Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (1407)	3/12/2003 12:13:11 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 10965

Armstrong Williams March 12, 2003 Bush's Faith URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Armstrongwilliams/aw20030312.shtml President Bush admits that he begins each morning by reading a book of evangelical sermons. Faith has long been an integral part of his life. A strong belief in God helped Bush let go of a drinking problem in his youth and move toward an absolute moral reference point. "Christ changed my heart," Bush said during a 1999 presidential debate. Bush also makes no bones about his belief that religion and spirituality are integral parts of America's public life. His speeches are often studded with the terms "good," "evil" and "God's will." This is especially true of his foreign policy rhetoric. Moving beyond the language of containment, Bush seems intent on using foreign policy as an engine of social and religious liberty throughout the world. Increasingly, this mission takes on tones of a spiritual mandate: "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity," he proclaimed in his 2003 State of the Union Address. Of course, the president's self-conscious mingling of church and state causes the relativists to quiver. As a person, they denounce Bush as something akin to a Southern tent revivalist. As a commander in chief, they worry that he has resolved to punish the sins of the rest of the world. At bottom, the relativists maintain that politics and religion should be kept at arm's length. Or, as Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League put it: "When (Bush prays) as a private person practicing his own faith, God bless, but when it becomes part of the official function of the president, then that's something that is inappropriate." But is it really so preposterous for a political leader - a person who serves as a public faceplate - to discuss his personal convictions? Is there really harm in addressing the moral philosophies that animate the president's policies with meaning? On a more basic level, is it such a terrible indiscretion to admit that religion remains a force in American society? The relativists certainly seem to think so. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State warns that "(Bush is) treading dangerously close to breaching the idea that this is a secular country." Personally, I'm quite pleased that Bush continues to push faith into the political mainstream. We need to create more forums where candidates are more comfortable discussing their faith in God. After all, surveys consistently show that six out of 10 Americans say that faith is very important in their lives. How can a responsible leader ignore this fact? Our politicians must discuss faith in order to understand and adequately represent their public. As for the relativist's unkind snorts and snickers, I seriously doubt that America's 200-year-old history of pragmatic and fair governance is going to be threatened by the fact that our president is comfortable discussing his belief in God. But just in case someone wants proof, nine days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush declared to Congress, "freedom and fear, justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." For a moment, a hush fell over the audience as they waited in quiet anticipation. Contrary to assertions by the relativists, our governance did not collapse in a downward spiral. Our elected representatives simply digested the remarks for a moment, and then applauded furiously. And rightly so. ©2003 Tribune Media Services

To: PROLIFE who wrote (1407)	3/12/2003 12:16:45 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10965

David Limbaugh March 12, 2003 URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20030312.shtml Fuzzy thinking at the New York Times Since the New York Times editorial page is the political Left's "paper of record" and thus fairly representative of the liberal anti-war sentiment in America today, I thought I'd analyze its recent missive "Saying No to War." The crux of their position is "in the face of United Nations opposition ... long-running, stepped-up weapons inspections" is "a better option" than invading Iraq. "By adding hundreds of additional inspectors" and "using the threat of force" "the United States could obtain much of what it was originally hoping to achieve." Sorry, but "obtain(ing) much" won't get it -- getting close doesn't work with mass destruction weapons. One event is too many, thank you. And "using the threat of force" begins to lose its deterrent effect if you never make good on the threat, which we didn't for 12 years, even when Saddam sent the inspectors packing. The Left has consistently opposed troop deployment, yet that's what got Saddam to let the inspectors back in. Now they want to take advantage of our troop presence to deter his noncompliance -- as if that's what they favored all along. But if they'd had their way, we'd still be mollycoddling and our troops would be stateside. President Bush, they say, has "talked himself into a corner" by demanding regime change, "making it much harder for Washington to adopt" stepped-up inspections. Bush hasn't talked himself into a corner. He's exactly where he wants to be. He's been clear that you can't achieve disarmament and eliminate the Iraqi WMD threat without regime change. The Times would be compelled to agree with this if they followed to their logical conclusion their own assumptions that Saddam "can never be trusted to disarm on his own accord" and "history shows that inspectors can be misled." President Bush would prefer that the United Nations remain on board, but he understands that his constitutional duty to protect and defend America doesn't include a U.N. approval contingency clause. The Times says "there are circumstances under which" we'd "have to act "militarily no matter what the Security Council said," such as if America were attacked. Preemptive attacks, however, are presumably a worse option to them than national suicide. Under their logic we could not attack Iraq if it had nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at us and Saddam had his finger on the button. Saddam represents a real threat, plus he's had years to comply. It's not as if this were unprovoked. What, after all, is the point of peace treaty conditions if compliance isn't backed up by the genuine threat of force? If the defeated nation repeatedly violates them, doesn't the enforcing body lose its credibility unless it employs the option of force -- the only one Saddam responds to? The editors admit that Bush's argument "for invading Iraq" for "its refusal to obey U.N. orders that it disarm" is "a good reason," "but not when the U.N. itself believes disarmament is occurring and the weapons inspections can be made to work." If we ignore the Security Council and act on our own, "the first victim in the conflict will be the United Nations itself." They continue, "The whole scenario calls to mind that Vietnam-era catch phrase about how we had to destroy a village in order to save it." Of course, the demise of the United Nations -- a loose confederation of nations that, on the whole, doesn't even like us, much less want to protect us -- will cause me no tears. And their bizarre Vietnam analogy shows just how off base their thinking is. This is not about the United Nations, its fate or integrity, which, by the way, has already emasculated itself by letting Saddam walk all over it. It's about protecting ourselves and our allies in a dangerous world. But more importantly, what if the United Nations is manifestly wrong about inspections -- as the editors admit it could be? Should we still defer, delegating America's national security to this incompetent, often hostile body? Was the Times opposed to Clinton acting without the U.N. in Kosovo? Finally, they accuse Bush of changing "several times" his reasons for invading, citing his "theory" that we "can transform the Middle East by toppling Saddam." Our purpose mustn't be "fuzzy;" we can't "invade another country for any but the most compelling of reasons." Sorry, gentlemen, but the only thing fuzzy is your thinking. These are not mutually exclusive goals. Ushering in democracy, if it occurs, will be a collateral benefit of disarming and removing Saddam. President Bush has been consistently clear about his goal to remove and disarm Saddam for the most compelling reason that while in power he will always be a threat to the United States and its allies directly, and by supporting terrorists with whom we are at war. ©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.