| To: jttmab who wrote (148772) | 10/25/2004 9:34:00 AM | | From: Sun Tzu | | | | Thanks for the welcome and I have enjoyed your recent posts. It is remarkable that despite so much evidence to the contrary, Bush still holds about half the votes. Most of us would agree, to put it mildly, that to make it to the top of food chain in politics, one has to be "morally flexible". Yet the neocons have elevated Bush beyond someone whose policies they mostly agree to some kind of demigod with a pure heart who can do no wrong. In truth few administrations have been as corrupt and as harmful to America as Bush's. I am reading Eric Hoffer's True Believer to help me better understand the Bush camp. It is an interesting book.
I am not so keen on Kerry either. In fact this election is not about Kerry at all, IMO; most people are either voting for Bush or against him. So much for being a "uniter". My top worries with Bush are (1) the environment (2) possible expansion of his military adventurism. and (3) the coming supreme court appointees. If I knew he would not do significant damage in these 3 areas, I'd happily support him just so that he will be in the office to reap a harvest of his own making and proving neoconservetism for the bankrupt ideology that it is...I'd feel sorry for Kerry, should he win the elections.
later,
ST
PS I see what a great idle neocons are making of Reagan. I don't recall them to be so supporting of him when he was in power. Talk about revisionism! |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (4) |
|
| To: Sun Tzu who wrote (148918) | 10/25/2004 9:35:56 AM | | From: jlallen | | | | Yet the neocons have elevated Bush beyond someone whose policies they mostly agree to some kind of demigod with a pure heart who can do no wrong.
Pure pinheaded silliness.....
In truth few administrations have been as corrupt and as harmful to America as Bush's.
LOL!! Remember BJ Billy Bubba Clinton?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You had me going for a while....I almost took you seriously.... |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: SBHX who wrote (148911) | 10/25/2004 9:37:51 AM | | From: michael97123 | | | | "So yes, no WMD has hurt Bush significantly. This is really why the polls are so close."
I think its more the disaster on the ground since victory was declared. If it truly was an easy win, only ideologues on the left would have concentrated on the wmds, especially since everyone at the time believed they were there.
Other than that i agree with what you write. On FP, Kerry is what i would call a left wing pacifist by nature ever since his vietnam/post vn experience. His voting record leads me there in the 80s when he didnt support Reagan's move to tip the soviet empire. But that can be better explained by the prior 20 years of detentish cold war. So i can forgive him on that. But what i cant forgive him for is his opposition to the Gulf war which is what the democrats now use as the template for righteous coalitions. Bush is right when he says that if John Kerry had his way saddam would still be in kuwait. To be honest, saddam would probably be in Saudi Arabia as well. Mike |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Sun Tzu who wrote (148918) | 10/25/2004 9:43:01 AM | | From: michael97123 | | | | reuters.com
Reuters Poll: Bush Holds Three-Point Lead on Kerry
Mon Oct 25, 2004 07:09 AM ET
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush holds a slender three-point lead over Democratic rival John Kerry in a tight race for the White House, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Monday.
Bush led Kerry 48-45 percent in the latest three-day tracking poll, gaining one point on the Massachusetts senator eight days before the Nov. 2 election. Bush led Kerry 48-46 percent the day before.
About 5 percent of likely voters are still undecided heading into the final full week of the campaign, but Bush has opened a 12-point lead on Kerry among independents.
"How will the remaining undecideds break?" pollster John Zogby asked, noting they traditionally move toward the challenger at the end of a race. "But who can tell this year?"
Bush's three-point lead is identical to the three-point lead he held on Democrat Al Gore in the tracking poll at this stage of the disputed 2000 election.
Kerry, who is Catholic, is tied with Bush among Catholics but still holds strong advantages among black and young voters. The size of the turnout among those crucial voting blocs could play a critical role in the outcome.
The number of likely voters who thought Bush deserved reelection was 48 percent and 48 percent wanted someone new. That represented an improvement for Bush, whose presidential performance was rated as excellent or good by 48 percent while 51 percent said it was fair or poor.
The poll of 1,204 likely voters was taken Friday through Sunday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points. The rolling poll will continue through Nov. 1 -- the day before the election.
A tracking poll combines the results of three consecutive nights of polling, then drops the first night's results each time a new night is added. It allows pollsters to record shifts in voter sentiment as they happen.
The poll showed independent candidate Ralph Nader, blamed by some Democrats for drawing enough votes from Gore to cost him the election in 2000, with the support of 1.1 percent of likely voters. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Ish who wrote (148915) | 10/25/2004 9:46:56 AM | | From: Sun Tzu | | | | So the nuclear bomb making materials and equipment were there before the start of the war?
