Guess Which Candidate Our Enemies Want to Lose in 2004

[.gene.]

Guess Which Candidate Our Enemies Want to Lose in 2004?

BY JAMES LILEKS
c.2004 Newhouse News Service

More stories by James Lileks

Let's just be blunt: The North Koreans would love to see John Kerry win the election. The mullahs of Iran would love it. The Syrian Ba'athists would sigh with relief. Every enemy of America would take great satisfaction if the electorate rejects the Bush doctrine and scuttles back to hide under the U.N. Security Council's table. It's a hard question, but the right one: Which candidate does our enemy want to lose? George W. Bush.

And some conservatives will be happy to help, it seems.

Woe and gloom have befallen some on the right. Bush has failed to act according to The Reagan Ideal.

The actual Reagan may have issued an amnesty for illegals, but the Ideal Reagan would have done no such thing. So unless Bush packs freight cars full of gardeners and dishwashers and dumps them off at the Mexican border, some voters will just sit this one out.

The Ideal Reagan would have eliminated the National Endowment for the Arts; the actual Reagan proposed a $1 million increase in his final budget. But Bush increased NEA funding -- perhaps an attempt to placate people who wouldn't vote for him if he showed up in performance with Karen Finley and a can of Hershey's syrup. So angry conservatives might just sit this one out.

And if a Democrat takes office, and the Michael Moores and Rob Reiners and Martin Sheens crowd the airwaves on Nov. 3 to shout their howls of vindication? If the inevitable renaissance of Iraq happens on Kerry's watch, and the economy truly picks up steam in the first few years before the business cycle and Kerry's tax hikes kick in? If emboldened Islamist terrorists smell blood and strike again? Fine. Maybe the next Republican president will do everything they want.

Oh, sure, Bush is fine on the foreign affairs stuff, and yes, there's a partial-birth abortion law, and the tax cuts were nice, and come to think of it, Sept. 11 wasn't followed by blow after blow after blow, for some reason. The nation endures, at least at press time. But that's hardly enough. Where's that bill requiring 60-foot Ten Commandments monuments in every capitol rotunda? Let Kerry win. Teach the GOP a lesson, it will.

So both sides have elements that seem unserious about the defining issue of the day: the war. But the right's malcontents snipe from humid redoubts of Internet message boards. The left's biggest spokesmen are parading their delusions.

No less than Al Gore has practically accused the president of treason. In a Feb. 8 speech in Tennessee, Gore went on an alarming rant, performed almost in an arr-matey pirate voice. "He betrayed this country!" Gore bellowed. "He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."

We've been manipulated into a state of fear, Gore shouted. Really. Which administration spent most of 1998 warning us about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, only to launch some missiles and walk away? Gore saw all the intel on WMDs. Gore was part of an administration that pushed for regime change because it viewed Saddam, correctly, as a danger to the region and to America. Does Gore think we don't remember everything Democrats said about Saddam and WMDs, when they felt responsible for the nation?

As for that state of fear, well, anyone out there feel afraid of Saddam today? Didn't think so.

Gore should give this speech at the convention. Why not? Why not stand up and give vent to all the poisons hatching in the muck? Why not tell America that Bush lied about everything, that he took the country to war for reasons he knew would be discredited, just so Halliburton could make another buck or two? It's what they seem to believe, after all. The delusions of their fringe have become articles of faith for the mainstream. Bush was AWOL! Bush knew! Bush lied! Bush never flosses! Skull and Bones! Plastic turkey!

At least we'll have a clear choice in November. Bush is serious about the war. The Democrats are serious about the war against Bush.

[Capt'nAmerica]

Our enemies are praying to allah that a limp dick candidate steps into office so we spend more on education and an inneficient health care system then the "Regime changE" boom stick better known as the U.S. military.

[John Kennedy]

Who needs education anyway?

[Capt'nAmerica]

Originally posted by John Kennedy
Who needs education anyway?


Yeah who and what will pay for education when our econmy comes to a grinding halt if we get attacked again????

With out our economy these programs everyone loves to complain about that are not getting enough funding will cease to exist. Poeple don't realise how important and intertangled our economy is with other "luxuries" like health care and free school...

You get one of these idiots in office that are soft on defense like John Kerry for example and the enemy knows we've gone soft....

Here is a little history for you Jack...

