inactions as President to fight and avenge terrorism against our nation.
Regarding the economy. If you knew anything about economics you would know that tax cuts do not cause deficits, but rather spending more money than what the treasury has causes deficits. The economoy was on a downward spiral in March of 2000. Bush was elected in November 2000, and his first economic policy was not enacted until November of 2001. This was AFTER 9/11, which cause some instability in the economy in itself, and since 9/11, the new Homeland Security Department was created, and the War on Terror began. Today’s current economy is the result of a Clintonian recession and the effects of 9/11. If it were for Bush’s previous tax cuts, the economy would be in even worse shape.
May 31st, 2003 at 7:12 pm
If you knew anything about trickle down economics you’d know it never works and only serves to put more money in the pockets of the rich. perhaps if you weren’t just another snot nosed kid from the suburbs with his thumb jammed up his backside, you might open yourself up to something other then blind patriotism and GOP rhetoric. But i do agree with you on one thing, screw the democrats, they serve the same corporate agendas as the Republicans and pretend to be “liberal.” Atleast you Republicans can admit to trying to establish an Empire, destroy the enviornment, warehouse the poor, and eliminate all competition in the name of Corporate America. God bless republicans for their kind souls, open minds, and their unrelenting ability of always being right, no matter how bad they screw things up.
June 1st, 2003 at 1:42 am
Clearly Colin, you need to learn more about economics. I could delve further into this subject, but I’ll just suggest you read “Basic Economics” by Thomas Sowell. Sowell is one of America’s best known economists, and if you read that book, I’m sure you’d know better than to bring up “trickle down economics.”
And for your information, my patriotism is not blind, and my confidence in conservatism is far stronger than your ability to spew leftist diatribe and falsehoods.
June 2nd, 2003 at 3:33 pm
Matt, after reading your bio, I fail to see how you are at all qualified assert that some of us need to “learn more about economics.” Speaking as gruaduate in economics, I can assure you that I have learned plenty. Regardless of your qualifications, the facts are clear. Bush has increased federal spending at an astronomical rate (including an extremely unnecessary and expensive war) and decreased the available revenue to pay for these increases by cutting taxes. Your own logic, while simplistic, dictates that in times of increased government spending, the way to prevent deficits is to increase, not decrease taxes. Its very simple. If your costs increase, the last thing you want to do is decrease the revenue used to cover those costs. Of course, this is exactly what Bush continues to do. And by the way, I don’t want to hear any of that garbage that tax cuts actually increase government revenue… if cutting taxes always increased revenue, logic would dictate that we keep cutting taxes until the tax rate reaches zero– which incidentally, means zero revenue.
June 2nd, 2003 at 3:45 pm
And by the way, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. I challenge you to produce one iota of credible evidence. You would be the first. Additionally, if Iraq was such a threat, and we had such good intelligence and knew where they were before the war (i.e. Colin Powell’s presentation), why weren’t we watching them when they were “hiding” their WMD’s. Finally, Cheney, among others stated that “we know for a fact that Iraq has a reconstituted nuclear weapons program.” Knowing for a fact does not mean relying on circumstantial evidence. So far, the only evidence for that claim has been phony order for uranium through Nigeria. By the way, somebody had to forge that document– Gee, who comes to mind? So, the question remains, WHERE ARE THE WMDs? WHERE IS SADDAM? WHERE IS OSAMA? Argue all you want, Bush has failed to deliver anything but an ill-advised tax cut to the rich that will not stimulate the economy.
June 2nd, 2003 at 9:30 pm
I agree that federal spending should go down. However, when it comes to Homeland Security, I don’t question the need to spend money toward that. We would save a lot of money in the federal treasury by cutting worthless programs, putting an end to giving benefits to illegal aliens, and descreasing the size of government.
Regarding your claim that there has been no Iraq/al Qaeda link, I’ll direct you to the following news story from April 28th: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/27/1051381854142.html