Cynical Nation

Hey Barry,
How long will it take you to realize that this administration does not care about the constitution (or democracy altogether)?

oh yeah well this administration just issued a little smack-down on eminent domain abuse, speaking of not caring about the constitution. HA!

But then again today Hillary called the Repugs "supine"....

The notion tha the Bush Administration doesn't care about democracy is an odd asseveration. Bush has staked his political legacy on spreading democracy and confronting despotism. The left, one the other had, has largely displayed a sublime insdifference towards these very fragile democracies we have created.

Hehe, I wonder how many people get the joke.

Well put, Jason. Blue Wind is just the same old Hot Air.

Jason wrote:
Bush has staked his political legacy on spreading democracy and confronting despotism.

If you really still believe that after all this, what can I say? If you said that in a late night TV show it would make many people laugh.

The left, one the other had, has largely displayed a sublime indifference towards these very fragile democracies we have created

Yes. The left has been busy trying to protect democracy at home. Fron whom? From the Bush administration of course. Cheers.

Hate to break this to you but the IRS already can.

"Bush has staked his political legacy on spreading democracy and confronting despotism." (Jason)
"Bush has staked his political legacy on spreading democracy and confronting despotism." (Jason)


"If you really still believe that after all this, what can I say? If you said that in a late night TV show it would make many people laugh." (BW)


Well, not many bright people...or even people who even follow current events in even a cursory manner.

Iraq and Afghanistan are now two fledgling democracies, so is Kuwait...thanks to America's incursion into the Mid-East.

That may be an inconvenient fact for the anti-war folks, but it remains a FACT.


"The left has been busy trying to protect democracy at home. Fron whom? From the Bush administration of course." (BW)


Which clearly shows just how misguided and out of step the Left in America really is, when it comes to reality.

Not ONE single person has come up with a single example of abuse of the Patriot Act.

That's probably because the Patriot Act didn't expand police powers, it merely let local and national law enforcement use thye tactics they've BEEN USING on drug dealers and child molesters/pedophiles (roving wiretaps, no-knock warrants, checking bank and internet records, etc) for over a decade, with great success.

It also allows foreign Intelligence to share data with federal (ie. FBI, NSA) and local (ie. LAPD, NYPD) law enforcement...a very GOOD and NECESSARY thing, right about now.

Foreign Intelligence has helped local law enforcement bust terror cells like the Lackawanna Six in NY, as well as terror groups in Detroit, MI, Portland, OR and Seattle, WA.

Moreover, there've been no Wacos...and no Ruby Ridges under the current administration.

Those two incidents were national disgraces and proof a Justice Dept, under Janet Reno, run amok.

There were Islamic terror cells in America, as well as ALF & ELF back then, but Reno felt a few religious fanatics (the Branch Davidians) and a former green Beret (Randy Weaver) who wished only to be left alone (both were a threat to no one) were a bigger priority.

THOSE two incidents were REAL examples of Justice Dept abuse and proof of its misguided and rudderless direction. Instead of going after real threats, like Islamic Militants in the U.S. and Eco and Animal Rights terrorists (ALF & ELF), the Reno Justice Dept went after a few harmless kooks.

The Patriot Act, passed 99-1 in the Senate, and judiciously used by law enforcement, has been a useful tool in the war against terrorism.

Typical Liberals - forget about, or gloss over the REAL abuses by a Democratic administration, like Ruby Ridge and Waco and then express misguided outrage over a legitimate law enforcement tool that's been succesfully applied against numerous terror cells within the U.S.

Well put JMK. They're just too busy taking on non-existent Bush's Brownshirts (you know the ones who bash in your door at night for not praying) and turn a blind eye to real threats.

Gordon, that's the crux of the problem and it's been going on for decades.

In the Robert Bork hearings, Ted Kennedy ranted about "Robert Bork's America, where police kick in your door in the middle of the night..." when none of Bork's rulings or writings had ever espoused any violation of the 4th Amendment at all.

In 2000 the Democrats used and urged the NAACP to air ads linking Conservativism to black Church burnings and the James Byrd murder - "If George W Bush is elected more black Churches will burn," and yet a large number of those burnings were done by disgrunteled former Church members and NOT any racist groups! In the Byrd murder, two of the three men convicted received the death penalty (a sentence the Liberal Left opposes) and the other life in prison without parole...sentences harsher than any given out in "hate crime" meccas like NYC.

When a Liberal (Janet Reno) controlled the Justice Dept. ALF & ELF burned auto dealerships and subsurban housing developments around the country with relative impunity because she apparently felt that a bunch of religious fanatics who'd hurt no one and threatened no one was priority ONE.

Apparently a decorated, former Green Beret, who lived with his small family on an isolated homestead out in rural Idaho, was priority TWO...or maybe he was priority one for awhile, as Waco occurred after the Weaver clan was taken down.

Those two incidents were horrific mistakes, and yet you heard no breathless charges about "brownshirts." No equating Reno to Hitler, or the Clinton administration to the Third Reich.

What you heard was a tremendous surge of righteous indignation and moral outrage over the government commiting "high crimes" under Reno's watch.

The obliteration of the Branch Davidians and the killing of Randy Weaver's twelve year old son and wife served no legitimate law enforcement purpose and did nothing to advance public safety. Weaver received over $5 million in compensation for the attack on his family and home.

On the other hand, the intrusive investigations that have uncovered numerous domestic terror cells from Lackawanna NY, to Detroit to Seattle, to Liberty City, Florida have greatly advanced public safety.

Maybe that's the issue with Liberals - they don't so much want to go after actual bad guys, they'd rather make "a statement," like "We won't tolerate religious fanatics or ex-military white guys who want to be left alone, living out in the woods."