John Kerry voted against funding for the "Patriot Missile" and the "Stealth Bomber" how does that make you feel???

[DaveNYC]

If people are voting for Pres Bush in the fall just because of the war on terrorism, you are living in FEAR....never ever will i succumb to that......

[Capt'nAmerica]

Originally posted by DaveNYC
If people are voting for Pres Bush in the fall just because of the war on terrorism, you are living in FEAR....never ever will i succumb to that......

Isn't the "War on Terror" the single most important thing facing our country right now?

In case you forgot about the threat..

Sickening!

http://www.sikh.net/AOA/wtcpics.htm

[John Kennedy]

Using the voting record of a senator who has been in office for over 25 years against him is rediculous and it's going to slap the Bush administration in the face if they choose to do it. Every senator who has been in office for so long has compromised, reversed positions, or stepped out of party lines on votes. Dole did it (i.e. supported increases in medicare and food stamps in the 90's), and Kerry did it.

The truth is we live in a new world now, and if you're gonna tell me that if Bush or any republican were in office from 92 - 2000 that the WTC disaster wouldn't have happened you are out of your mind. It was Bush's dad who didn't go ahead and take the head off of the monster back when he had a chance in 91.. obviously he didn't see the threat either.

I would rather give my vote to someone who adjusts his policy for what is good for the country at the time of voting over someone who feels obligated to his party's support or another outside driving force.

The "if you don't vote for Bush you're voting for more attacks and voting with the terrorist" theme is ridiculous.

[Capt'nAmerica]

Originally posted by John Kennedy
I would rather give my vote to someone who adjusts his policy for what is good for the country at the time of voting over someone who feels obligated to his party's support or another outside driving force.



How do you feel about him voting to limit funding for defense programs that have panned out to be vital for OUR military
ie...Missile defense,patriot missiles and scaling back funding for the CIA,FBI?

Can't you see if elected he will slash defense spending to pay for less important programs and even raise taxes?

I will ask you this as well...

Isn't the "War on Terror" the single most important thing facing our country right now?

[Benny B]

Originally posted by John Kennedy
Using the voting record of a senator who has been in office for over 25 years against him is rediculous and it's going to slap the Bush administration in the face if they choose to do it. Every senator who has been in office for so long has compromised, reversed positions, or stepped out of party lines on votes. Dole did it (i.e. supported increases in medicare and food stamps in the 90's), and Kerry did it.

The truth is we live in a new world now, and if you're gonna tell me that if Bush or any republican were in office from 92 - 2000 that the WTC disaster wouldn't have happened you are out of your mind. It was Bush's dad who didn't go ahead and take the head off of the monster back when he had a chance in 91.. obviously he didn't see the threat either.

I would rather give my vote to someone who adjusts his policy for what is good for the country at the time of voting over someone who feels obligated to his party's support or another outside driving force.

The "if you don't vote for Bush you're voting for more attacks and voting with the terrorist" theme is ridiculous. hey not for nuttin.. but seriously here. I just read john's post sayin how Bush obviously didnt see the threat, and how if bush was in office during the clinton years 9/11 would have been different...


ok

sorry this really pisssssed me the fuck off... and made me realize how fucken beyond stupid dems are...

Bush didnt finish??? yeah why??? not because he didnt want to or felt the threat was over. But because NATO wouldnt let us.

And would it have been different if someone else was in office instead of Clinton???? you better fucken believe it. HELLOOOOO he had 8 fucking years to build their money, planning etc. They did everything during the clinton years while billy boy was more worried bout the blow job and the fucken dress.. lol...

if bush dole any republican was in office they would have had a fucken microscope watching them and everything going on.... grrrrrr wtf how can people be soo fucken stupid

Only fucken reason clinton looked good was because he road the fucken coat tails of two of the best presidents in the history of the U.S. President Bush and President Reagan.. And then notice he leaves and the economy went to shit??? yeah gee i wonder why.. Because he didnt do shit for he country and left us in ruins...

OK im done for now.. sorry needed to vent..

[John Kennedy]

Originally posted by Benny B
hey not for nuttin.. but seriously here. I just read john's post sayin how Bush obviously didnt see the threat, and how if bush was in office during the clinton years 9/11 would have been different...


ok

sorry this really pisssssed me the fuck off... and made me realize how fucken beyond stupid dems are...

