1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

George Bush vs. the Naive Nine

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by Tank Boy, Nov 13, 2003.

  1. Tank Boy

    Tank Boy clank clank boom

    George Bush vs. the Naive Nine

    By ZELL MILLER

    If I live and breathe, and if -- as Hank Williams used to say -- the creek don't rise, in 2004 this Democrat will do something I didn't do in 2000, I will vote for George W. Bush for president.
    I have come to believe that George Bush is the right man in the right place at the right time. And that's a pretty big mouthful coming from a lifelong Democrat who first voted for Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and has voted for every Democratic presidential candidate the 12 cycles since then. My political history to the contrary, this was the easiest decision I think I've ever made in deciding who to support. For I believe the next five years will determine the kind of world my four grandchildren and four great-grandchildren will live in. I simply cannot entrust that crucial decision to any one of the current group of Democratic presidential candidates.
    Why George Bush? First, the personal; then, the political.
    I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together, and I just plain like the man, a man who feeds his dogs first thing every morning, has Larry Gatlin sing in the White House, and knows what is meant by the term "hitting behind the runner."
    I am moved by the reverence and tenderness he shows the first lady and the unabashed love he has for his parents and his daughters.
    I admire this man of faith who has lived that line in that old hymn, "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see." I like the fact that he's the same on Saturday night as he is on Sunday morning. And I like a man who shows respect for others by starting meetings on time.
    That's the personal. Now, the political.
    This is a president who understands the price of freedom. He understands that leaders throughout history often have had to choose between good and evil, tyranny and freedom. And the choice they make can reverberate for generations to come. This is a president who has some Churchill in him and who does not flinch when the going gets tough. This is a president who can make a decision and does not suffer from "paralysis analysis." This is a president who can look America in the eye and say on Iraq, "We're not leaving." And you know he means it.
    This is also a president who understands that tax cuts are not just something that all taxpayers deserve, but also the best way to curb government spending. It is the best kind of tax reform. If the money never reaches the table, Congress can't gobble it up.
    I have just described George W. Bush.
    Believe me, I looked hard at the other choices. And what I saw was that the Democratic candidates who want to be president in the worst way are running for office in the worst way. Look closely, there's not much difference among them. I can't say there's "not a dime's worth of difference" because there's actually billions of dollars' worth of difference among them. Some want to raise our taxes a trillion, while the others want to raise our taxes by several hundred billion. But, make no mistake, they all want to raise our taxes. They also, to varying degrees, want us to quit and get out of Iraq. They don't want us to stay the course in this fight between tyranny and freedom. This is our best chance to change the course of history in the Middle East. So I cannot vote for a candidate who wants us to cut and run with our shirttails at half-mast.
    I find it hard to believe, but these naive nine have managed to combine the worst feature of the McGovern campaign -- the president is a liar and we must have peace at any cost -- with the worst feature of the Mondale campaign -- watch your wallet, we're going to raise your taxes. George McGovern carried one state in 1972. Walter Mondale carried one state in 1984. Not exactly role models when it comes to how to get elected or, for that matter, how to run a country.
    So, as I have said, my choice for president was an easy decision. And my own party's candidates made it even easier.

    Mr. Miller is a Democratic senator from Georgia and the author of "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat," published last month by Stroud & Hall.
     
  2. mad brad

    mad brad Guest

  3. Johnny B

    Johnny B Cone Rights Activist

    :up: :clap: :up: :clap: :up:
     
  4. RCjohn

    RCjohn Killin machine.

    You go Zell. See not a Democrats are idiots... just the vast majority. :D
     
  5. WeaselBob

    WeaselBob Well-Known Member

    However, unlike Republicans, they can write a coherent sentence. :D
     
  6. Johnny B

    Johnny B Cone Rights Activist

    "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." - Guess who? :D
     
  7. RCjohn

    RCjohn Killin machine.

    LOL :D
     
  8. smooth

    smooth Well-Known Member

    that article pretty much sums it up for me
     
  9. Tank Boy

    Tank Boy clank clank boom

    Yup.
    While I am highly respectful of Bush the man, I am *slightly* tempted to vote for Clark if he were to get the nomination, only to fire the Chaney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz "DoD of State" for this disaster of a foreign policy we are stuck with.

    But since Mondale Jr. er... I mean Dean is going to get it. Better the morons you know vs. the ones you don't.
     
  10. Team Atomic

    Team Atomic Go Go SOX!

