[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
If Bush invades Syria he's even stupider than I thought. The international consequences would be catastrophic.

Hardly. Syria is much smaller, and much less armed than Iraq. Iraq was easily 100X more ready for invasion (thanks to Saddam's military buildup) than Syria.

Syria is on Bush's agenda. The question is only if he has the time, and when to pull the trigger if he does.

[Saad]

Mrjinglesusa was probably referring to public feeling arounf the world. Would any other nation be willing to help the US invade, occupy and rebuild Syria after having done such a poor job on Iraq.

[jyvin563]

I wish people would realize that a majority of Americans do not care about anything international. They don't care about the UN, NATO, EU and any other foreign major group I missed. Why do you think Bush had such a high approval rating going into the war after punking the UN? People don't care! They care about having a job, spending the money they make at their jobs, and their marriages.

However, now that chaos has taken root in Iraqi, Bush's numbers are dropping. EVERYTHING in this election comes down to Iraq. If a plan is not given to the American people that makes sense, say hello to newly-elected President Kerry. This is truly Bush's election to lose and not Kerry's to win.

[ebuddy]

Oil? Where is it then?

Swing voters are simply waiting for events to unfold and the pre-election debates. They are inclined to vote for Bush (because "change" isn't necessarily the mantra right now), but are waiting on events and debates of ideals to solidify their choice. Osama will be captured late this summer. WMD will be found very soon and will constitute the "smoking gun" most of us have been focused on. Both of these incidents alone will solidify another 4 years. The political opposition has been drawn so near to the quarterback that the end-around will leave them defenseless.

It's much more than oil. We are in Iraq for the same reason we'll eventually be in Syria. Right now there are two types of people hell-bent in opposition to the US. The Quiet ones and the Noisy ones. The quiet ones are the ones we will eventually come to fear the most. China has just now attained military forces of literally Biblical proportion, but are not yet ready to "come marching through" as they still rely on us financially. The Noisy ones are fringe. They are just plain ugly and messy and need to be dealt with first in order for us to be well-postured to deal with the quiet ones. To be clear, we will not come for the quiet ones. They will come for us.

It is entirely possible that in a global war scenario, the US will be first to go as we are pretty vulnerable geographically. The Global War scenario is not a matter of "if", but "when". This is human-nature. We have two choices. We can vote in someone that would take the offense to the defense and pro-long our survival and sovereignty, or we could sit back and continue to wait on International (a community as a whole that would giggle at our demise) approval to defend ourselves at which time we'll have too little to defend ourselves with. For me, the choice is in favor of spending on military might and placement. I don't consider this as debt. I consider it an investment. I choose a leader who is decisive and stands behind his decisions for better or worse. My President does not always need to be "likeable", he needs to be a leader. I cannot in good conscience vote for a man who claims; "sure I voted one way, just before I voted another." I cannot vote for a man or woman who changes as the winds change. This is not decisive leadership. It's waffling. This is why Kerry will lose. He cannot and will not be able to defend his voting record and platform in a debate. It's simply too inconsistent. The democrats will be left wondering why this was their candidate of choice. For me the choice is clear, but then I'm not a swing-voter.

[Saad]

I wish people would realize that a majority of Americans do not care about anything international. They don't care about the UN, NATO, EU and any other foreign major group I missed. Why do you think Bush had such a high approval rating going into the war after punking the UN? People don't care! They care about having a job, spending the money they make at their jobs, and their marriages.

You are correct. Americans do care, however, when international interventions take an even larger portion of the budget as taxes and gas prices rise.

[jyvin563]

Originally posted by Saad:
You are correct. Americans do care, however, when international interventions take an even larger portion of the budget as taxes and gas prices rise.

I disagree. Americans supported Bush, knowing how much they pockets were getting dug into. They didn't care about the bottom dollar they cared about doing the right thing. Bush had America sold on doing the right thing; let's get those WMD before Saddam sells them. Well, now look at Iraq, it is a mess. If it wasn't a mess, if it was somewhat under control, Bush would have NO problem getting elected.

OPEC is another story. I was going to post OPEC as the acception to the rule. The funny thing about gas prices is it really is just a mind game. Prices have gone up but it is not too much in the pocket. The increase is not a ton of money like it is made out to be. Yeah it sucks, but I think it just gives something for people to bitch about. But, Bush worked some "magic" and now the Saudis will be pumping more oil next month. Insane I tell ya.

[ebuddy]

Please site some examples of "chaos" in Iraq. Do you mean chaos in a few select cities? Iraq is a large place.

[jyvin563]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Please site some examples of "chaos" in Iraq. Do you mean chaos in a few select cities? Iraq is a large place.

Car bombs, Iraqi leaders being killed, prisoner abuse, etc. The whole country is not like that for sure, but it is just enough to get the press all over it and make it seem that way. The US media is way too powerful.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Oil? Where is it then?

Swing voters are simply waiting for events to unfold and the pre-election debates. They are inclined to vote for Bush (because "change" isn't necessarily the mantra right now), but are waiting on events and debates of ideals to solidify their choice. Osama will be captured late this summer. WMD will be found very soon and will constitute the "smoking gun" most of us have been focused on. Both of these incidents alone will solidify another 4 years. The political opposition has been drawn so near to the quarterback that the end-around will leave them defenseless.

