PDA

View Full Version : What are Bush's chances aof getting re-elected?



ZokesPro
30th August 2004, 11:20
With all that's happened, what do you think his chances are this time?

A better question yet would be, who really wants him to be re-elected? I heard a few opinions and those people would rather spend the rest of their lives in Canada than have Bush back in power.

What do you think?

(temp forum thread??)

schmosef
30th August 2004, 11:32
I don't like either man.

I like John McCain. Anyone know why he wasn't picked as the Republican candidate four years ago? Was it a money thing?

spadnos
30th August 2004, 11:47
Sadly, it's non-zero.

There are a lot of people who think he's doing an excellent job. Surprisingly, there is no statistically significant difference in support for Bush vs. Kerry.

Not that Kerry is necessarily the best person for the job, but (as a friend of a friend said), if a bowl of Jell-O ran against Bush, I'd vote for the Jell-O.

- Steve

Brian R.
30th August 2004, 11:50
Jello => Yes

Wombat
30th August 2004, 11:55
Originally posted by schmosef

I like John McCain. Anyone know why he wasn't picked as the Republican candidate four years ago? Was it a money thing? He has too much integrity for the Republican party.

KvHagedorn
30th August 2004, 11:59
Well there are those who look the other way when Democrats sin and those who look the other way when Republicans sin. Anyone who says "Anybody but Bush" or "I would rather move to Canada" evinces the kind of rampant foolishness to be a typical Kerry backer..

Jammrock
30th August 2004, 12:05
It's all a bunch of foolishness. I say every country launches all of their nukes and we wipe the slate clean. Maybe Mother Earth will get it right the next time.

Jammrock

KvHagedorn
30th August 2004, 12:10
Originally posted by Wombat
He has too much integrity for the Republican party.

He has too much integrity to be nominated as a Democrat as well.

Umfriend
30th August 2004, 12:13
Well, Jello Biafra did run at least once, but you guys did not support him at all.

OK, for California only, but what if he'd won?

RC Agent
30th August 2004, 12:30
"Anybody but Bush." ;)

spadnos
30th August 2004, 12:37
Originally posted by RC Agent
"Anybody but Bush." ;) Well - I don't think I'd vote for Cheney, either :D

- Steve

RC Agent
30th August 2004, 12:39
From John Kerry:

"I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war."

"And as President, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to."

Jammrock
30th August 2004, 13:07
This thread is on the verge of going to the Temp, so I'll give it a push off the ledge...

blah, blah, blah...

Kerry won't do any better in office. All the BS surrounding Bush is just that, bulls**t. I'm not saying he's some great man or anything, I just don't think Kerry's a damn bit better. I actually think Kerry could potentially cause more harm to the US then Bush, if he plays his Middle East cards wrong, which very likely.

I just think that most (no offense to MURC-Kerry supporters, because I don' t know you individually, just making a generalization) Kerry supporters are jumping on the bandwagon without pulling their heads out of their asses long enough to realize what's going on.

Thus I could never support Kerry.

And I really don't support Bush.

I think I'm going to end up voting for Nader.

I figure I should waste my vote on a canidate with an ounce of integrity left in him, than for Kerry or Bush.

Though if Bush were able to dump Cheney and get McCain as VP canidate (not going to happen) then I'd think about Bush. Just because there would be a chance for him to get uh ... wait, I'm not allowed to say that :)

Jammrock

Jammrock
30th August 2004, 13:11
Originally posted by RC Agent
From John Kerry:

"I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war."

"And as President, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to."
1) Possibly...but Kerry wasn't exactly one of the people that opposed Bush when he asked congress for permission to send troops to the Middle East for extended combat now was he?

2) This was only true for World War I and II. Before and since then the US has ALWAYS been one of the first to gather their troops and take off to war. Maybe for different reasons...but still, this is a historically false statement.

schmosef
30th August 2004, 13:16
Nader's got some pretty wack ideas about the Mid East. I think he might just be pandering but I'm glad he's got no chance of winning.