Bush didnt finish??? yeah why??? not because he didnt want to or felt the threat was over. But because NATO wouldnt let us.

And would it have been different if someone else was in office instead of Clinton???? you better fucken believe it. HELLOOOOO he had 8 fucking years to build their money, planning etc. They did everything during the clinton years while billy boy was more worried bout the blow job and the fucken dress.. lol...

if bush dole any republican was in office they would have had a fucken microscope watching them and everything going on.... grrrrrr wtf how can people be soo fucken stupid

Only fucken reason clinton looked good was because he road the fucken coat tails of two of the best presidents in the history of the U.S. President Bush and President Reagan.. And then notice he leaves and the economy went to shit??? yeah gee i wonder why.. Because he didnt do shit for he country and left us in ruins...

OK im done for now.. sorry needed to vent..

Bush's agenda back in 91 never was regime change it was only to get him out of Kuwait. Regime change wasn't on the U.S. policy until 98 when Saddam threw inspectors out.

Now tell me how any president in a pre-9/11 world would've been able to monitor the hijackers who had no previous criminal records, no concrete ties to Al-Qaeda, who were taking flight courses in florida just like thousands of other students, and prevent them from boarding a plane and flying them into the towers.

The blame game is tired anyway.. no president or party thought what happened would happen.. we can run back to Bush Sr. days and lay blame there, and back to Reagan days and lay blame there... that's when these seeds were planted.. it can go on and on. Saying that the only reason Clinton looked good is because of his republican predecessors and that he left a mess for Bush is stupid.

[.gene.]

Originally posted by Benny B
hey not for nuttin.. but seriously here. I just read john's post sayin how Bush obviously didnt see the threat, and how if bush was in office during the clinton years 9/11 would have been different...


ok

sorry this really pisssssed me the fuck off... and made me realize how fucken beyond stupid dems are...

Bush didnt finish??? yeah why??? not because he didnt want to or felt the threat was over. But because NATO wouldnt let us.

And would it have been different if someone else was in office instead of Clinton???? you better fucken believe it. HELLOOOOO he had 8 fucking years to build their money, planning etc. They did everything during the clinton years while billy boy was more worried bout the blow job and the fucken dress.. lol...

if bush dole any republican was in office they would have had a fucken microscope watching them and everything going on.... grrrrrr wtf how can people be soo fucken stupid

Only fucken reason clinton looked good was because he road the fucken coat tails of two of the best presidents in the history of the U.S. President Bush and President Reagan.. And then notice he leaves and the economy went to shit??? yeah gee i wonder why.. Because he didnt do shit for he country and left us in ruins...

OK im done for now.. sorry needed to vent..


Vent away bro, vent away

[DaveNYC]

Captn, no need for the pictures.

[Benny B]

Originally posted by John Kennedy
Bush's agenda back in 91 never was regime change it was only to get him out of Kuwait. Regime change wasn't on the U.S. policy until 98 when Saddam threw inspectors out.

Now tell me how any president in a pre-9/11 world would've been able to monitor the hijackers who had no previous criminal records, no concrete ties to Al-Qaeda, who were taking flight courses in florida just like thousands of other students, and prevent them from boarding a plane and flying them into the towers.

The blame game is tired anyway.. no president or party thought what happened would happen.. we can run back to Bush Sr. days and lay blame there, and back to Reagan days and lay blame there... that's when these seeds were planted.. it can go on and on. Saying that the only reason Clinton looked good is because of his republican predecessors and that he left a mess for Bush is stupid. its not about who they are if we didnt know them or not. While Clinton was more worried about the blowjob scandal and doing nothing during his presidency that is when Al-Qeada built their strength, their money and most of all their abilities. If more was focused on problems in the country other than the bj other stuff wouldnt have been overlooked. Soo much of this could have easily been maybe not avoided but might not have been as major.