I guess making statements is easier...and more FUN!

"Bush has staked his political legacy on spreading democracy and confronting despotism." (Jason)
...
"If you really still believe that after all this, what can I say? If you said that in a late night TV show it would make many people laugh."

Ask the women in Kuwait if they're laughing at that.

If you don't know why I say that... well, that explains your position.

The left has been busy trying to protect democracy at home. Fron whom? From the Bush administration of course.

That's like teenage vandals saying they're trying to protect the mall from the security guards.

Ask the women in Kuwait if they're laughing at that.

Wow, I did not know that Bush junior "liberated" Kuwait also. I thought that that happened in the 90s in a war that the whole western world was united. My recollection is that Bush senior was the president then and he was smart enough not to invade Iraq at the time.

It is hard to imagine that there are people who still believe that Bush junior is trying to liberate the world, but I guess there are among the 30% of the country that still supports this disastrous presidency. The fact remains that Iraq is a destroyed country, while Bush remains very friendly with several dictators around the world (i.e. Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.). So, I guess he tries to "selectively" liberate the world from despotism. If it was not so tragic, it would be real funny thinking of Bush as a "liberator".

Nope! Wrong on your analysis BW.

Kuwait wasn't a democracy until a few weeks ago.

Ergo, Gulf War I was NOT responsible for the democratization of Kuwait, our more recent foray into the Mid-East is.

Saddam's Iraq was a sworn enemy of the United States (much like many on the hard Left), but Jalal Talabani's Iraqi government is not an enemy of the U.S.

Afghanistan has had its Taliban government ripped out by its roots.

It's those dolts (including many in the MSM) who think those two developments weren't absolutely necessary and vital to our own national security who are misguided.

The UAE inspects foreign cargo headed for America, trains Iraqi security forces and has been one of America's most steadfast allies in the war on terrorism. Thank God for the UAE!

Again the enemies list is Saddam's Iraq, Taliban controlled Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran, and some would add the Sudan, Somalia - three down (Libya has begun cooperating with the West) a couple more to go.

Iran and Syria get "democratized" way before we worry about the likes of Jordan, Qutar and the UAE.

JMK wrote:
Thank God for the UAE!

So, JMK are you telling me that the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have democracies? How could you reconcile "trying to spread freedom" with being friendly with one the worst antidemocratic regimes on earth (Saudi Arabia)?

Regarding the comment "
much like many on the hard Left (are sworn enemies of the USA), I can easily argue that many in the hard right are the real enemies of the US principles and way of life. They want to change it (for worse of course). The left just wants to preserve things as they are now (before Bush). Think about it. Cheers.

"So, JMK are you telling me that the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have democracies?"

Nope, what I'm telling you is that the UAE, Qutar, Kuwait and Jordan are among our staunchest allies in the war on terror.

Saudi Arabia's and Pakistan's governments are in need of and deserve America's protection, since the West cannot allow more radicalized elements to take control of those two countries.

Sadly, we need the Saudi Royal family right now, just as we need Musharef. The alternative is without a doubt a more radicalized regime in both those countries, which would precipitate a rightful and necessary invasion by the U.S. in both those nations.

There's absolutely no disputing that America's primary enemies in the war on terrorism are all straight from the U.S. State Department's list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism" - in the Mid-East, that was Saddam's Iraq, Taliban led Afghanistan, Syria and Libya.

The fact that the Left has opposed every action taken by the current administration to combat and ferret out domestic terror cells, is not heroic, it's disgraceful.

Thank God for the 99 members of the Senate who voted to ratify the Patriot Act, and for the NSA wiretaps on calls into & out of the U.S. from suspect foreign portals, for no-knock warrants and for the CIA being allowed to dhare information with federal and local law enforcement, for Camp Gitmo and yes, thank God for some strategic Mid-East allies in the war on terrorisl - the UAE, Qutar, Kuwait and Jordan in particular.

JMK wrote:

Sadly, we need the Saudi Royal family right now, just as we need Musharef.

Thats the whole point. Noone can claim that he tries to "spread democracy", as George W did, when he need the helps of dictators and brutal regimes, and has to help them stay in power. Saudi Arabia is one of the worst, if not THE worst, regimes on earth, but Bush has not even dared to tell them to be a little more democratic. The whole thing is big-time hypocrisy. Bush does not care about spreading democracy around the world, and, sadly, he does not care about protecting democracy at home.

Actually Saudi Arabia is very far from "one of the worst, if not THE worst, regime on earth."

It falls behind Syria (its rape of Lebanon), Iran, Somalia, the Sudan, North Korea, and a host of other African, Asian and South American regimes.

Small "d" democracy does NOT necessarily mean "respecting the will of any given people." At least not in any international sense.

For instance, should Iraq democratically elect a radicalized Muslim regime, like Afghanistan's Taliban, that would be unaccpetable. No, what we want to do, by "spreading democracy" is PRIMARILY to make sure Western friendly and cooperative governments are maintained in power in those regions.

Right now Iran is a "global threat," so is Syria, so is North Korea and Venezuela BECAUSE those governments are all anti-Western and uncooperative with the U.S.

I'm sure, like you, the thing I care most about is "what's best for America," and little more than that. I don't really care about "peace and freedom" for other peoples - let them forge their own peace and freedom, so long as they cooperate with the U.S. in trade and do not aid and abet terrorists.

Right now, what's "best for America" is the continuing free flow of oil at market prices and we all have to pull together to make sure that those recalcitrant nations are brought back into line.

That's all the "high ideals" one needs right now, BW.