SitFlyer
30th August 2004, 13:19
One of John Kerry's big promises about war is, not going there without a coalition that includes France & Germany.
He voted against the original Gulf War that included them and 273 other nations.

'nuff said by me.

Lizzard[MPE]
30th August 2004, 14:32
i dont see him getting re-elected, but really its a toss up. it could really go either way. i think more of the youth is going to vote for kerry. and they are really pushing todays youth to vote this year.

bsdgeek
30th August 2004, 15:13
I see President Bush losing the election, tight races like these are never good for the incumbent, and I think I saw in Newsweek that Senator Kerry is also leading in electoral college votes.

Also, I also agree that the "Anybody but Bush" mentality is foolishness, which to me is sad and really just isn't right. I'm a Kerry supporter but not because of some twisted hatred for President Bush.

KvHagedorn
30th August 2004, 15:14
Originally posted by Lizzard[MPE]
i dont see him getting re-elected, but really its a toss up. it could really go either way. i think more of the youth is going to vote for kerry. and they are really pushing todays youth to vote this year.


Yeah it was really a big coup for the Dems when they lowered the voting age to 18. The less accumulated wisdom one has, the more likely one is to vote for a Democrat, especially a Massachusetts liberal. ;)

KvHagedorn
30th August 2004, 15:18
Originally posted by bsdgeek
Also, I also agree that the "Anybody but Bush" mentality is foolishness, which to me is sad and really just isn't right. I'm a Kerry supporter but not because of some twisted hatred for President Bush.

Wow, a Kerry supporter with a level head! :eek:

Dr Mordrid
30th August 2004, 15:33
Here are good indicators to watch:

1. check the NY Stock Exchange the day after the Republican convention ends. IF it's higher on election day the incombent wins. This has been true in 85% of the elections in the last 100 years.

2. NO challenger has won with less than a double digit lead over the incumbent the Tuesday after the Labor Day weekend (this coming weekend).

3. Whoever wins Ohio usually wins the election.

4. Historically the polls UNDER-estimate the Republican vote by at least 5% and typically 8% or more, mainly because they mostly poll in urban areas. This is why the Republican gains in the House and Senate in the '90's and 2002 seemed to come out of the blue. Bush is leading most of the polls with the rest being too close to call.

5. The poll trend-line is upwards for Bush with him gaining at least 5 points in the last 3 weeks, especially in the so-called "battleground" states including Ohio.

Some of this is because the Vietnam vets have had it with his 1972 testimony in front of Congress and some is just the voters in states other than Mass. finally seeing that his voting record is among the most liberal in the Senate.

So....unless the market tanks. he gains 12 points by Monday or his fortunes in the polls change Kerry most likely loses.

Also: the US has historical lows of unemployment, inflation and historical highs of home ownership, stock ownership and family income.

The economic indicators are in Bush's favor with most being even higher than Clintons, save for manufacturing jobs and they've been going overseas since the mid-70's and will continuie to do so.

Dr. Mordrid

Dr Mordrid
30th August 2004, 15:50
Originally posted by KvHagedorn
Yeah it was really a big coup for the Dems when they lowered the voting age to 18. The less accumulated wisdom one has, the more likely one is to vote for a Democrat, especially a Massachusetts liberal. ;) Actually the fastest growing trend in US electoral politics is that of conservative youth. This is true even in colleges with conservative student organizations far outstripping the growth of liberal ones...who are on most campuses losing membership on a percentage basis.

You'd be suprised at how many of my middle sons friends, most of whom are aged 19 to 25 and grew up in liberal environments, are VERY conservative. A lot of these kids make Bush look liberal ;)

Dr. Mordrid

KvHagedorn
30th August 2004, 16:09
Well, I grew up in a liberal household and had my years of foolish idealism, and then found from real experience how naive their social agenda was, so by 25 I was totally opposed to them. They haven't changed their stripes, so I haven't changed my mind.

