liberal socialist left wing jabs throughout the ages !

pass these along folks- it will help defeat Hillary and/or John Kerry
in 2008- Merry Christmas- in God We Trust- Right on the Money !



Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress.
But then I repeat myself ............Mark Twain

I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is
like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.........Winston Churchill

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
support of Paul..............George Bernard Shaw

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which
debt he proposes to pay off with your money.............G. Gordon
Liddy

Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in
rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
.......Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University


Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car
keys to teenage boys.
................P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian

Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to
live at the expense of everybody else...........Frederic Bastiat,
French Economist (1801-1850)

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short
phrases:
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it..........Ronald Reagan (1986)

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it
costs when it's free..........P.J. O'Rourke

In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as
possible from one party of the citizens to give to the
other.........Voltaire (1764)

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of
misery.......Winston Churchill

The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the
taxidermist leaves the skin......Mark Twain

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools........Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher
(1820-1903)

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is also big
enough to take everything you have.........Thomas Jefferson

GLOBAL VIEW
By GEORGE MELLOAN


ABOUT GEORGE MELLOAN


George Melloan is the Journal's Deputy Editor, International. He began
writing "Global View" in 1990, when he took over responsibilities for
the overseas pages after 17 years as deputy editor in New York. During
the first five years of his present assignment he was based in
Brussels, traveling extensively from there to write about such events
as the fall of the Berlin Wall, the break-up of the Soviet empire and
the collapse of the Japan's stock market and real estate bubble. He
returned to New York in 1994..
Mr. Melloan invites comments to .

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



One of the most remarkable assertions of the anti-Bush, antiwar
choristers is that the U.S. has no "strategy for victory." One wonders
where they have been these last four years. The strategy's goal has
been clear since September 11, 2001: To defeat the jihadists who made
it abundantly evident on that bright morning in New York that they are
waging war on the U.S.

The U.S. method has been spelled out repeatedly as well: Attack the
jihadists on their own ground and replace their protectors with
democratic governments that share U.S. values. This has been defined as
the "Bush doctrine." In November's 60th-anniversary issue of
Commentary, no fewer than 36 leading scholars debated it, a rather
strong suggestion that such a doctrine exists. Admittedly, they were
mostly friendly "neocons," but who else these days has anything
interesting to say about foreign policy?

The Bush critics aren't dense. They know full well what the Bush
doctrine is all about. They know as well that it has had some rather
impressive results, forcing the leaders of al Qaeda out of their base
in Afghanistan and beginning the process of turning that war-stricken
country into a state where an elected government backed by NATO forces
provides a higher degree of personal security than Afghans have enjoyed
in decades.

The invasion of Iraq was not only about weapons of mass destruction,
although "Bush-lied" canards have confused this issue as well. It was
also about establishing a U.S. war-fighting beachhead in the heart of
the Middle East, the principal breeding ground of terrorists. The
invasion took out one terrorism sponsor, Saddam Hussein, and gave the
U.S. a presence for intimidating two others, Iran and Syria.

The claim that Saddam had no connections with al Qaeda -- because Arab
socialism and Islamic zealotry don't mix -- came from CIA analysts with
an unhappy record of inaccurate perceptions. There are in fact plenty
of circumstantial links, but even if Saddam wasn't doing al Qaeda's
bidding, he certainly sponsored Mideast terrorism.

To counter the latest "no-strategy" claims, the White House was forced
to explain it all again last week. Mr. Bush did so in a speech to naval
cadets at Annapolis and the White House put up a long document on its
Web site detailing the seven pillars of a policy fleshed out as long
ago as 2003.

Press sophisticates complained that there was nothing new. Of course
not. The strategy has been there all along. It was endorsed by both
parties and dates back, in rudimentary fashion, to the Clinton years.
Serious Democrats like Sen. Joe Lieberman know that it would be a grave
error to abandon it at this point, a point he made in this newspaper
last week.

The document on the White House Web site details a U.S. government
doctrine designed and implemented by the commander in chief and
approved by the Congress. It is the core of U.S. foreign policy and
even though it is not "new," the greater detail makes the document
worth reading by anyone with a serious interest in understanding what
is going on and what is at stake. Cynics might scoff that it is White
House "propaganda," which of course it is in the broadest sense of that
word, but it is also an effort to explain to Americans why winning in
Iraq is of vital importance to them.

That such an explanation should be necessary at this point derives from
a number of factors. The American political debate has become intensely
polarized as the Democrats and their allies in the press and academia
have become increasingly anxious about their chances of regaining
political power. This is manifested in something approaching hatred for
George W. Bush. Because of the president's domestic failures,
particularly his loss of popularity on the right through his failure to
control government expansionism, the Democrats sense weakness.

There are also signs of public weariness with the war. The "War on
Terror" has dragged on longer than America's involvement in World War
II, although of course with infinitely fewer casualties. The Bush
critics detect impatience in the electorate, hence their calls for
setting a specific date when the U.S. will withdraw its troops from
Iraq -- a move that would clearly be an enormous mistake, giving Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi and his murderous gang an incentive to continue their
campaign of bombings and mutilation.

The Department of Homeland Security is proud of the fact that there
hasn't been a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, and that
is indeed something to be thankful for. But it has perhaps given
Americans a false sense of security that erodes the shock of the 9/11
atrocity and leads to a belief that the "War on Terror" is not as
serious as it was first made out to be. One problem is the abstract
description. It is not a war on terror, but a defensive struggle
against ruthless fanatics who have dedicated their lives to the
destruction of Western civilization. They dream of an Islamic
"caliphate" stretching from the Far East to the coast of Spain, ruled
over by the equivalent of Iran's ayatollahs with an equal disdain for
human freedom and dignity.

Finally, there may be a legitimate anxiety that the administration has
underestimated the enemy. Nowhere is the antipathy toward America and
the West more clearly manifested than in Iran. The mullahs are
hell-bent on developing a nuclear weapon with which to threaten their
neighbors. Getting Iraq under control is urgent because of what may be
the next threat in the Middle East.

Mr. Bush made it clear at the outset that this war would be a long one
-- 30 years in the view of some analysts. It is being fought in the
shadows on many fronts. It depends heavily on the gathering of
intelligence on where the enemy is and what he is up to, something that
the CIA is finally beginning to take seriously through the deployment
of more secret agents. But the strategy couldn't be clearer: Defeat the
fanatics and tyrants by promoting freedom and democracy. The strategy
is in fact working, believe it or not.

Write to George Melloan at





___________________________________
Sent via EvenLink's webmail system