It's much more than oil. We are in Iraq for the same reason we'll eventually be in Syria. Right now there are two types of people hell-bent in opposition to the US. The Quiet ones and the Noisy ones. The quiet ones are the ones we will eventually come to fear the most. China has just now attained military forces of literally Biblical proportion, but are not yet ready to "come marching through" as they still rely on us financially. The Noisy ones are fringe. They are just plain ugly and messy and need to be dealt with first in order for us to be well-postured to deal with the quiet ones. To be clear, we will not come for the quiet ones. They will come for us.

It is entirely possible that in a global war scenario, the US will be first to go as we are pretty vulnerable geographically. The Global War scenario is not a matter of "if", but "when". This is human-nature. We have two choices. We can vote in someone that would take the offense to the defense and pro-long our survival and sovereignty, or we could sit back and continue to wait on International (a community as a whole that would giggle at our demise) approval to defend ourselves at which time we'll have too little to defend ourselves with. For me, the choice is in favor of spending on military might and placement. I don't consider this as debt. I consider it an investment. I choose a leader who is decisive and stands behind his decisions for better or worse. My President does not always need to be "likeable", he needs to be a leader. I cannot in good conscience vote for a man who claims; "sure I voted one way, just before I voted another." I cannot vote for a man or woman who changes as the winds change. This is not decisive leadership. It's waffling. This is why Kerry will lose. He cannot and will not be able to defend his voting record and platform in a debate. It's simply too inconsistent. The democrats will be left wondering why this was their candidate of choice. For me the choice is clear, but then I'm not a swing-voter.

Wow. A rare glimpse into the mind of a Bush voter. Getting Osama and WMD just in time for the election. Wars with Syria and China. Debt without concern. Global war "when" not "if." A prez who stands by his decisions even if they're wrong.

Bush's approval rating is around 40% right now. I don't believe any president has ever won reelection under those conditions. 65% of the country says we're on the wrong track, and 30% say we're on the right track. Approximately the same percentage say they approve of Bush's handling of Iraq. There's just no way Bush is going to be reelected unless your dreams come true and we get Osama and WMD. Short of that, it's just not going to happen, from the way it looks now.

[voodoo]

Considering that there never were any WMD in Iraq and OBL is long since dead.. I'd say hasta luego se�or W. Bush.

W.. does that stand for? WTF?

[jyvin563]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Considering that there never were any WMD in Iraq and OBL is long since dead.. I'd say hasta luego se�or W. Bush.

W.. does that stand for? WTF?

The election does not come down to WMDs and OBL. To think so would be a serious misunderstanding of American politics.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by jyvin563:
The election does not come down to WMDs and OBL. To think so would be a serious misunderstanding of American politics.

I agree. American politics come down to partisanship, perception and money.

[jyvin563]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I agree. American politics come down to partisanship, perception and money.

What you really described was politics, not just American politics. Who ever said America had to be perfect? It may not be great but I think it is the best thing going.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by jyvin563:
What you really described was politics, not just American politics. Who ever said America had to be perfect? It may not be great but I think it is the best thing going.

American politics are no different from any other politics AFAIK.

[Spliffdaddy]

Our politics mean something. Yours don't.

[jyvin563]

Originally posted by voodoo:
American politics are no different from any other politics AFAIK.

That is why I think this is Bush's election to lose. Politicians are politicians. All do good and bad things. The numbers seem to go up and down according to the current events in Iraq. If Bush can put something together for Iraq and get the image cleaned up a bit, I think it will be hard to beat Bush. I truly believe Americans like the idea of creating an oasis of democracy in the Middle East. That is why some can forgive Bush on WMDs.

[Spliffdaddy]

So Bush has to fail before Kerry can succeed?

I thought Bush was the most hated man in the world. Why is it so damned difficult to find a Democrat that can beat him? Looks like *any* candidate should be able to win in a landslide.

tsk tsk.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
So Bush has to fail before Kerry can succeed?

I thought Bush was the most hated man in the world. Why is it so damned difficult to find a Democrat that can beat him? Looks like *any* candidate should be able to win in a landslide.

tsk tsk.

As said before, bush is guaranteed the re-election. Why would somebody go in for the loss?

The next election will be interesting. But nobody is going to take a loss if they can avoid it.

I wouldn't be suprised if Powell, H. Clinton, or perhaps Gore again would consider.


For sure they got asked first, and without hesitation said no. It would be sucide.

Kerry is believable enough to run with a "chance", but even he knows he doesn't have a prayer.

Bush has this election in the bag already. It's just a fact of US politics. He could do anything he wants. Provided he goes through with the troop deployment this summer, and escellates activities in the middle east in the early fall... it's in the bag. He'll secure a minimum 53%. Most likely 54-55%.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
So Bush has to fail before Kerry can succeed?

I thought Bush was the most hated man in the world. Why is it so damned difficult to find a Democrat that can beat him? Looks like *any* candidate should be able to win in a landslide.

tsk tsk.

Because the Democrats are idiots (I mean the party officials, not every single person who calls themself a Democrat).

[jyvin563]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
As said before, bush is guaranteed the re-election. Why would somebody go in for the loss?

The next election will be interesting. But nobody is going to take a loss if they can avoid it.

I wouldn't be suprised if Powell, H. Clinton, or perhaps Gore again would consider.


For sure they got asked first, and without hesitation said no. It would be sucide.

Kerry is believable enough to run with a "chance", but even he knows he doesn't have a prayer.

Bush has this election in the bag already. It's just a fact of US politics. He could do anything he wants. Provided he goes through with the troop deployment this summer, and escellates activities in the middle east in the early fall... it's in the bag. He'll secure a minimum 53%. Most likely 54-55%.