And it wasnt Bush's main objective in the Gulf War??? ok yeah the main reason to go was to get them out of Kuwait, But at this point and time we had already known he was using wmd against his own people we knew he was a tyrant and we knew what he was capable of. If the UN didnt stop us we would have done alot more then what was done

And now that Bush is doing what needs to be done and prevent terrorism hes the bad bad man. I guess when one does what the other likes didnt do people get either jealous or mad because it makes the person they support, show how little they did

[woo]

Originally posted by Capt'nAmerica
Yeah who and what will pay for education when our econmy comes to a grinding halt if we get attacked again????



y0.. :applause

that "grinding halt" description makes u sound so smart... it's turning me on.

brb:jerk

[woo]

Originally posted by Benny B

And now that Bush is doing what needs to be done and prevent terrorism hes the bad bad man. I guess when one does what the other likes didnt do people get either jealous or mad because it makes the person they support, show how little they did

tsSsSsSsSs:buck

[Benny B]

Originally posted by DaveNYC
If people are voting for Pres Bush in the fall just because of the war on terrorism, you are living in FEAR....never ever will i succumb to that...... I vote for Bush because I DONT Live in fear. ID LIVE IN FEAR IF I VOTED FOR ANY DEMOCRAT.

Sorry since Georgie boy been in office and doing whats needed.. This country is 10000000 times safer.

[woo]

Originally posted by John Kennedy


Now tell me how any president in a pre-9/11 world would've been able to monitor the hijackers who had no previous criminal records, no concrete ties to Al-Qaeda, who were taking flight courses in florida just like thousands of other students, and prevent them from boarding a plane and flying them into the towers.


http://www.nightclubcity.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37751

this link will take you to my thread posted in this forum titled, "old news to me for 10 years. i'm a Clinton h8er fo sho~!"

if Clinton was on the news flappin' about foreign affairs as Bush is doiing, and if he conducted some simple investigations with HIS [not ours b/c we are at war with them now] allies & their associates, and if he conducted more complex investigations with his own bombs, i put $ that this [9/11] would have been a more difficult task than it really was. I don't even gamble!
I'm confident wth my stand here b/c the leads we ALREADY HAD [read my thread @ the link] in the addition to the ones which would have naturally surfaced--- would have inevitably linked these freaks. Aren't they being linked now? Imagine if we took advantage when they weren't hiding as hard as they are now?

Instead i seen Monica's blue dress hundreds of times, with a few dozen close-ups up the President's cum stains...:repuke what a waste of satellite transmission. I'm speaking from a historical-worldwide-humiliation perspective.

[Capt'nAmerica]

Originally posted by John Kennedy
Now tell me how any president in a pre-9/11 world would've been able to monitor the hijackers who had no previous criminal records, no concrete ties to Al-Qaeda, who were taking flight courses in florida just like thousands of other students, and prevent them from boarding a plane and flying them into the towers.


John,
Not be able to monitor? Are you nuts?

Alqaeda attacked the World Trade Center in 93-

Clinton never visited the site..

The U.S.S. Cole where 17 of our sailors died-

Took him 2 weeks to meet woth Woosley, the head of the CIA at the time...

The American embassies in Africa were bombed killing hundreds

The Nairobi towers in South East asia...

And countless other threats from Alqaeda that even pledged to attack the WTC again...

Many of the terorists that comitted that cowardly acts were on several terrorist watch lists.

Read up on Clinton,Kerry and Torricelli's decisions while in office to limit the capabilities of law enforcement to communicate with each other and wire taps hence the creation of the PATRIOT ACT...

Read up on Monsoor Ijaz who had brokered a deal withn Sudan to hand over BinLaden on MORE then one occasion and he DECLINED.....

[DaveNYC]

Originally posted by Benny B
I vote for Bush because I DONT Live in fear. ID LIVE IN FEAR IF I VOTED FOR ANY DEMOCRAT.

Sorry since Georgie boy been in office and doing whats needed.. This country is 10000000 times safer.

We'll see in the upcoming election..why do you republicans feel as though democrats are just going to try and shake hands with terrorists peacefully?? Ridiculous.

[Capt'nAmerica]

Originally posted by DaveNYC
We'll see in the upcoming election..why do you republicans feel as though democrats are just going to try and shake hands with terrorists peacefully?? Ridiculous.

Democrats are soft on defense and have been on the wrong side of history for years....

[Benny B]

Originally posted by DaveNYC
We'll see in the upcoming election..why do you republicans feel as though democrats are just going to try and shake hands with terrorists peacefully?? Ridiculous.

how is it ridiculous??? because history shows they are soft and throw up smoke n mirrors to make an attempt like they actually did something meanwhile all they did was givem a slap on the wrist.... please

since you really dont have a good description of what the two actually do let me draw you a lil picture...


if you were a terrorist what would you think

George Bush in office, he goes in takes care of the problem at hand and scares off other possible terrorist activities due to his "fierceness"


or

Any democrat in office throws a couple of missles over tries to scare ya the terrorists laugh at your attempt and are now fueled because you burned down their shack so in return they come back and do something again...


what you gonna come n try tell me this isnt true?????? actually let me rephrase that...

just give me your next "excuse"

[.gene.]

