SOTU

People who didn't specifically ask for a democracy, and didn't vote for one.

Unless there's a belief in the inherent good of a democracy, it is viewed only as a tool. Namely, a way to get what you want. When you don't get what you want, you look for other means.

In other words, they supported the idea when it was thought they might be able to vote their side into power. The side who lost, once it was seen it wouldn't work, discarded the 'ineffective tool' for others.>

How foolish for Bush and co. to believe that democracy can be transplanted when the conditions for this fragile flower are not present.

And let's face it, tyrants and murderers have often preferred the ballot over the bullet, but the latter usually follows the former.

The naivate of this administration borders on criminal. No doubt many of my fellow conservatives are incensed that Pelosi didn't stand and clap. But this conservative found himself saying "Yeah, you stay seated, girlfriend!"

There is no silver lining in this cloud.>

Where is the evidence that free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies? Were the Germans who voted for the Nazi Party not free? Were the Southerners who voted for pro-slavery candidates in antebellum America unfree?

I got one more for you, Rod -

Were the Americans who were well aware of torturous abuses, indiscriminate "shocking and aweing," of impoverished Iraqi Muslims, and the soaring profits of those who orchestrated the bloodshed - were *those* Americans not free when they chose in 2004 to support more of the same?>

They were probably as free, or unfree, as they were when they chose in 1992 and again (!) in 1996 to massacre thousands of defenseless Serbs with cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells from 35000 feet because of lies about "massacres" and "open graves" that NATO itself later admitted were false.>

Hey, but it wasn't those evil liberals who voted for him.

He's not changed his spiel ONE WHIT since he started. He's not done anything he didn't say he would do, and his problems, as far as I can see, come from sheer doggedness and inability to change when confronted with a reality that says his course is wrong, rather than springing any surprises on him.

Its not a 'liberal' thing to have a program for everything, there are 'liberal' programs for liberal policies. And there are, as Bush demonstrates, and everyone got behind (until it all turned out so wrong), Conservative ones too.

Don't confuse Conservatives with Libertarians at this late date. Otherwise, a Conservative wouldn't run on any policies whatsoever other than lowering taxes and dismantling various government programs and departments.

Its like when they tried the 'The Democrats who won are more conservative than the Republicans who lost' bit.

Can't possibly be a bad Conservative. Can't possibly be a problem with the philosophy as applied in this case. (Which doesn't even require the philosophy being bad overall... every human idea can have errors or be applied the wrong way, or the wrong time..).

Naw, he has to be some kinda 'stealth liberal'.

Sorry, buddy. If he was, he was a bad one, cause it wasn't liberals he got to VOTE for him.>

And if you chart his course, it was all laid out beforehand, and by that organization, the 'Project for a New American Century'. Filled with such 'Liberals' as Cheney, William Kristol (Editor of the Weekly Standard), Robert Kagan (staffer for Ronald Reagan), et al.

The idea is simple. Not about democracy as we might think of democracy anyway. Not in the sense of sovereign nations. (Not surprising, given that GW Bush literally couldn't define sovereign when asked to.) But to expand US hegemony in the attempt to impose a form of 'Pax Americana'.

One of the first architects, Fujiyama, recanted when he realized that reality, as seen in Iraq, contradicted the goals that the agenda was supposed to achieve.

Not a liberal agenda (unless that crew suddenly became liberal too. In which case, who IS conservative?), but a conservative one.

Not all 'government programs' are liberal.>

When it turned from 'helping other countries' to trying to impose our will on other countries. Peace in the name of benefiting trade.

That's not exceptionally liberal.

And, I'd say that if liberals didn't support it, and they did NOT, that its not liberal.

No matter who says it is supposed to be.>

When it turned from 'helping other countries' to trying to impose our will on other countries. Peace in the name of benefiting trade.

Sheesh, it's Athens and the Delian League from the 5th century BC all over again.>

About Illegal Aliens, and closing Americas Borders with Mexico: As recently as Six years ago, people had jobs. They were working, and making money, and everyone was more or less satisfied. Even then, migrant workers were working the fields, and nobody was all that concerned about it. Jokes were even made that "They aren't taking away our jobs, they're doing our jobs for us".
BUT THEN CAME GEORGE BUSH, and jobs started to disapear. By the thousands at a time, they disapeared.
Now, all of a sudden, We have all these "Mexicans" up here taking away all our jobs. The Cons solution? Don't let them come up. Simple as that.
Well, they managed to stop a big majority from doing just that. Then the farmers, with no other choice, tried to hire "American" workers.
And the problem with that was, nobody would do the work for $9.00 an hour. They couldn't hire enough help, and farmers were forced to plow their crops under, and take the loss, while prices rose because of it.
"Be carefull what you wish for"
Now, George W. wants to increase the number of troups in Iraq, to help us get out? How does that work. It's like spending money to save money!
Yes, The President needs to learn from Pharoh. Sometimes, there are people around us, that know more than we do, and being a hard head doesn't do anybody any good.>