Net Roots Movement

Lets Make Change.

Oh Boy!

Well I was right! The speech was no surprise. A good mix of vague policy, heart wrenching human interest vignettes, and wild applause, all masking a rather scary point. Bush is on a war path.

The latter portion of the address is what concerns me (mostly because the Democratic “post-speech” makes it clear that there aint no way the Democrats are budging on Social Security!). Bush said it is not the policy of America to impose our form of government on other nations and went on to completely contradict that statement. He talked about spreading democracy in Syria, Iran, Egypt etc. (an interesting aside: no mention of forcing democracy on Saudi Arabia. I wonder… No, cant be, I’m sure it was just an oversight!).

Does this mean we will be seeing the Iraq model applied to the entire Middle East? When will he stop?

Bush sighted the story of Bryan Norwood, a marine who died to protect his country. When he was about to go off to war he told his mother, (paraphrase); you protected me, now it’s my turn.

What he didn’t know is that his mother was in no danger from which he could protect her. These elections have made everyone forget that we went into Iraq to find and destroy WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! It was NOT to free Iraqis from an evil dictator, it was NOT to spread the ideal of democracy, it WAS to find WMD. And we didn’t.

Her son died under FALSE PRETENSES!

And everyone, including his mother and father (who sent a love letter to Bush when her son died because of HIS BLUNDERS), is blind.



February 2, 2005 - Posted by | The Progressive Movement


  1. You liberal dick weeds are just jealous because Bush had balls to do something and follow through liberals are in the words of Arnold “girly-men”

    Jordan A. Wright

    Comment by Anonymous | February 2, 2005 | Reply

  2. First of all, we like to keep debate at a professional level here, so please refrain from using 5-year-old words like dick and balls (unless you are 5, in which case, I apologize).

    You are just one of those sad pathetic conservatives who cant admit they’re wrong. BUSH MADE A MISTAKE. THERE WERE NO WMD’s. EVERYONE ADMITS IT.

    The war in Iraq was for nothing. The United States was in no danger. The difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that Liberal love America like one adult loves another; they support each other and give tough love, constructive criticism so the other doesn’t get hurt. Conservatives love America like a little boy loves his mommy; everything mommy does is right and anyone who questions her is evil.

    You have to wake up. If Bush had gone to the UN a year and a half ago and said “we are going to invade Iraq to spread democracy”, NO ONE would have authorized it. HE LIED. His story changed time after time after time. The mission evolved.

    You want the truth? The truth is that the Bush administration planned to invade Iraq before they were even in office. The second the got in power they started revising war plans (Woodward, Plan Of Attack). 9-11 gave them the perfect opportunity to push the war on the country. We were all scared and we fell for it.

    I AM SICK OF BEING LIED TO. If you think what Bush is doing is so honorable, why don’t you sign up for the army and die to give some third world country democracy that will last about 5 min before it collapses into Chaos.

    The truth? Iraq is MORE of a threat to the US that it was under Sadam. It’s now a breeding ground for terrorists who NOW hate us enough to start devising WMD programs. We will never be able to evacuate the Suni triangle. It is too dangerous.

    And imagine, all of this could have been avoided if Bush had looked a little closer at those satellite pictures to see that the Nuclear Reactor Tubes were chicken coups.

    What an idiot.

    Comment by chris | February 3, 2005 | Reply

  3. And another thing, Arnold called liberals “Economic Girly Men”. I read your post again and now I feel kind of bad. I ripped you apart and your clearly someone who has not watched a thimble of news or done an ounce of research. I apologize.

    Comment by chris | February 3, 2005 | Reply

  4. Chris,

    I want to reproduce a quote for you to ponder:

    The abolition of slavery was only a dream — until it was fulfilled. The liberation of Europe from fascism was only a dream — until it was achieved. The fall of imperial communism was only a dream — until, one day, it was accomplished. Our generation has dreams of its own, and we also go forward with confidence. The road of Providence is uneven and unpredictable — yet we know where it leads: It leads to freedom. -Bush 02/02/05

    It is sad that liberals, that tend to scream the loudest about the atrocities being commited around the world by Tyrants, are now crying because the US is acting to stop them. IMO, Bush should have gone to the UN, and simply said we need to romove Saddam. But he couldn’t for 2 main reasons. 1st, a good part of the UN security counsel were on Saddam’s payroll (read oil for food bribes), and 2nd, liberals like to scream about ending the atrocities from of Tyrants, but for some reason, when the time to act is upon us, do everything in their power to stop us from acting.

    If anyone, anywhere in the world, doubts the feelings of the Iraqis about having the US remove Saddam from power, please go and look at the images of the lines of Iraqi voters, who despite bombs and threats, turned out in numbers that put the American voter turnout to shame.

    So before you start saying how wrong we were to remove Saddam, you might want to consider the point of view that matters the most. That of the Iraqis themselves. On Sunday, they spoke loud and clear. And their voices cried out for freedom. If America was to ignore thier cries, we would truly be as morally bankrupt as the terrorists accuse us of being.

    Comment by ÐÇRøçk§ | February 3, 2005 | Reply

  5. I wish I had more time on my hands….

    You are wrong.

    Comment by rwa2 | February 3, 2005 | Reply


    Listen, obviously my priorities are much different then yours. Sure, I care about the Iraqis, but I don’t think they matter the most. I think it is our toops, the brave men and woman of OUR armed forces who are dieing. Thiers are the viewpoints that matter the most. The troops sacrafice so much for us and all they ask in return is that we NEVER send them into harms way unless it is absolutly necessary. Sure, what they have acomplished is good, but if you can look a troop in the eye and tell them it was NECESARY then you truly have no conciouns.

