The smell of fear

[jeskibuff]

As today's big news of the capture of Saddam rippled through the nation this morning, I did a little website exploring.

Not much activity on the conservative website http://www.ronaldreagan.com

A little more activity on the extreme right-wing website http://www.freerepublic.com, but not much

A beehive of activity on the gathering of morons known as http://www.democraticunderground.com. Their fingers must be getting tired already in this flurry of activity!

It seems like the ever-present fear of Saddam possessed by millions of Iraqis has been spirited out of that country and into the hearts and minds of those ever hopeful that GWB will be replaced by one of 9 clueless individuals next November.

It's downright funny to read the desperate planning and scheming on how to overcome (as one DUh'er puts it) "this coup for Bush". How can they put a spin on this to make it look bad for GWB? They're coming up with all sorts of conspiracy theories.

One of my favorites (but I can't find it because DU restricts searches to registered members) was one person who brought up the issue of timing. He said something like "Isn't it suspicious that they caught Saddam now? I bet the Bush administration knew where he was all along and was just waiting to trot him out when it was convenient for them" Then in the same paragraph, the poster says "I really expected that they would have held out just before the election". So this idiot is claiming that it's all in the timing. If finding Saddam now was just a ploy, just WHEN would be a good time to "trot Saddam out"??? These people are pathetic, but it's pretty entertaining to watch them scramble. Why can't they just think things out logically instead of trying to come up with a conspiracy theory for everything?

It's apparent that for most of them, the capture of Saddam is not a good thing. It furthers the possibility that GWB will be reelected next year. What kind of fools have their priorities so screwed up because they hate someone so much?

Will there be mass suicide of DUh'ers when Osama is caught or the WMDs of Iraq are found?

Anyway, forget the conclusion of Survivor tonight. Forget watching the football games. Today's entertainment can be found on
http://www.democraticunderground.com

[trollgirl]

just because these dimmicrats are pathetic is no reason to admire or even reelect GWB. Let's see, for instance, if Cheney's Halliburton REALLY pays back that money... I could go on, but then I'd start to rant.

Laz

[jeskibuff]

just because these dimmicrats are pathetic is no reason to admire or even reelect GWB.

True. Their stupidity has nothing to do with GWB's qualifications.

The reasons to admire and reelect GWB are many, in my opinion:

• There's no alternative on the Republican side that will be running. If McCain were running, I'd probably choose him over Bush, however.
• There's absolutely NOTHING attractive in any of the 9 clowns vying for the Democratic nomination. I've heard outright lies and distortions of simple facts from each of them.
• GWB's handling of the adverse situations he had to deal with (Clinton's recession, 9/11 attacks, corporate scandals, etc.) has been exemplary. Despite ridicule from the empty-headed Dimocrats who can't seem to understand simple concepts like thanking a shipload of soldiers for successfully accomplishing their mission, GWB's forged ahead, making sometimes unpopular decisions that turn out to be right for the country. That's a good sign of leadership, as opposed to the modus operandi of the prior POTUS who would take a poll to decide what action would be best to ensure his reelection.
• He makes decisions on what is best for the country in the long run. He does what he believes to be right, and I agree with much of it, especially involving the economy and the War on Terror. Time will prove him right. Despite the wailing of the Dimocrats on his handling of the economy, it is on a rebound because of his actions. It went into the dumper during Clinton's tenure, but the Dimocrats want everyone to believe that GWB caused the decline. History shows otherwise. I firmly believe that we will find WMD in Iraq and all the naysayers will be quite embarrassed when that happens. Logic says he had them. Illogic says that because we can't find them, they never existed.
• Most every accusation thrown at the Bush administration has been ridiculously petty and partisan. It seems most of the anger has been in retaliation for the (just) impeachment of the former White House resident(s).

I could go on, but then I'd be ranting!

[trollgirl]

under you! You mention what's good for the country and the long run and the war on terror, and that makes me think back. I'm almost fifty-four, and so I've been around the barn a few times. I remember the cold war, and now that it's long over, some of us have concluded that it was a phoney one. I remember when it ended, knowing that the collective WE, especially as we relate to the State, have a need for a boogeyman. At least the State does. I told myself at that time, and a few others, that our society would proceed to find a new boogeyman. Well, we found one: terrorism. Yes, I think it is also phoney. Forget me, but remember this: this new boogeyman will be used as a tool to take our precious liberties away, just as the cold war was, just as the two world wars were, just as the civil war was. I think the founding fathers would be shocked (probably not surprised) at how little real liberty we have left. The worst part is that most Americans can not feel the noose tighten around their necks...

