Who are you going to vote for?

Who are you going to vote for?


  • Total voters
    46
Well, my only comments here would be that terrorism was literally the very last thing on the Bush administration's 'to do list' prior to 911, this has been confirmed time and again. He didn't go after it of his own volition, it was forced upon him. To suggest that Gore or any other commander in chief wouldn't make a move after 911 to protect our nation is rather ridiculous. No president would react to the murder of thousands by extremists with a passive shrug.

Bush's 'ballsy' appraoch hasn't really put us in a better position in the bigger scheme. We've dumped enormous resources into Iraq, which undoubtedly did almost nothing in the war on terrorism but satisfied Bush's own agenda. Bin Laden is at large, Al Queda is bigger than ever, and the Taliban and warlords still dominate Afghanistan. We've weakened our international credibility, stretched our armed forces thin with poor planning, and have little to show for it but a huge mess in a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks and din't pose any danger to the US. Meanwhile millions of tons of freight and cargo come into our country unchecked and we've found our intelligence agencies are woefully incapable of battling the problem. Bush misled the public with trumped up rhetoric to mold teh war on terror to his won agenda instead of following the advice of the most qualified to make decisions on the matter.

It's common place to say that Bush has stepped up to the plate and this makes him a great man, but I don't recall many people seggesting we go to war and create a new regime of national security in order to deal with terrorists before 911; it certainly wasn't on Bush's radar. Diplomacy and security require more measures than shipping our troops overseas and having them shoot up anything looks suspicious. We'll never win with those tactics, it's like trying to stomp out a swarm of bees with your boot. It's blunt and ineffective, the current state of affairs shows this. We're not winning right now under the Bush model, it simply has nto worked. See the recent bi-partisan complaint against Bush's foreign policy signed off on by several dozen former diplomats, statesmen, and military leaders, including the man who lead the airforce in the first Gulf War. The military leadership doesn't like Bush's approach, nor do our diplomats and experts. They think it's bad for America, and I tend to agree.
 
The two things that Bush has done which really put me off concerning him is the somewhat shady Florida ballot incident and the neat way that he sequed from pursuing Al Quaeda terrorists in Afghanistan to attacking and taking control of a different foreign nation with much more valuable natural resources. It's all sleight of hand with him, baby. He seems quite apt at taking over countries, ours as well as others!
 
.
 

Attachments

  • bobblehead.jpg
    bobblehead.jpg
    56.6 KB · Views: 0
But Republican marketing machine is SOOO much better than the Demmy's. They run their party like a corporation, heavely lawyered, lotsa money, strategical marketing techniques. But they've done such a throurough job of painting Kerrys as a flipflop. Even though Bush flip flops WAYY more than Kerry ever has.

The point is we CANNOT win the War on Terror with George Bush in office. He's damaged goods, any way you look at it. He can Never win the peace. Arabs are WAY to cynical of Bush and his intentions, especially with his ties to the Suadi Royal family, and Prince Bandar and oil.

Its not just the PLAN, its the MAN!!!!
 
Casey said:
The point is we CANNOT win the War on Terror with George Bush in office.

Well if Kerry gets in we may have hopes of boring the terrorists to death:D
 
Bush is entertaining . . . but I'm not exactly laughing with him if you get my drift.

Come back to us Bill . . . we're sorry . . . I'll even buy your bloated self-congratulatory book.
 
Swank,
You keep falling back on "Bush's agenda" as his sole motivation for the war. I'm curious: What is this secret agenda you keep referring to? I'd love to know. And if you bother to respond please be specific - quote or link viable sources that support this contention that Bush is operating with ulterior motives.

>Diplomacy and security require more measures than shipping our troops overseas and having them shoot up anything looks suspicious. We'll never win with those tactics, it's like trying to stomp out a swarm of bees with your boot. It's blunt and ineffective, the current state of affairs shows this. We're not winning right now under the Bush model, it simply has nto worked.<

First of all, we have completely tip-toed around Iraq in a way that must have genuine conquerers like Alexander the Great rolling in his grave. Our method has been sensitive almost to the detriment of the mission, and I suspect there would be far fewer dead American soldiers if the U.S. took the ruthless approach so many critics accuse us of.