I would like to see supporting documentation on the correlation between troop deployment and winning the presidential election.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Our politics mean something. Yours don't.

This is true.

In a bad way.

Though you fail to realize it.

[jyvin563]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
This is true.

In a bad way.

Though you fail to realize it.

Oh please, elaborate on your subtle hints of mental clarity.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by jyvin563:
Oh please, elaborate on your subtle hints of mental clarity.

I'm not positive, but I think he means that our politics matter because when we **** up royally everyone gets screwed up the ass, not just us.

[Sod Off Sadr]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
If Bush invades Syria he's even stupider than I thought. The international consequences would be catastrophic.

Just like the catastrophic international consequences of attacking Afghanistan? Or those catastrophic international consequences of invading Iraq and taking down Saddam? Just like that Arab unification and Arab 'Street' uprising?

Just like all those?

Hogwash and you know it.

[Tokencon]

I'm not sure of what these polls mean, other than my SUSPICION that the books are being cooked....

Public attitudes are most assuredly being shaped by an ACTIVELY anti-Bush left-liberal press which simply refuses to report on all the progress in Iraq and instead, is treating us to Vietnam war style nightly body counts and footage of burning buildings and vehicles. This war should be run the way Reagan did Panama and Grenada: the press should not be permitted to feed us anything the mil does not provide to them because most Americans do not understand that war is not like a movie, where nobody really gets hurt. Witness the left's attempt at every turn to turn this into Vietnam by shrieking that it's a "quagmire" and that we will be there forever and that the bodies of GIs are piling up and threatening us with the spector of conscription (pushing this non-starter at the top of the nightly casts as if it has a chance at all of happening--Dan, Peter, et al. are smart enuff to know better, but they are ACTIVIST not objective "journalists").

I am hoping that the American public is smart enough to figure out that a Kerry presidency will mean a collapsing economy, a shameful and probably Saigon-repeat retreat from Iraq and four years of domestic and foreign terror running rampant in our own streets. If not, I guess we deserve him. The only GOOD thing about a Kerry presidency is that it would probably mean Hillary won't ever be president, but after learning about Kerry,I don't know which of them is the scariest.

Tokenconservative

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Tokencon:

Public attitudes are most assuredly being shaped by an ACTIVELY anti-Bush left-liberal press which simply refuses to report on all the progress in Iraq and instead, is treating us to Vietnam war style nightly body counts and footage of burning buildings and vehicles.
Tokenconservative

What progress? Please enlighten us, if you can.

[cpt kangarooski]

Tokencon--

This war should be run the way Reagan did Panama and Grenada

I realize that there are those who enjoy naming stuff after Reagan. Nevertheless, I think that it's important to remember that Panama happened during the first Bush administration. And just to be sure we've got all of these right, remember that the Civil War was Lincoln, and WW2 was FDR and Truman.

As for wishing this was like Grenada, well, it's not as though Grenada has ever been numbered among the world's powers. Of course it was fairly easy. It also really shouldn't have happened, since it was largely just the US throwing its weight around in a pissing match with Cuba of all places.

the press should not be permitted to feed us anything the mil does not provide to them because most Americans do not understand that war is not like a movie, where nobody really gets hurt.

So you hate the First Amendment, I see. The press can report on damn near any damn thing it likes -- if it lowers the morale on the homefront, then that's fine. After all, the government is NOT always benevolent and right. The press and public opinion serve as good checks against the goverment. If the truth results in popular support for the government dropping like a stone, then that's nevertheless a good result. Not much that's bad can come from the truth.

Witness the left's attempt at every turn to turn this into Vietnam by shrieking that it's a "quagmire" and that we will be there forever and that the bodies of GIs are piling up and threatening us with the spector of conscription (pushing this non-starter at the top of the nightly casts as if it has a chance at all of happening

Of course, it totally escapes you that Vietnam WAS a quagmire, that it dragged on for ages, that the war killed an enormous number of people on both sides, and that we were basically on the wrong side -- and that hawks back then bitched EXACTLY as you are doing about the press. You do remember the Pentagon Papers, right?

If the government was wrong then, and the supporters of the war were wrong then, and if would-be censors such as yourself were wrong then, then it certainly is possible that you're wrong now too.

It is possible that Iraq is another Vietnam. You want to hide the truth -- whatever it might be -- and paint over it with a picture of your own making. That's simply wrong.

It is better for the press to report freely, and for the people to have every source of accurate information available, so that whatever the truth is, it is revealed. This means having an uncensored press. If you don't like what they're reporting, then you are perfectly free to report on it yourself or encourage others to do so. But I will warn you that when most people say one thing, and a handful say the contrary, that handful had better be damn well persuasive, and be perfectly supported by the truth, if they want anyone to listen.

[ebuddy]

Wow. A rare glimpse into the mind of a Bush voter. Getting Osama and WMD just in time for the election. Wars with Syria and China. Debt without concern. Global war "when" not "if." A prez who stands by his decisions even if they're wrong.

Conversely, your reply to my post served as a rare glimpse and shining example of partisan blindness. You've taken me so far out of context that I believe you should probably have another read.