Dr Mordrid
30th August 2004, 16:48
I'm a bit older so my experience is different.

I grew up when most Democrats were strong on defense and moderate on social policy, and I agreed with them. These were the days of moderate conservatives like John Kennedy (yup, he was one), Henry "Scoop" Jackson etc.

The problem came when George "Flower Child" McGovern took over the party in 1972. His McGovern Comission "reformed" the Democratic party so far to the left that no moderate or conservative could ever have a major say in Democratic party policy. These changes are why they've been stuck with candidates like Jimmy "Attack Rabbit" Carter, Walter "we're gonna tax the hell out of 'em" Mondale, Michael "I want to drive a TANK" Dukakis et. al. The only time they've been sucessful has been with candidates that have been stealth-liberals like Bill Clinton & Al Gore.

As a result of this swing to the left the Democrats abandoned me (and a lot of other Democrats and moderates), not the other way around.

I'm just hoping that the Democratic party gets hammered so badly that the McGovernites are so discredited they lose sway over the partys nominating and policy decisions. Until then they will continue to marginalize themselves.

Dr. Mordrid

PS: explanation of the quotations for those overseas.

Jimmy "Attack Rabbit" Carter; he became a national joke when, while duck hunting, his boat was attacked by a swimming rabbit while Carter tried to beat it off with an oar. This and Carters facial reaction, all caught on tape and broadcast nationwide, was classic ;)

His total failure to evacuate the Tehran embassy before the hostages were taken and the 20% inflation that came about due to his economic policies sealed his fate vs. Ronald Regan in 1980. The rabbit was just showing how everyone else felt :D

Walter "we're gonna tax the hell out of 'em" Mondale; this is a direct quote caught on an open network microphone during the Democratic convention in 1984. He was talking to another top Dem. while the baloons etc. were coming down after the nominating vote.

The statement went out live to 50 million viewers http://www.digitalvideo.8m.net/emoticon/shocked.gif http://www.digitalvideo.8m.net/emoticon/shocked.gif

Michael "I wanna drive a TANK!!" Dukakis; another national joke when he, while doing a photo-op sitting in a tanks turret seat wearing a helmet w/large headset bulges, was photographed head-on. Not bad in itself, but with Dukakis's face the whole image was that of Snoopy (of Peanuts fame) driving a tank ;)

Dr. Mordrid

rylan
30th August 2004, 17:08
It disturbs me how many people are in the 'Anybody but Bush' camp. To be honest, I believe that is an absolutely ignorant stance to take. Those mindless people who hate Bush make quite a statement when they babble on and make uneducated statements because their own anger has blurred any shred of reason. Unfortunately this kind of thing ends up being a good example of the 'average' american who is too lazy to think anything through and do some research and make a decision based on the better candidate, not just a vote for anyone else. One good thing is that a lot of the mindless people like this make a lot of noise, but end up not voting anyway.

Sasq
30th August 2004, 17:12
Sort of off topic, but Australia has its general assembly election in about 6 weeks.

Take a peak at www.abc.gov.au or www.ninemsn.com.au for the sort of election coverage we get.

Dr Mordrid
30th August 2004, 17:13
Ahhhh....a TAXachusetts citizen :D :D

You're quite correct. These people yammer on about "ABB" then don't take into consideration who they're advocating for the job. The last thing we need is someone who's gonna take the Michael Moores of the world seriously.

Dr. Mordrid

KvHagedorn
30th August 2004, 17:16
I think the Horton ads were what doomed Dukakis, and fairly characterized the liberal Democrat take on things. Scumbag murderers need to be summarily executed, not set free to kill again. Our government doesn't need to get all touchy-feely with these guys.. and spend our hard earned money for anything but one .45 piece of lead to the head.

The lefty government also spends more trying to develop the "potential" of retards whose best role in life would be digging ditches, while bright students from poorer but decent backgrounds are stuck grinding it out with the lowest common denominator in public schools, becoming bored, frustrated, and cynical, then find affording college difficult.