When the libs criticize Bush, they're only concerned with their own agenda & their party's agenda which seems to impeded the war on terror. For whatever reasons they want to undermine the progress made by Bush & his administration by questioning a cause they themselves supported justa couple of years ago.... The difference betweens the Dems & the Republicans is that most Dems are willing to sit around & wait to be attacked again, the Republicans actually want to prevent another terrorist attack....The Dems are hurting the war on terror, by questioning our policies during this war, by questioning the battles we've fought & the acomplishments we have made, they are encouraging other nations (who aren't really on our side to begin with) to question our efforts thus making our coalition weaker... All these people who are saying that Bush politicized the war ?? Please. If anyone the Dems politicized this war... Anyone can see that Bush actually kept his word on fighting terrorism...How are the Dems actually believing that by feeding their constingency with anti-Bush rhetoric they are actually going to help stop terrorism & save American lives? Can someone explain this tactic to me ?
The war on terror is the Republicans war & that is why I will be voting for Bush in 2004 & will encourage everyone I know to do the same even if these people have had no political affiliation before this.

[Benny B]

like i said i will vote for bush because i dont live in fear. Id live in fear knowing that the proper and needed things werent gonna be happening for 4 years. Not knowing if terrorists are building their strengths again like during the blow job years as i like to call it. The only thing i ever here from democraps is excuses and partial stories that only provide what they will show as positives never the entire story or anything that is worthwhile.

[John Kennedy]

Everyone talks about Clintons scandals as if he were the one trying to draw attention to a blowjob and a dress. If was the Gingrich infected congress that was so hell bent on diminishing the democrats approval ratings after the 96 elections. They were the ones focusing on it. After Bush Sr. pulled out of Iraq that was it.. they abandoned everything. And if it was because NATO didn't let him or whatever that excuse was, why did Bush do it this time? Because we live in a different world after 9/11.

My stance still stands that there was no way of preventing 9/11 and that even the new Bush administration wasn't as tough on terrorists until the towers fell, and everyone knows this. Blaming it on Clinton doesn't make sense.

And when I criticize Bush I only do so because he is reckless with the economy and because of the smoke-screen he put up before sending us into Iraq.. it wasn't concrete, it was terribly flawed, and it makes our country look like random war mongers now. I was always for regime change but there was a better way of going about it. Making WMD the main focus and rushing in as if it were an imminent threat was a stupid thing to do.

[Benny B]

uttt ohh here we go again with the wmd again...

and how can ya blame clinton very simple.. nothing at all was done during his time in office and during this time is when the terrorist organizations grew and became powerful enough to pull something like this off. if something had been done earlier alot could have been prevented.

makes our country look like random war mongers now????

yooo HELLOO hi im earth have we met??? guess what majority of the world realizes its not just the united stated he is making safer but hes making it safer in every other country on the planet...

[Capt'nAmerica]

Originally posted by John Kennedy
And when I criticize Bush I only do so because he is reckless with the economy and because of the smoke-screen he put up before sending us into Iraq..

1-Wrong on the economy, because the numbers prove otherwise...

2-Smoke screen?

Did you read the speech he gave to the UN in 2002 that I posted?

I will admit the WMD weighed heavier then the humanitarian issue because the "Gathering" threat" was a easier sell but don't say he didn't mention liberating the Iraqi's and bringing democracy to the middle east as a reason, because the record shows otherwise.....

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which, the Council said, "threaten(ed) international peace and security in the region."

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and arms his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

[DaveNYC]

its a debate dont get nasty..

[Leon]

I agree with John on this one and reveal my darkest secret, I was a huge Clinton supporter when the whole Lewinsky affair broke out. When Clinton was trying to do something regarding terrorism in Africa, the Republican (or better termed, Partisan) Congress was calling it "Wag the Tail" after the name of a horrible movie.

John is right in both aspects, Clinton didn't do nearly as much, regardless of excuses and while Bush could have would have been better prior to 9.11.01, I can't honestly say that's what occurred, unfortunately.