    If Republicans truly believe in democracy, if they TRULY BELIEVE, like I do, that it is the greatest form of government on earth, they would trust that, like all great modern democracies, it would manifest itself without aid from the outside.

    America revolted from thier mother country for the freedom of representation. The odds were against them, but they prevailed. They prevailed because the will and passion for freedom was there.

    Like everything, government is evolutionary. The Middle East is thousands of years behind the West in the evolutionary process, but they need to find their own way. It can not be thrust upon them by people they consider enemies.

    I am thrilled that the Iraqis have voted, but I am concerned that, in time, they will be meaningless. I am afraid that they are not ready to take this on their own. I pray that I am wrong.

    As for your first statement, liberals are against removing tyranical dictators when it is going to result in the death of AMERICANS. Call me selfish, but I would rather let Iraqis deal with their own problems than sacrafice our troops when no iminant threat exists against our country.

    Am I wrong?

    Comment by chris | February 3, 2005 | Reply

  7. This post has been removed by the author.

    Comment by ÐÇRøçk§ | February 3, 2005 | Reply

  8. …sorry, had to correct a few typos…

    “America revolted from thier mother country for the freedom of representation. The odds were against them, but they prevailed. They prevailed because the will and passion for freedom was there.

    Call me selfish, but I would rather let Iraqis deal with their own problems than sacrifice our troops when no imminent threat exists against our country.” – Chris

    You are wrong Chris. It is a good thing that France did not feel the same way when the US was fighting for its independence, as they provided vital support to the American soldiers. Also, it is a good thing for Europe that the US did not feel that way about Germany in WW2. Germany didn’t attack us, yet we launched an all out invasion into Europe, and lost more Americans in the first few hours of D-Day, then have been lost in Iraq to date. Some ideas are worth fighting for. Had the Iraqis not turned out like they did when offered the chance to vote, I could agree with you, but since they did, I feel it is the responsibility of the United States to help all those that yearn to be free.

    “I think it is our troops, the brave men and woman of OUR armed forces who are dieing. Theirs are the viewpoints that matter the most.” – Chris

    If you ask the soldiers over there, the majority are behind what we are doing. Not all of them, but then hell will freeze over before ALL Americans agree on anything. I have spent extensive time looking into this. My father, a lifetime Army officer says this is because they want to feel the deaths and what they are fighting for need to matter to them. I say it is something more. The cause of freedom is dear to all Americans, and to myself as well. So Chris, the Iraqis support our actions, our troops support our actions, and by sending Bush back to the White House, a majority of Americans supports our actions.

    For this I am very thankful, for like those first Americans, it is not always possible for a people to break the chains of Tyrants without the help of those that share their thirst for freedom.

    Comment by ÐÇRøçk§ | February 3, 2005 | Reply

  9. I had a poll on my blog a while back.

    20% of troops wouldn’t have gone into Iraq.

    83% believe we will succeed. THe highest numbers are the ones on the frontlines.

    The worst news for Democrats though is this:

    President Bush’s State of the Union address raised support for his policies on health care and Social Security among people who watched the speech, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Wednesday night.

    The percentage of respondents who said the president’s proposals in those areas will help the country rose 15 points from when the same question was asked of the same people in the two days before the speech.

    In the post-speech sample, 70 percent of respondents said Bush’s policies on health care were positive, while 66 percent approved of the president’s plan for Social Security.

    Bush showed almost as much improvement on Iraq, with 78 percent of respondents saying U.S. policy there is heading in the right direction, a 12 percentage point increase over pre-speech polling. Overall, 77 percent of respondents said Bush is taking the country in the right direction after the speech compared to 67 percent beforehand.

    Comment by rwa2 | February 3, 2005 | Reply

  10. Sigh,

    Okay, the French did not tell their people we were a threat to their security and invade us and then help us break away from England to have a good story that would occupy the news and raise approval ratings. The French had their own issues with England and fought with us to take a stab at them.

    Second, We joined WWII because of a little thing called PEARL HABOR! Maybe you remember it, there was a movie with Josh Hartnett.

    If I were going to compare Bush to anyone during WWII, it would be Hitler. Before you jump on me, im not suggesting that he is evil or anti-Semitic. I am just stating that his policy of spreading our form of government to all who don’t have it is similar to Hitler’s will to “purify the world”. Both think they are justified. The rest of the world disagreed with both of them.

    Comment by chris | February 3, 2005 | Reply

  11. Second, We joined WWII because of a little thing called PEARL HABOR! Maybe you remember it, there was a movie with Josh Hartnett.

    That is true Chris, but that was Japan, and not Germany, that attacked us there.

    My point was that when we declared war on Germany, Germany had not attacked us. Anyways, WW2 is not a good example for either side of this discussion, while the US revolutionary war is. It is true, that the US had issues with Saddam, like France had issues with the UK, and both had something to gain by the success of the people they supported. My point was that it is not always possible for a people to liberate themselves w/o outside help. We received that help from the French, and the Iraqis received that help from us. Let us hope that Iraq turns out as good as the US did. After all, we were able to rebuild both Gernamy and Japan after WW2, and they turned out pretty well.

    Comment by ÐÇRøçk§ | February 4, 2005 | Reply

  12. France didn’t start the revolutionary war.

    Comment by chris | February 4, 2005 | Reply

  13. Thought you all might be interested in an article that I was pointed to a day or two ago: .

    False pretenses, I’d like to hope not, but we won’t really know for years to come.

    Comment by Justin M. | February 12, 2005 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: