| To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (150090) | 10/31/2004 1:49:16 PM | | From: Noel de Leon | | | | "For a nation going to the polls in wartime, no issue matters more than character. Kerry has much to recommend him, and Bush's flaws are many."
The war on terrorism is a myth because it is a political tool just as the war on poverty and the war on drugs are/were. There is more poverty and there are more drugs in the US today.
Terrorism hasn't hit the US again but we have the little matter of OBL and his last pronouncements.
As far as back bone goes, there are too many examples of US presidents about whom the same was said as you have about Kerry. They proved the sceptics wrong, Truman was one of them. More important is this quote:
"George W. Bush is far from perfect. He refuses to admit mistakes. He resists constructive criticism. His humor can be petty or cutting. His administration is secretive and self-righteous -- traits that presumably start at the top." (You've omitted that he is a born again Christian. That alone is disqualifying simply because I am fundamentally opposed to fundamentalists. :) )
This is a very mild description of the Bush II administration and its leaders but it along with his fundamentalist religion is enough to disqualify Bush II IMO. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Neil H who wrote (150064) | 10/31/2004 1:50:39 PM | | From: Michael Watkins | | | | This election is more about defeating Bush than electing the replacement, therefore, Bush should be able to stand on his record.
So, lets look at that:
- largest terrorist attack on US soil happened on his watch
- like any president of the day would, attacks Afghanistan (good); does it with a meaningful coalition (good); but due to secret plan - in existence all along - to attack Iraq, justified or not, redirects military and intel forces away from Afghanistan and 9/11 ring leader to Iraq (bad)
- ring leader of said attack still at large, 3 years later
- conducts an illegal war on a country which poised no clear and present danger to the US
- conducts the illegal war with history-making incompetence
Not a stellar record to run on, is it? |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Rascal who wrote (150087) | 10/31/2004 1:55:31 PM | | From: Noel de Leon | | | | | This year ten times the number of Americans living in Denmark voted as compared to the number who voted in 2000. 3000 contra 300. Bush II has managed to get the vote out. Considering the low voter participation in the US that is great news. Hope voter participation increases in the US as well. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Keith Feral who wrote (150068) | 10/31/2004 1:57:59 PM | | From: Michael Watkins | | | | > We had to weed out Saddam and whatever known terrorists remain in Iraq.
Opinion, and false. Saddam was contained. he was of no threat to anyone. You won't be able to show any proof to the contrary...
> Most people agree with removal of Saddam, though they suggest it was not essential.
Sure, everyone wants to see a dictator go his way. So what? Shall we invade every dictatorship? Or only those with oil?
Don't forget, the US has supported many a dictator, including Saddam Husayn.
> If he was harboring terrorists with plans to attack the US, then we had sufficient cause to remove these terrorists from Iraq too.
If, if, if. Saddam was contained. Prove otherwise.
> Since he was known to have applied chemical weapons on minority populations in Iraq, he needed the boot.
Then why didn't Ronald Reagan give Saddam the boot in 1983 when he first learned of Husayn's forces using chemical weapons?
Instead, with the full knowledge of what Saddam was up to, Reagan gave him a nice letter of support, and pledged to to more to work together.
The Horse of Sanctimony rides again, I see. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Neil H who wrote (150064) | 10/31/2004 2:01:58 PM | | From: Noel de Leon | | | | "The Russians never succeeded in the many years they tried."
Just for the record the Taleban were supported by the US while the USSR was in Afghanistan. That support was massive.
During the same period Saddam was supported by the US. That support was massive. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: SBHX who wrote (150081) | 10/31/2004 2:04:16 PM | | From: Michael Watkins | | | | I can assure you that many millions of people behind the Iron Curtain retained their moral clarity while being oppressed.
Reagan gets his due, but he was only one man. A man, not a god. There are far too many who would lean to the latter. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Noel de Leon who wrote (150094) | 10/31/2004 2:21:57 PM | | From: Nadine Carroll | | | | As far as back bone goes, there are too many examples of US presidents about whom the same was said as you have about Kerry. They proved the sceptics wrong, Truman was one of them.
They say that religion is on the right side of American politics, but this is a bigger leap of faith than anything I have seen on the right. Hope is not a strategy.
BTW, Truman was never a waffler who took every side of a controversial issue. The charge against Truman was that he was a parochial product of the Pendergast machine, which had considerable truth to it. As it turned out, Truman had a sense of what was right and considerable spine to implement it. A man like Kerry, who caves in the face of even brief blasts of criticism, could never have fired General MacArthur like Truman did. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| |