Second, to claim that Bush's approach has not worked assumes a lot. I ask in response: How do you know? What is the precedent by which you measure your criticism and base your claim? And I'm not asking rhetorically - I sincerely would like to know how you come to this conclusion.

A number of times you have referred to "diplomacy" as one of Bush's severe weak points and I for the life of me cannot imagine why this even enters into the debate. Who are you suggesting he be more "diplomatic" toward - al Qaeda? LOL - Radical Islam?
After 9/11 what are we supposed to be afraid that we might upset these freaks? The one thing we can now be sure of is that their next big attack on the U.S. (and there will be one) will not feature any weapons of mass destruction gotten by way of Saddam Hussein. Now, or ever.

What you base it on I don't know, but you cite Kerry's superior diplomatic skills as a positive - and it is this very type of thing that scares me most about him, and all of the other Democratic "leaders" who flipped on the war faster than France surrendered to the Nazis.
The hand wringing, pie-in-the-sky diplomacy you believe will be our salvation is what got us to where we are now. It is suicide. 3,000 dead right down the street from you and the promise of more to come ought to be proof enough.
 
Ahhhhhhh! It's the end of time! World War III! Annie, grab your gun! Honey, war is good for business, and right now business is good!

Let's all forget how good things were when us flipfloppy demmies were running the shop. There was plenty of work, we were all free to come and go as we pleased, and the biggest scandal in the white house was Slick Willy getting his knob polished in the Oval Office.

Fast forward past a shamelessly stolen election and planes hijacked by lunatics are crashing into buildings, we bomb the country that hosted them, then bomb the one next door just for shits and giggles. The whole world is up in arms over this administration's ruthless and unfounded aggression. Not one WOMD has been uncovered. NOT ONE! OOOOPS! Every single non-republican in the world is aghast at how vicious and greedy those in power are behaving. They are dizzy with power, falling over one another in their mad scramble for money and power and they don't care how poorly their policies reflect on the last, great world superpower.

Take off the blinders and see what a shit-flop wreck we've made of things!

I'm no limpwristed commielover liberal. I'm a mean-ass liberal. I say if they kill one of us, we kill 10 of them! The only way to keep our country safe from aggression is through pure, undiluted fear. Bomb the shit out of them but fuck, don't try to rebuild and then occupy their country! That has never worked! Ever! Not once in all of history. Not for us, not for England, not for Rome. I don't mind greed or dishonesty so much as I fucking hate stupidity, and those who do not learn from history are the stupidest of all!

When we were attacked, we should have made their country a shambles and then said, "Here you go! Enjoy! Next time you come back, mind your fucking manners!" and got the fuck out. You don't sit on the carcass and pick the bones til the hyenas come and bite your ass! The US is too grand for that kind of behaviour!
 
On a lighter note, I can't wait to see the Saturday Night Live parodies of the Bush & Kerry campaigns. And the debates...those had me rolling in 2000.

"Vice-president Gore, How would you sum up your campaign in one word?"
"Lock Box"

"Governor Bush, how would you sum up your campaign in one word?"
"Strategery"

I loved that shit.

And the skits showing the future with each in office...
Gore- "Now class, take out your text books and turn to last weeks reading assignment..."

Bush- "Help daddy, I never really thought I'd win this thing."
 
Capn, I think you may be interpreting the word diplomacy as strictly negotiation or some form of capitulation. Nobody wants or needs to hear an international relations primer from me, but when I say diplomacy I mean it in the sense of statecraft and foreign policy formulation. The word diplomat of course has connotations with all of us that allude to one who bargains or negotiates, but providing vision and agenda setting for how the world's most powerful nation interacts with her allies, enemies, and the world at large is in fact a very complicated and difficult business. When I praise Kerry's qualifications in the field, I mean that I believe him to possess a good understanding of international issues, world politics, and foreign sensibilities. He's lived abroad, served on the senate foreign relations committee and has working relationships with many world leaders. I think that perhaps your dislike of the liberal camp causes you to automatically associate any talk of diplomatic skill with a plan to prostrate ourselves before those who seek to destroy the country. I'm suggesting Kerry would have a more expansive and effective ability to bolster our strength internationally and have a more informed position on how to handle our international troubles. Though we're top dogs, we'd be a nation of fools to sit back on our bombs and assume that America can survive as a monolithic entity unwilling to work with the rest of the world.