If you believe there are no connections between Syria and terror and if you believe China is happy just the way it is today, you are sadly mistaken and are not paying careful attention. We'll have to leave it at that. You obviously believe that people in power are generally good and that those in power are not hell-bent on increasing it. I don't. I believe Bush is posturing America for eventual Global turmoil. (expect the best, plan for the worst.) Excuse me, I'm sure you believe only Bush is hell-bent on increasing power. This is why I used the term "quiet ones" regarding China. I never said I stand behind a president even if they're wrong. I deliberately used the words; "better or worse". When decisions are made that everyone understands and appreciates, poll numbers go up. "better". When a president makes a decision that people don't understand or appreciate the poll numbers go down. "worse". There are many who don't want to do the difficult thing. I have a president who is willing to do the difficult thing based on principle, and not always on political acceptance and polling. You have a candidate who will likely change as the wind blows. That is not leadership, it's waffling. Kerry has a nice long history of waffling and it will all come out in the debates for the swing voter. This, and progress in Iraq will achieve Bush another 4 years.

Bush's approval rating is around 40% right now. I don't believe any president has ever won reelection under those conditions. 65% of the country says we're on the wrong track, and 30% say we're on the right track.

I thought the big complaint here was that we don't know enough about what track we're on, let alone whether or not we agree with it. Much about this Presidency is unique. I'm glad you're reassured by your Reuter's polling data. In fact, don't even vote. Kerry's got it in the bag. I'm not concerned about the polling data you present. This has been a compelling 4 years and the swing voter is definitely in a strong position. The swing voter is waiting on events to unfold and for the debates. We turn Iraq over to it's own government. We slowly begin to show signs of bringing soldiers back home, we find Osama (I'll try to remember he's dead the next time I read Federal investigators' statements that the voice is indeed Osama's. It'll make me feel better when they present him like the elephant man at Barnum and Bailey's circus of media elite late July.) Oh, almost forgot, WMD will be found too. All this at such an inopportune time for the DNC.

Approximately the same percentage say they approve of Bush's handling of Iraq. There's just no way Bush is going to be reelected unless your dreams come true and we get Osama and WMD. Short of that, it's just not going to happen, from the way it looks now.

You're forgetting a couple of key issues here. Technically, none of the aforementioned has to happen. "Change" is not the American sentiment right now. The ball is in Kerry's court and he will drop it. The debates will be excruciatingly cruel to Kerry as he has much talking to do. If you think this is Bush's weak-point, you ain't seen nothin' yet. This will only serve as good advertising for Kerry's waffle-house. I say again; you will be left wondering why this was your candidate of choice. In fact, polls regarding support for Kerry have been completely static. This means they have yet to embrace his candidacy. This is bad. The opposition in the historical data you site had strong support from that opposing party. This is certainly not the case today. It's all swing vote for sure. A vote that primarily goes Republican. You're welcome to under-estimate Bush, it would be very unwise to under-estimate his help.

[BRussell]

ebuddy.

Maybe your fantasies will come true and we'll find WMD and bin Laden, and Bush will get reelected. It won't validate or invalidate my opinion in the slightest. My fellow Americans like American Idol and think Friends was a really great TV show. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever disagreeing with majority opinion. But right now, his reelection chances don't look good. Any objective analysis would suggest that. "Swing voters" who haven't made up their minds tend to go for the challenger.

"Kerry is a waffler." If that's the best the great and powerful Republican attack machine will have against him, they're in trouble. The more people actually engage in cognitive processing about that attack, rather than simply relying on emotional one-liners, the more they'll see how Bush is extremely vulnerable on that same charge.

Bush opposed Lieberman's Dept. of Homeland Security bill, then runs as if it was his idea.
Bush supports free trade, and then imposes tariffs, and then flop-flips and gets rid of them again.
Bush opposes the 9/11 commission, and then supports it.
Bush says gay marriage is a state issue, and then endorses a constitutional amendment making it a federal issue.
Bush opposes McCain-Feingold, and then signs it.

This Bush is like a leaf in the wind. Whatever is most politically convenient, that's where he goes. There's no center. What does he even stand for? Smaller government? Fighting al Qaeda? Fiscal responsibility? States' rights?

I'm sure Kerry has waffled plenty of times, but the one that the Republicans talk about - "I voted for it before I voted against it" - wasn't even a flip-flop. He voted for a version of the 87-billion-for-Iraq bill that payed for it, and then voted against the version of the bill that increased the deficit. Those two votes were consistent with not wanting to increase the deficit further. Surely they can find a better example than that.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Tokencon:
I am hoping that the American public is smart enough to figure out that a Kerry presidency will mean a collapsing economy, a shameful and probably Saigon-repeat retreat from Iraq and four years of domestic and foreign terror running rampant in our own streets. If not, I guess we deserve him. The only GOOD thing about a Kerry presidency is that it would probably mean Hillary won't ever be president, but after learning about Kerry,I don't know which of them is the scariest.

And I suppose he'll make it legal to marry chickens as well.

[Saad]

Of course, it totally escapes you that Vietnam WAS a quagmire, that it dragged on for ages, that the war killed an enormous number of people on both sides, and that we were basically on the wrong side -- and that hawks back then bitched EXACTLY as you are doing about the press. You do remember the Pentagon Papers, right?

"How do you ask any man to be the last man to die for a lie?"