You are trying to set a trap to get an answer you can easily spin. Nice try. Read again: story.news.yahoo.com
VIENNA, Austria - Several hundred tons of conventional explosives are missing from a former Iraqi military facility that once played a key role in Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s efforts to build a nuclear bomb, the U.N. nuclear agency confirmed Monday. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Sun Tzu who wrote (148923) | 10/25/2004 9:58:10 AM | | From: michael97123 | | | | Regarding the conventional weapons that are now missing. This is very disturbing to me and this isnt the first time since the iraq war began. I always thought prior to this war, that when we would come upon a large stash of weapons that we couldnt adequately guard, those weapons would be destroyed. I think that these weapons actually became part of the misguided admin view that the iraqis would be throwing flowers and that post war we would be easily able to regain control of these weapons to be ultimatley turned over to the new friendly iraq govt.
The failure of this war has more to do with poor administration from DOD than any perceived failure of neocon ideology you harp on. Neocon ideology was never wedded to the easy iraq scenario. There are plenty of neocons mortified how bush/cheney/rummy could have mismanaged things so badly. Although i dont consider myself a neocon, I do agree with them that kerrys record over the past 20 years, particularly in 1991, makes him an unacceptable replacement. I can only hope that in term 3, bush replaces DOD team and puts an exit date 9 months to one year out when our troops will leave. If there is any hope for iraq, it will be far easier for them to do it, unoccupied but not unhelped.
I am curious about your opinion on two things discussed above.
1. Kerry and the Gulf War and your impression then and now of the Gulf War.
2. Giving the iraqis and exit date. Mike |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Win Smith who wrote (148899) | 10/25/2004 10:34:26 AM | | From: Harvey Allen | | | | Whom is al-Qaeda voting for?
.
.
.
From al-Qaeda's point of view, the US leaving Iraq would be a major victory. And the US staying in Iraq - bleeding thousands of men and billions of dollars in the hands of a national guerrilla struggle - is also a major victory. So al-Qaeda does not bother to vote Bush or Kerry because the main sticking point - US policy in the Middle East, the thirst for oil, the one-sided support for Israel - will still be there. But in terms of accelerating a clash of civilizations - a total polarization between the Muslim world and the Christian world - of course al-Qaeda prefers a fundamentalist like Bush.
atimes.com |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: michael97123 who wrote (148924) | 10/25/2004 10:41:42 AM | | From: Sun Tzu | | | | >> Regarding the conventional weapons that are now missing. This is very disturbing to me and this isnt the first time since the iraq war began.
It is disturbing to me too. But I don't think it was unpredictable. In fact I have to admit Iraq is going better than I had expected. But that is only because I expected that moron, Saddam, to have been busy building post-invasion resistance force and actively distributing the ammo among all the Iraqi factions. He did not, so things are a little better than I expected.
>> The failure of this war has more to do with poor administration from DOD than any perceived failure of neocon ideology you harp on.
DoD is the Neocon movement. How many of the neocon pioneers are in DoD or related departments? Failure of DoD is the failure of neocons. One of the biggest problems with neocons is that they are too heavy handed. Their solutions to most problems is to blow more things up, fallowed by throw massive money at corporations with ties to themselves to "rebuild" what they blew up.
...about Kerry:
I am not terribly keen on the guy. I don't think there is a substantial difference between Kerry and Bush on Iraq. Where the difference comes to play is that I think Kerry will be more reluctant to expand the war and he may possibly be better on the Afghanistan front.
On the other hand I think Kerry will be much better for the environment (how can anyone be worse than Bush?).
On the legal front, again, I don't think Kerry will right the wrong laws Bush has placed on the books. Governments never willingly give up power. I am mortified of the kinds of laws and policy changes Bush managed to get on the books. I can imagine Nightline interviews with the Ayatollahs, China, or North Korea where they will point out to the new Bush laws and point out how they are not so different than US. America can no longer claim to be the land of the free...and I don't think Kerry (or anyone else for that matter) will fix this unless they absolutely have to. But at least I'd have more faith in Kerry appointees to the supreme court than Bush's. So may be some day the court will moderate the civil rights.
I don't think stating an exit date is a good idea. It will just weaken the US position in Iraq and get the opposition started on planning for the date. But I think internally we should have an exit date somewhere between 1-5 years from now. I'd favor sooner rather than later. In an ideal world, I'd put a virtual Chinese wall around Iraq and pull out right away. After 10 years of none interference by anyone, Iraqis will have hammered out how they want to live and we'll negotiate with the government in charge...but of course this will not be easy without international support and all those US corporations who want a piece of "rebuilding" will not let it happen. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| |