How can it be? It seems that party (Republican) and State have achieved a near lock on news, opinion, and information. It's a larger picture of what they did to the Libertarian Party. Here was this up-and-coming political movement/party, and they were unruly, fun-loving, and truth-seeking. They were not going to play the game like the democrats. Now the Republicans have them by the balls, just peruse any "Libertarian" magazine if you don't believe it. I haven't been a Lib for many years, so I don't know how they did it, but it seem to be done. I wonder how many other aspects of our society have had the same thing done to them??

Laz

[JSE]

Huh? I understand what you are saying about our liberties being taken away but I think the Democrats are much more of a threat than the Republicans. That's a whole other topic. How can you say terrorism is phoney? It's certainly real. You may not agree with how we are handling it, but to say it's phoney is simply wrong. Has Bush used it to his gain is some ways? Maybe, maybe not. I personally don't think he has but many people do. That does not mean it's phoney. And the Cold War. Phoney? I am a little young to really have a thourough memory or knowledge of it so I am speaking from what I have heard and read. I not so sure the threat was as severe and eminent as it was made out to be. It was however real. Look at all the Nuclear storage areas that house old warheads. The ability was there, but I think the intent to use it was not. Everyone knew we would all die. No winners! I think the Cold War elevated to it's peak due to the fact that each side had to out-do the other to show superiority. It got out of control and thankfully both sides realized this and ended it.

I don't think War has ever been used as a tool to take our liberties away. Have we lost some liberties as a result, yes. But that was not the goal. If anything, they were fought to insured them.

[jeskibuff]

I remember the cold war, and now that it's long over, some of us have concluded that it was a phoney one.

And just how did you come to THAT conclusion? The threat was real. We KNOW that the Soviet Union had many nuclear missiles aimed at us - we helped dismantle many of them ourselves! Just because they never fired one off means it all was phony? Thank God that socialism is a royal failure and they just couldn't keep up with a nation that prospered with a free market system. Many years of threats just collapsed when they ran out of money. There was a boogeyman, Laz. He just didn't have the staying power we had! Would you have considered it a real threat if they had taken out one of our cities??

WE...have a need for a boogeyman

Or maybe rather, some evil is always lurking in this world. Can you cite any given year in the history of the world that a war wasn't being fought somewhere? We don't have to invent boogeymen...they turn up readily on their own! There have ALWAYS been vicious bloodthirsty leaders who want to increase their influence on the world. If we do nothing to stop them, we are actually helping them along!

I told myself at that time, and a few others, that our society would proceed to find a new boogeyman. Well, we found one: terrorism. Yes, I think it is also phoney.

And what's so phony about terrorism? Was the WTC/Pentagon thing just a Hollywood stunt? Were the 1972 Munich Olympic killings staged? How about Leon Klinghoffer? The Moscow theatre? The Bali bombing? The slaughter of tourists in Egypt? Pan-Am 103?
The USS Cole? Good grief! If you think terrorism is a phony threat, WHAT WOULD YOU CLASSIFY AS A REAL THREAT??

It seems that party (Republican) and State have achieved a near lock on news, opinion, and information.

Not from MY perspective, and many others! The liberals control most of the media, with few exceptions. They also have a pretty solid lock on the entertainment industry.

Here was this up-and-coming political movement/party, and they were unruly, fun-loving, and truth-seeking. They were not going to play the game like the democrats.

Wishful thinking on your part, I think. Do you really believe that if we had a third major party that things would be much different than they are today? Already we have a blend of the two parties. Some politicians have strong conservative values in one area, but strong liberal values in another. Zell Miller is a prime example. Clinton's welfare reform certainly wasn't following liberal guidelines. Bush's Medicare bill certainly didn't conform to conservative standards. The big problem we have today is NOT political party platforms, but campaign financing and the influence of money. Don't think for one minute that if Libertarians had more clout that things would be much different.

Well, as I go to post this, it appears that JSE has already responded with much of what I've already said. Good job, JSE! I'll post this anyway just in case those points didn't quite sink in!