[ebuddy]

You want more Kerry waffles? Start by Google search for "waffles". He's right under "Belgian". This is not some new Republican attack machine. This is well known and well documented from those in liberal Massachusetts having to endure an ever-changing Jr. Senator. Their mantra; Don't like his views? Wait a week or so. Among these small and desparate items brought forth by the Republican attack machine are;

against affirmative action..............for it. (this is a great one by the way and had civil rights groups absolutely up in arms. on his website you'll find that he "consistently opposed efforts in the Senate to undermine or eliminate affirmative action programs, and supports programs that seeks to enhance diversity." Simply a lie, but hey it's an election year. Pull all the stops!
against welfare reform..................for it.
for manadatory minimum sentences...against it.
against capital punishment for terrorists...for it.
against double-taxation of stock dividends...for it.
For serious Social Security reform...against it.
For Free trade...............against it.

These are pretty big items, but I'm sure you'll dig deep for something to say in defense of each one. Just know while you're formulating your argument that I'm not the only one with fantasies. How nice it would be to have a President who can please all the people all the time. I love the whiny phrases like; "Republicans attack machine" and "vast right-wing conspiracy" and "Bush's military complex" and "Christian right" etc...it means a commie-lib is about to make an a$$ out of himself and alienate himself from all, but the insane 2% of the fringe left. Which is precisely why I'm looking forward to the debates this fall. I can't wait to hear Kerry speak. I just can't wait. When you're watching the debates and thinking; "boy, I can't believe Kerry was all we had to offer" be thinking also of me. Oh and...GO NADER!!!

[BRussell]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You want more Kerry waffles?

Oh I'm sure there are plenty of Kerry political waffles. Just not any more than Bush.

I can't wait to hear Kerry speak. I just can't wait. When you're watching the debates and thinking; "boy, I can't believe Kerry was all we had to offer" be thinking also of me. Oh and...GO NADER!!!

Yeah, you got me, I'm really a huge fan of Kerry. Kerry's certainly not perfect, but any candidate is going to have flaws. The thing is, elections are choices between multiple candidates, not absolute judgments of individual candidates. And Bush is hardly a wonderful candidate himself, to put it mildly. The comparison between Kerry and Bush on gravitas and "presidential-ness" won't even be close, and that, right or wrong, has a big impact.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by BRussell:
... The comparison between Kerry and Bush on gravitas and "presidential-ness" won't even be close, and that, right or wrong, has a big impact.

If only. I WISH ersatz issues like this will be a factor. Kerry only looks like he has gravitas compared to the guy he beat for the nomination. Compared to Dean, Pee Wee Herman has gravitas. Kerry is easily one of the most hollow candidates for the presidency I've ever seen. His big idea for Iraq? Go to the UN. Wow! There's a bright idea!

This election will turn on events in Iraq. Bush will lose if it doesn't look like progress is being made in Iraq. That's it. If things start to look somewhat promising over there, Bush will win. Kerry won't win on the strength of his ideas. He doesn't have any.

[Tokencon]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
Predication: Bush will invade another country this october on false pretenses in hopes of exploiting the american masses and raise his approval rating right before the election.

Care to lay some money on this one, Mosco?

$1,000 sound okay to you?

Tokenconservative

[Tokencon]

Kerry is both an intellectual and moral lightweight. He lacks any conviction at all save "will it get me elected!?" He is a shrieking Libs shrieking Lib, lacking only at this point Algore's "I wuz robbed!" yowl and Dean's "I hate you all" yeaarrrrgghhhhh!

Kerry never saw an idea upon which he couldn't place himself on any side that looks and feels good to whomever he is currently addressing....he was FOR the war before he was AGAINST it...Huh?

The scary thing is that there are large numbers of Americans (witness this forum) who take Mr Heinz seriously. They view him as their great white hope and wet themselves at his every inconstant shriek because they themselves are equally anti-American and equally unable to identify and stand up for anything themselves.

That is not a textbook definition of the modern American Lib, but it certainly describes one.

Tokenconservative

[Saad]

George W. Bush 'waffles' have been far more significant and damaging than those of John Kerry.

At the beginning of his administration, Bush insisted that he was not interested in nation building, he has since requested over $100 billion, to be used in part for the rebuilding of Iraq.

Bush opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security when it was first proposed by Joe Lieberman, before he supported it.

During his campaign, Bush supported the restriction of carbon dioxide emissions, after his election, he opposed them.

He opposed the investigation over the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, until he supported it.

On bin Laden: The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our Number One Priority and we will not rest until we find him.", then, "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

The Bush administration would not negotiate with North Korea, until it started.

Bush promised his military papers to Tim Russert, but changed his mind, and is withholding his discharge.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Tokencon:


The scary thing is that there are large numbers of Americans (witness this forum) who take Mr Heinz seriously. They view him as their great white hope and wet themselves at his every inconstant shriek because they themselves are equally anti-American and equally unable to identify and stand up for anything themselves.

The only reason most of us take Kerry seriously is that he is the only person with a real chance to beat Bush. Don't mix up "Kerry is the greatest" with "Bush is the worst, most embarrasing, and irresponsible president in my lifetime and he's got to go." Many nominal Kerry supporters feel the latter, not the former.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Krusty:
The only reason most of us take Kerry seriously is that he is the only person with a real chance to beat Bush. Don't mix up "Kerry is the greatest" with "Bush is the worst, most embarrasing, and irresponsible president in my lifetime and he's got to go." Many nominal Kerry supporters feel the latter, not the former.

[ebuddy]

George W. Bush 'waffles' have been far more significant and damaging than those of John Kerry.

Because Bush is President I presume?

At the beginning of his administration, Bush insisted that he was not interested in nation building, he has since requested over $100 billion, to be used in part for the rebuilding of Iraq.

pre 9/11...post 9/11. That one's easy. AND with Kerry's support I might add.