    Tank.....you to Brute', beginning to respect Clark more and more.
    He did great job in Kosovo. :D
     
  11. Tank Boy

    Tank Boy clank clank boom

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2003
  12. mad brad

    mad brad Guest

    i fookin' love that one. :D
     
  13. Johnny B

    Johnny B Cone Rights Activist

    Clark is a half-assed attempt at a "relevant" candidate who will continue to prosecute the War on Terror. Reminds me of (I know I'm going to butcher this one!) Zbignew Brezinski, Carter's idea of a Henry Kissinger.
    He shoud have kept his job at CNN as one of the imbedded generals. :D
     
  14. peekay

    peekay Well-Known Member

    I'm not sure if anyone (regardless of political affiliation) would vote for Wesley Clark, if more knew what Clark is actually about. Here's a guy Clinton hand-picked as NATO's "Supreme Allied Commander", yet earned zero respect from his military and civilian peers.

    Truth be known, in Kosovo, Clark's own field commanders refused to carry out his self-serving orders. As the war was ending, Clark wanted a made-for-TV assault on an airfield to upstage the Russians, perhaps already with an eye for his political future. To Clark's dismay, the British Lt. General in charge of KFOR refused, saying such an assault would needlessly endanger NATO forces and risked open conflict with the Russians. Clark, furious with the rejection, then ordered NATO's Southern Command (led by an American admiral) to attack the airfield. Yet the American commander flatly rebuffed Clark's orders as well. Later both the US and British militaries backed their refusal as the proper action.

    Clark's civilian colleagues intensely disliked him as well, painting him as being "too political," more concerned about TV appearances than his military duty. Clark's then boss (Defense Secretary Bill Cohen) was so furious with him, Clark was basically relieved of his duty shortly after Kosovo and forced to take early retirement. A recent "The Nation" article writes that Cohen and Joint Chiefs Chairman Hugh Shelton told Clark to "get your fucking face off the TV" shortly before he was sacked.

    There are few things worse than a general willing to risk his subordinates needlessly for his future political gain. Never before in the history of NATO would a British three-star general and a top-ranked American admiral refuse to carry out a direct order from the Supreme Allied Commander during wartime, and have their refusal vindicated. That in itself says a lot. And now Wesley Clark wants to become the Commander-in-Chief?

    -peekay
     
  15. Tank Boy

    Tank Boy clank clank boom

    I did say *slightly*...

    He wouldn't be the first General (or even the first Gen. Clark!) to make decisions based on political aspirations...

    And don't believe everything you read, or at least read between the lines. Clark became the Clinton Administration's fall guy for everything that went wrong in Kosovo. Yeah, he made mistakes and poor judgements, but was also inenviable position of prosecuting a campaign with both hands tied behind his back WHILE dealing with NATO and the UN, which must have been as much fun as herding cats.

    But its a mute point. The Dems always fall in behind who ever gets the most momentum, regardless of their actual viability.
    So the one man who could challenge Bush by drawing moderates from both parties, is going to get shot down by a wide open Liberal who makes the party faithful feel warm and fuzzy, but doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election, even if were held today.
    :rolleyes:
     
  16. Team Atomic

    Team Atomic Go Go SOX!

    Tanks for the troll bait.... I guess I landed on a land mine. :D

    I agree with some of your comments, but it was no question we would win this war, we out spend the Iraqi military something like 400 B to 1.5 B. It becomes more of a question how you won the war, and how the rest of the world proceives you. :D

    I know your answers so you don't have to give them. :Poke:

    The next President after Bush is going to have spend alot effort rapairing the rift between, UN, EU, and NATO.

    Clearly the leaders of the DOD need to go, to faciltate those kind of changes.

    There have been recently article overtly critical of Clark's handling of Kosovo, try to imagine commanding several different armies, we have a hard enough time handling our four branches.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2003
  17. Tank Boy

    Tank Boy clank clank boom

    Actually I rather agree with you there.

    I'll go you one better and say that the DoDs penchant for using the Big Stick as foreign policy may have already done irrevocable damage if it causes Europe and the rest of the world to coalesce into blocs of power to resist American political and military influence.
    Only time will tell...
     
  18. plasticweld

    plasticweld Well-Known Member

    I personally have no disire to have a much better relationship with the U.N and the EU.. they are clearly anti American. While I believe we must be able to function together, far to many would just give in to the concessions that they seek; which would only weaken the U.S
     
  19. peekay

    peekay Well-Known Member

    Clearly the leaders of France and Germany need to go, to facilitate those kind of changes.

    -peekay
     
  20. RCjohn

    RCjohn Killin machine.

    Exactly what I was thinking. Who gives a shit about the UN and the EU will follow us eventually. They dig the US but many of them are just pusses when it comes to war. They aren't a problem.
     

Share This Page