I don't really agree with your comments about our operations in Iraq either. Our invasion and toppling of the Hussein regime was the most technically advanced and efficient military operation the world has ever seen (thanks to the super advanced military that was developed and trained under Clinton's watch, our super advanced military was developed and trained during the decade of the biggest Democrat out there). It is a point of pride for me that my nation's military goes out of it's way to spare casualties, destruction, and human suffering during such actions (though Abu Ghraib [sic?] and the like have cast a pall on much of this). I suppose my point is, and this moves towards one of your other questions, why exactly where we there? True enough, 3000 people were murdered in New York, and now more than a 1000 of our soldiers our dead in Iraq, but I'm just not real sure how this has advanced our standing in the world or made us more secure from terrorist threat. Iraq was not a threat to the US, any way you slice it. The intelligence was bad, it's been admitted by teh administration.

But then why was there even intelligence? Can you recall an event that sparked off the dire need to storm into Iraq? What did the regime do to particularly spark our ire and require full scale invasion when there were numerous other areas of the world swarming with terrorist activity that posed a far greater threat? It's been reported by White House employees that Rumsfield and Bush starting looking for a way into Iraq just days after 911 before any intelligence on the matter had been gathered, I believe the Bob Woodward book consolidates most of these reports, including interviews with the president himself, if you're interested. It seems clear to anybody with their eyes open that the storied agenda came down from the top spots, and intelligence, any intelligence, that would support their assertion that Iraq was in dire need of full scale invasion was to be provided. As it was, all our reasons provided to the UN for going to war have proven to be absolutely unfounded. Bush is surrounded by neo-con idealouges. Paul Wolfowitz has been demanding an invasion of Iraq for nearly a decade, and we all know where Rumsfield and Cheney sat on the issue. Presidential administrations are collaborative, and Bush has surrounded himself, with the exception of Powell, whose advice has yet to be heeded, with either hardcore hawks or simple 'yes men.' These are his advisors and consul, and in all likelyhood the 'agenda' is coming as much from them if not more so than Bush.

Then of course, we still don't why they wanted to invade Iraq so bad. Theories abound. The knee-jerk suspicions of oil power and control, corporate interests, all that has always seemed unlikely to me. Did Bush, who by all accounts suffers from some severe daddy issues, want to succeed where his father stopped short? A persoanl vendetta seems a bit of a stretch as well. Honestly, I really couldn't say. I do know that our reasons for going to war were created on the fly, and that the desire to invade Iraq didn't really have anything to do with the war on terrorism or our national security. An interesting fact is that something in the neighborhood of 65% of Americans (gallop pole, should be available online somewhere) were under the impression that Hussein was behind 911 at the time we invaded Iraq. It's madness my friend, and war mongering at it's worst. Bush isn't responsible for the ignorance of the general populace, but you had better believe they were more than aware of it and took advantage to do what they wanted to do. Please, if you would, convince me that our presence in Iraq had somehow made out nation stronger and safer. Show me how it has helped in any way, because I'm looking for something to feel positive about.

And finally, I say Bush has failed in his war on terrorism for, well, all of the above. He's squandered time and resources, and most importantly nearly universal international support, in order to pursue his war in Iraq. As I said before, the CIA reports came out, and terrorist numbers and networks are booming. We are terrifyingly vulnerable domestically. Friends of mine in state government lament that they can get no federal money to properly prepare personell and update security measures for the new level of protection we need from terrorists, but we've spent I don't even know how much on Iraq, I believe the initial bill was 80 billion. We've raided the coffers for nothing, and underfunded and shortchanged our military even then. How shameful that we send our young men and women out to fight an unneeded and unprovoked war, and then ask them to purchase their own body armor, as the adminstration didn't want to spend so badly as to really sink their polling numbers. Congress has thankfully greenlighted more troops for Iraq despite Bush's objections. The man is campaigning right now and doesn't want increased spending and attention on his miserably failed war. Shameful.

Once again, it's not a partisan issue for me. I see Bush as both facile and morally reprehensible. He's not the man for the job in my opinion, and frankly I'd vote in damn near anybody else. I get the sense you don't like politicians because you consider them to be self-serving insiders and dishonest conivers. My friend, take a look at Bush's presidency and career, forget the politics of the moment, and decide whether he truly deserves to reside outside of your scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
Captain,

Not only are you an engineering genius. The "MacGyver" of the Penis Enlargement world so to speak....sounds like we are on the same page politically.

I have become tired of arguing with cynics who don't let the facts get in the way of their hatred for W.

Criticism and hate of the current President don't constitute a political platform.

To all you Liberals...W will win in a landslide this year, there will be no draft, the sky will not fall etc. Hopefully you will learn that courage to say what you really mean and actually having a plan of action is the only thing that will make people vote for you.
 
Landslide? Bush's approval ratings hit the lowest point in his presidency the other week. History shows that the incumbent either loses big, or wins big.

Also Bush wouldnt have half the supporters if he didn't have FoxNews and friends, permanantley campaigning for him and his party.
 
>Capn, I think you may be interpreting the word diplomacy as strictly negotiation or some form of capitulation.<

You are correct. This as it pertains to al Qaeda, radical Islam, and any nation that would lend support to that cause and its objective. To negotiate with an enemy who refuses to negotiate is capitulation - it is insane. This movement has made clear that their objective is one that begins and ends with the demise of the United States - all of Western civilization, to be sure - and unfortunately that seems lost on many of my liberal friends. Calls for us to better "understand" this enemy and a pathetic need to reason with them, are not in short supply from the left. If it weren't so dangerous it would be laughable.
Maybe it is that you are comparing the diplomatic skills of the two, Bush and Kerry, in a more traditional Chamberlainsque context?
In that case I offer that "diplomacy" is worthless when dealing with the likes of Saddam Hussein - and I hope we don't need to go into why. Just reference these very recent comments by Vladimir Putin (not exactly a Bush supporter when it comes to Iraq):

"After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received information that the official services of the Saddam regime were preparing terrorist acts on the United States and beyond its borders." - Russian President Vladimir Putin, 6/18/2004

Do I also need to post the Bill Clinton and John Kerry quotes that raise the alarm that Hussein poses a threat to the U.S. and the stability of the Middle East?
In the end I agree with you: John Kerry is a very smart man - he knows what is happening here - and his fence walking 'opposition' to Bush's Iraq policy amounts to cheap election year pandering. I have no problem with him or anyone else running against Bush - it's when he runs against the interests of the United States that my nerves get strained.

I suppose my point is, and this moves towards one of your other questions, why exactly where we there? True enough, 3000 people were murdered in New York, and now more than a 1000 of our soldiers our dead in Iraq, but I'm just not real sure how this has advanced our standing in the world or made us more secure from terrorist threat. Iraq was not a threat to the US, any way you slice it.<

In the words of another anti-intellectual (read: "stupid") American president:
"Well, there you go again."
Reference Putin's comments, Clinton's comments, Kerry's comments, Saddam Hussein's comments, the United Nation's Security Counsel's comments, and on and on - and tell me again that Hussein was not a threat.

You still have not, nor does anyone else who feels compelled to make the claim, provided an ulterior motive for Bush's approach to Iraq. I agree with you: The knee jerk leftist accusations - all of them - are worthless postulating. I'll go further and say that they amount to dangerous and irrational emotive yammering that willingly turns a blind eye to the facts.
I have no time for that. Iraq was a long festering wound that promised severe consequences if left unattended. Good riddance Hussein. I give Bush credit for doing what no one - not any American president before him or any other world "leader" had the fortitude or foresight to do: Kick Hussein's ass from the seat of power and into a six foot ditch with the rats he so resembles.


My friend, take a look at Bush's presidency and career, forget the politics of the moment, and decide whether he truly deserves to reside outside of your scrutiny.

I love this Swank. How is Bush outside of my scrutiny? Why is it that I and anyone who supports the president must meet a standard that those, like you, refuse to apply to themselves?
Where have I been anything but objective about the two candidates? I am not the one who described one man as a hallowed diplomatic genius and the other a blithering idiot.





Bud,
To all you Liberals... Hopefully you will learn that courage to say what you really mean and actually having a plan of action is the only thing that will make people vote for you.

Loud and clear. In the final analysis liberalism at its worst has been hopelessly hijacked by a pack of ill tempered emotionally immature children; at best it is impotent. I'll go so far as to say that liberalism - a once noble and worthy half of our political system - is dead. If it were possible for real liberals like Adlai Stevenson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Hubert Humphrey to suddenly wake up and get a view of what has become of their ideology they would never stop throwing up.






Kong,
Bomb the shit out of them but fuck, don't try to rebuild and then occupy their country! That has never worked! Ever! Not once in all of history. Not for us, not for England, not for Rome. I don't mind greed or dishonesty so much as I fucking hate stupidity, and those who do not learn from history are the stupidest of all!

Germany and Japan, for mere starters, go against the grain of your theory - and I can't recall the last time either of these countries posed a threat to anything other than the American auto industry.
 
John Kerry knows War in a way George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld will NEVER know.

Why do you think Colin Powell, the only one of those who actually served and fought in a war, objected to an invasion and TRIED to explain how fuckin hard that is? These old elitists cronies dont know shit.
 
Casey said:
John Kerry knows War in a way George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld will NEVER know.

He certainly knows the MUNSTERS:D
 

Attachments

  • munsters.jpg
    munsters.jpg
    75.7 KB · Views: 0
I think the problem with the Middle East, as opposed to Germany and Japan, is that it is peopled by a great number of religious fanatics. When you introduce that into the equation, it tips the balance of prudence. When was the last time you heard of someone in Japan blowing up a car outside a US military station, or kidnapping a US citizen and cutting their head off on tv? When dealing with fanatics, the answer is not occupation but simple overwhelming retalliation. Their own death-worshipping belief system will do them in without our help over the course of time and the Islamic religion will mellow...that is, if we can restrain ourselves from constantly stirring the hornets nest. I think we should pull out, increase our defenses at home, keep our military strong and at the ready and allow the fanatical virulence in their countries to destroy themselves from within. If they decide to step outside their hood and take a poke at us once in a while, them we send em back in...screaming and aflame...until the day that their religious controlled governments mature and can comport themselves on the world stage with dignity. As the last great superpower, we have to be mature, stand strong and stay apart from their insanity. You don't get in the pigpin and root with the hogs, which is pretty much Bush's plan for this crisis. Our current military policies only serve to fuel their mania and put our citizens within rock throwing range of their crazies.
 
Cap'n,

I'll spell you in case your fingers are gettin' tired.

Casey,

Landslide is my prediction....check out Drudge's headline right now. The LA times polls were skewed and predominantly registered Democrats. (drudgereport.com).

Also, Bush has not begun to campaign yet. He is likeable to most Americans, whereas, Kerry really isn't. Kerry had to ask his handlers how to behave at the Reagan funeral. So he then cut in line and put on a show. A guy who is not human enough or genuine enough to know how he is supposed to act and feel at a funeral will never beat Bush.

Casey,

Your argument is flawed in many ways regarding invasion and war.

1.) Most importantly, we did not pick this fight! We have to fight and win, this will require hardship, uncertainty, mistakes and death on both sides. Such is the nature of war.
2.) You do not have to have firsthand experience of anything to participate or know what is involved. That would be like saying "I have never murdered anyone so I would not know how to do it or if it is right or wrong".
3) I will not degrade any man's time of service in the military for our country. However, Kerry's actions post-war were delplorable and cost him the respect of military veterans. He lied and gave comfort to the enemies. If he saw these atrocities in Vietnam, why did he not report them right then and there,as was his duty?
4) We have liberated 2 countries, 40 million people, had unprecedented military successes.......I don't see a problem with the way Iraq or Afghanistan went.
 
Kong,

Just read your post. Not bad ideas on a lot of points. But remember that prior to WWII, there were a lot of people with that philosophy. IMO, since we are the largest and mightiest benevolent military power, we have a responsibility to make this our fight. 9/11 aside, we would have a hard time watching the rest of the world go down the tubes while we watched.
 
Back
Top Bottom