Bush opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security when it was first proposed by Joe Lieberman, before he supported it.

I Love it when this point is brought up. Lieberman. He would be the conservative democrat none of you voted for right? I happen to really like Lieberman and if he were your candidate of choice, I would have to rethink my support of Bush, but not to worry. As usual the Democrats have made my decision very easy. By reading Lieberman's outline within his proposal for Homeland Security one could argue that he also invented the Patriot Act. Something I'm sure you all support full throttle. While you're touting the accomplishments of your conservative democrat brethren, I hope none of you are entertaining the Pro-Palestine debate elsewhere in this forum. You would be doing Lieberman a great injustice.

During his campaign, Bush supported the restriction of carbon dioxide emissions, after his election, he opposed them.

He undoubtedly saw a differing view on this issue. Given the state of the economy at the time probably felt the last thing industry needs is more government regulation. BTW, prove to me that carbon dioxide emissions from Power Plants is causing global warming. And please don't site the pulsating ozone hole over Antarctica. It may work for Federal Research Grants for it's beneficiaries to drive SUV's, it won't work on me.

He opposed the investigation over the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, until he supported it.

He may be disinclined to engage research regarding the absence of WMD when in fact they're not absent, they're hidden. This may be difficult for you to understand, but often times a President will do something to give people the impression they care when in fact, they know and understand a truth you don't have access to.

On bin Laden: The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our Number One Priority and we will not rest until we find him.", then, "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

Another easy one. Just after 9/11 we had on the table a perpetrator of great tragedy to the US. This perp was readily accessible by his henchmen both physically and verbally. Able to take command from him, able to carry out his devious plots, and able to celebrate with him. We have reduced him to perhaps dust (holding his body for the most inopportune time for the Dem) or have rendered him useless as a commander holed up in a cave. His effectiveness as a leader is no longer an issue. Whether or not a voice on tape is his or not is about the extent of his mystique to me. His regime is scattered about, without firm command, and ultimitely useless. There will still be strongholds here and there, but those are to be dealt with as they occur. Also, if he's hiding in Pakistan, there's not a whole lot we can do politically or militarily to get him out of there. In short, OBL used to be important. Now he's not.

The Bush administration would not negotiate with North Korea, until it started.

With all due respect, you're not just finding these on the internet are you? We had negotiations with N. Korea. They proudly announced that they had broken them and began developing the weapons they agreed not to develop. You remember the news story right? With a force of Stealths flying around and having watched their partner in crime all, but give up the goose in Libya-they have softened their posture and negotiations have been brought back to the table. These things take time. You agreee not to negotiate as an alternative to military action. Something Bush said he was going to do.

Bush promised his military papers to Tim Russert, but changed his mind, and is withholding his discharge

Unless ALL of Kerry's military records and medical records are made publically available (which they have not) then really it's not your business what is within his discharge papers. See, what the opposition is hoping is that it'll say something like; "bush sold his soul to the devil and hence cannot serve in the US military force." What you'll end up grabbing onto is every little desparate morsel, thread, or smidgen of debateable matter until you've exhausted all potential dirt. This frankly, would not constitute effective time-management for someone who is trying to run a country. Let's be honest here. Are you writing a biography on American Presidents or do you just want to exhaust all possible debateable matter in the hopes of giving the liberal attack machine some sustainance? You'll notice that neither Bush nor Kerry embraced the idea of full disclosure nor soap-boxed the aformentioned. It's quite possible neither side saw this as effective time-management.

It seems to me we still have some bitter Lu-Lu's about the "stolen" election in 2000. It's time to MOVEON. Prediction; Kerry supporters don't support Kerry, they oppose Bush. Bush supporters support Bush and oppose Kerry. Kerry is less embraced by his party (including the swing vote within it) than is Bush by his party (and the swing vote within it). As it stands today, Bush wins! Pending events in Iraq and the debates. Both of which I believe will lean Bush.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Because Bush is President I presume?

pre 9/11...post 9/11. That one's easy. AND with Kerry's support I might add.

I Love it when this point is brought up . . .

He undoubtedly saw a differing view on this issue . . .

He may be disinclined . . .

Another easy one . . .

With all due respect . . .

Unless ALL of Kerry's military records . . .

Wow - these protracted explanations of changed positions remind me of . . . John Kerry. And no one's even mentioned deficit spending. Or "The banner was the Navy's idea."

Let's face it, these guys are politicians. I wouldn't waste too much energy arguing that one is more virtuous or honest than the other.

[ebuddy]

I wouldn't waste too much energy arguing that one is more virtuous or honest than the other.

You forgot; "unless it's fun."

I agree with you Zagnut. Politicians will "appear" to take many sides and it's largely our fault. We ask a lot. Like I've said before; when Bush speaks I cringe. I don't appreciate his immigration policy. He has waffled and wafered on many things and has belonged to organizations and his family is connected to many things for which I'm suspicious. I used to study a lot on Global domination and the plans of the "powers that be". It just frankly got tiring as I see all as basically Democans and Republicrats tending towards the same end game. What to do I guess? Vote based on whomever holds the majority of your agreement. That's all you can do. I believe that's what the American public will do in November.

[Saad]

Because Bush is President I presume?

Yes

pre 9/11...post 9/11. That one's easy. AND with Kerry's support I might add.

But he did change his mind, maybe even made a mistakes. Many of Kerry's 'waffles' were influenced by outside events, just as the president's should. Kerry's support for the president does not change the fact that the president changed his mind.

I Love it when this point is brought up. Lieberman. He would be the conservative democrat none of you voted for right? I happen to really like Lieberman and if he were your candidate of choice, I would have to rethink my support of Bush, but not to worry. As usual the Democrats have made my decision very easy. By reading Lieberman's outline within his proposal for Homeland Security one could argue that he also invented the Patriot Act. Something I'm sure you all support full throttle. While you're touting the accomplishments of your conservative democrat brethren, I hope none of you are entertaining the Pro-Palestine debate elsewhere in this forum. You would be doing Lieberman a great injustice.

Again, Lierberman's record has no effect. Bush opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security prior to 9/11.

He undoubtedly saw a differing view on this issue. Given the state of the economy at the time probably felt the last thing industry needs is more government regulation.

AS concerned as I am about the Bushies, the fact remains that he changed his mind, regardless of what kind of decision it was. *waffle*

He may be disinclined to engage research regarding the absence of WMD when in fact they're not absent, they're hidden. This may be difficult for you to understand, but often times a President will do something to give people the impression they care when in fact, they know and understand a truth you don't have access to.

He still opposed the creation of such a commission.

Another easy one. Just after 9/11 we had on the table a perpetrator of great tragedy to the US. This perp was readily accessible by his henchmen both physically and verbally. Able to take command from him, able to carry out his devious plots, and able to celebrate with him. We have reduced him to perhaps dust (holding his body for the most inopportune time for the Dem) or have rendered him useless as a commander holed up in a cave. His effectiveness as a leader is no longer an issue. Whether or not a voice on tape is his or not is about the extent of his mystique to me. His regime is scattered about, without firm command, and ultimitely useless. There will still be strongholds here and there, but those are to be dealt with as they occur. Also, if he's hiding in Pakistan, there's not a whole lot we can do politically or militarily to get him out of there. In short, OBL used to be important. Now he's not.

The Waffle House in Crawford must be busy. Again, you're defending the flipflop, not refuting it.

With all due respect, you're not just finding these on the internet are you? We had negotiations with N. Korea.

After we said we wouldn't.

Unless ALL of Kerry's military records and medical records are made publically available (which they have not) then really it's not your business what is within his discharge papers. See, what the opposition is hoping is that it'll say something like; "bush sold his soul to the devil and hence cannot serve in the US military force." What you'll end up grabbing onto is every little desparate morsel, thread, or smidgen of debateable matter until you've exhausted all potential dirt. This frankly, would not constitute effective time-management for someone who is trying to run a country. Let's be honest here. Are you writing a biography on American Presidents or do you just want to exhaust all possible debateable matter in the hopes of giving the liberal attack machine some sustainance? You'll notice that neither Bush nor Kerry embraced the idea of full disclosure nor soap-boxed the aformentioned. It's quite possible neither side saw this as effective time-management.

Why does it matter that Kerry has not released all of his papers? The fact is, Bush didn't.

I agree with most of your positions of Bush's flipflops, I'm just pointing out that with time, people change their minds when evidence and facts are presented to them.

Most of these flipflops occurred in 4 years, Kerry has been a Senator for almost 30 years. The country changes, MA changed, as did Kerry. The Iraqi war changed from what Perle presented to congress, to what it is today. Seems reasonable that people might change their mind on how to deal with it, Bush has.

It seems to me we still have some bitter Lu-Lu's about the "stolen" election in 2000. It's time to MOVEON. Prediction; Kerry supporters don't support Kerry, they oppose Bush.

A bit presumptuos. I did not mention the 2000 election court decisions, etc. Relax.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
If only. I WISH ersatz issues like this will be a factor. Kerry only looks like he has gravitas compared to the guy he beat for the nomination. Compared to Dean, Pee Wee Herman has gravitas. Kerry is easily one of the most hollow candidates for the presidency I've ever seen. His big idea for Iraq? Go to the UN. Wow! There's a bright idea!

I disagree about Kerry. He speaks well, he has a deep voice, and he's tall. Sure, nothing much interesting seems to make its way out of his mouth, but he looks much more presidential than Bush.

As far as the UN in Iraq, It's such a bright idea that it's exactly what Bush is doing. There's absolutely zero difference between Kerry and Bush on Iraq policy right now, as far as I can tell.

This election will turn on events in Iraq. Bush will lose if it doesn't look like progress is being made in Iraq. That's it. If things start to look somewhat promising over there, Bush will win. Kerry won't win on the strength of his ideas. He doesn't have any.

That's probably true. But after 4 years of ideas (deficits don't matter, remaking the Middle East), I'm not sure that a gov't without any big ideas for a while would be such a bad thing.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
As far as the UN in Iraq, It's such a bright idea that it's exactly what Bush is doing. There's absolutely zero difference between Kerry and Bush on Iraq policy right now, as far as I can tell.

I was wondering about that point myself. The main difference as far as I can tell is that Kerry would've taken advantage of the U.N. all along, while Bush was forced to do so because his own approach failed. How this works out to a minus for Kerry is difficult to discern.

We can criticize the U.N. for its various inadequacies and corruptions, but it can still be useful, as Bush has belatedly learned. We can only hope that it isn't too late.

That's probably true. But after 4 years of ideas (deficits don't matter, remaking the Middle East), I'm not sure that a gov't without any big ideas for a while would be such a bad thing.

People have short memories. When Bush was elected, it was hardly because he had big ideas - he was more isolationist than anything. Like most Presidents, he's only been thrust into the big idea business by events, and whether those ideas are prudent or workable remains to be seen. Also, if record deficit spending is an idea, I guess you can have it.

Kerry has ideas, some people just don't like them. Where Iraq is concerned, the President himself has changed course numerous times - how is Kerry supposed to be any better at anticipating events, especially when he has no control over them? He has said that he would've approached the matter differently - I suspect that if he had the chance, Bush would've as well.

This isn't an endorsement of Kerry, although I'll probably vote for him - I'm mostly just wondering if the "idea" thing is really meaningful. I think the real determinant is whether things are going well for whoever's in office at a given time. If they aren't going well, the other side looks better whether they have "ideas" or not.

[BRussell]

But compare Kerry to Clinton, or Gingrich, or even his primary opponents - Edwards, Dean, Lieberman. You know who they are, what they stand for, and where they wanted to take us. You don't get that feeling from Kerry. Maybe it's just too early, and his ideas will come through over the next 6 months, but looking back at his career it's hard to see what they'll be.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
But compare Kerry to Clinton, or Gingrich, or even his primary opponents - Edwards, Dean, Lieberman. You know who they are, what they stand for, and where they wanted to take us. You don't get that feeling from Kerry. Maybe it's just too early, and his ideas will come through over the next 6 months, but looking back at his career it's hard to see what they'll be.

Yes, it can certainly be said that Kerry is not as well-defined as some others, but I'm not sure how much of a problem that presents. If it means that he's essentially a moderate-to-liberal pragmatist, I can think of worse things.

There's also the concern that ideas become ideology, at the cost of pragmatism. I'm concerned that where foreign policy is concerned, Bush came under the sway of ideologists and got in over his head, although I hope he proves me wrong.

[BRussell]

Yeah I think the rap on the Bush admin right now is "incompetence." I don't think that's quite right - I'm sure Cheney and Rummy and most of the others are highly competent, I just think they're too ideological. They're "top-down" as psychologists would say, meaning agenda driven rather than data driven.

You know, I wonder if that's a general truth about conservatives vs. liberals today. The complaint about liberalism is that it's not idea-driven enough. Maybe that's true, relative to conservatives, but is that a bad thing if it means pragmatism, and a willingness to stray from orthodoxy? In any case, Kerry vs. Bush will surely be a test of those two views of politics. It's Mr. Deductive vs. Mr. Inductive!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Yeah I think the rap on the Bush admin right now is "incompetence." I don't think that's quite right - I'm sure Cheney and Rummy and most of the others are highly competent, I just think they're too ideological. They're "top-down" as psychologists would say, meaning agenda driven rather than data driven.

They're certainly intelligent, accomplished people, and I sorta like Rumsfeld in spite of everything (Cheney, at least as a public persona, strikes me as rather sinister). However, when you've misread so many things - troop strength, costs, Iraqi sentiment, WMD - "incompetence" seems an apt term. But like "unfit," it might have overly broad connotations - maybe "poor judgment" would be a better description. And I'm mindful of the fact that things could work out in the long run, in which case we can say "Good call, even if you made some rather alarming errors along the way."

You know, I wonder if that's a general truth about conservatives vs. liberals today. The complaint about liberalism is that it's not idea-driven enough. Maybe that's true, relative to conservatives, but is that a bad thing if it means pragmatism, and a willingness to stray from orthodoxy? In any case, Kerry vs. Bush will surely be a test of those two views of politics. It's Mr. Deductive vs. Mr. Inductive!

The neocons supposedly started out as liberals, so it doesn't surprise me that they've inherited the "idealist" mantle that the left used to own. And I happen to appreciate that sort of idealism - I agree with them that sometimes you have to take sides, and that Islamism/fascism is a specific threat that needs to be combatted (as does Paul Berman, a leftist hawk). The problem is in the execution.

[ebuddy]

I was wondering about that point myself. The main difference as far as I can tell is that Kerry would've taken advantage of the U.N. all along, while Bush was forced to do so because his own approach failed. How this works out to a minus for Kerry is difficult to discern.

We can criticize the U.N. for its various inadequacies and corruptions, but it can still be useful, as Bush has belatedly learned. We can only hope that it isn't too late.

Taken advantage of the UN all along? Look, more failed resolutions was not the answer. The removal of Saddam Hussein was the answer. Bush is not now "running into the arms of the UN" rather, this is the only point at which the UN could or would be an assett. They have proven time and again that they are not an "enforcer" they are a "help rebuild"er. That's why we're asking for their help now. (and really have been all along. It's not necessarily Bush's fault that he wasn't getting their help.) The debate at the UN was not whether or not Saddam had WMD. It was whether or not they considered him a threat with them and how to deal with Saddam. We were satisfied that there was no better way to deal with Saddam than removal. Of course, there were several folks (big voters) opposed to the ideal of Saddam's removal because they had deals on the table with him. Kerry's willingness to sell out his own country and submit to the will of a collective international community that would giggle at America's demise is precisely why he's not the right man for the job.

Bush is not belated in realizing the strengths of the UN. Maybe a little frustrated at it's weakness in following through. Again, Bush's polling numbers have been dynamic ranging from very high to now quite low. You'd think Kerry's numbers would be dynamic as well. Unfortunately, they are not. Bush's numbers are contingent upon the unfolding of events while Kerry's number have been contingent upon nothing other than a general lack of embrace by his party. Oh well, once the media frenzy dies out regarding Abu Ghraib, Bush's numbers will come back up.