DGhost
30th August 2004, 19:42
see, people argue that Bush is evil, blahblahblah.

I kind of have the same feelings of Kerry. For a man who served in the US military, he has demonstrated that he has (at least at one point in time) no pride in the uniform he wore or the job he did. personally, i feel that he went against the oath of office that he took when he became a commissioned officer in the US Navy... too many things in that topic to get into it here (without it winding up in Temp).



"Having been appointed a Midshipman in the United States Navy, I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God."


every member of the US military takes a similar oath. now he asks that military to take him as their commander in chief? *shrug* beyond my personal feelings about his history in the military, his policy on Iraq bothers me if for no other reason than the fact that I was there and took part in bringing stability to a turbulent region. his plan is crap. bringing more international forces into Iraq will ultimately work against the great strides that we have made. it will serve to slow things down with more political bullshit. it will hand over the future of Iraq to countries that didn't care enough to do The Right Thing (tm) long ago. and at the end of the day, they will still face the same problems Bush & Co have with Iraq.

He claims that "our men and women in uniform stand almost alone with the target squarely on their backs." if this is true, it is not because of the president or our chain of command. If any reason that troops feel alone out their its because the anti=war anti-bush pro-kerry followers tend to attack the feeling of pride that American troops have in the job that they are doing.

I will never say Bush is perfect. In fact, I have to admit that I had a lot of reservations when I voted for him in the first place - that was done mostly because I think that Al "I Invented the Internet" Gore would have fumbled things more than Clinton did. But, Bush's Presidency has not exactly been an easy one and overall he seems to have done a pretty decent job of it - certainly no worse than the Democrats have done in recent times.

He may not be the smartest or most charismatic president we have had. But, push comes to shove I believe he has already demonstrated his capability to do the right thing despite popularity... something that the democrats and even his own father didn't bother to demonstrate during their times in office.


hmm, lots more thoughts on this. lets just leave it at $.02.

ALBPM
30th August 2004, 21:36
I'm a reformed Democrat...

GT98
30th August 2004, 21:44
Well Jammrock hit it on the head, though Bush will most likely get my vote come November. I personally dont have any vindacation against the man (accually doing better then I was when he was elected 4 years ago) and I don't see any real worth while reason to rock the boat sort to speak. I also agree with DGhost's assment with Kerry and his Military record, but I'm also sick of Poilitiatins using a conflict that happened before I was born as cannon fodder for negtive ads.

My prediction...its going to be a close election like in 2000 or its going to be total blow out with GWB winning it.

Brian R.
30th August 2004, 22:18
Some of these Bush supporters convince me by their perpetual childish name calling to vote for Kerry. If these are Bush supporters, then they must see a fellow child in Bush - thus the attraction

Didn't you get tired of name calling after middle school?

I guess not...

KvHagedorn
30th August 2004, 22:19
I pretty much agree with DGhost. Good succinct assessment there. GWB has done the most important thing called upon him in his time in office, which was and is to confront terrorists and give them no quarter. It's not an easy battle, either. It requires steadiness and unflinching strength of purpose. Without this, terrorism will not only remain, but further crimes will be encouraged. Indeed, many governments are so afraid of these vermin that they give in to their demands and even allow them to literally get away with murder. I cannot imagine any more craven or contemptible behavior for a person who has been entrusted by his people with the leadership of his nation. ANY government which acceeds to the demands of terrorists or in any way gives them hope for success in their criminal behavior is an accomplice to their actions, and is deserving of being called out for having no backbone. One reason I am not voting for John Kerry is that I won't have my government be one of them.

KRSESQ
30th August 2004, 22:20
Bush.

Better, the devil you know than the devil you don't. :D

Kevin

spadnos
31st August 2004, 00:33
Originally posted by DGhost
[snip]
every member of the US military takes a similar oath. now he asks that military to take him as their commander in chief? *shrug* beyond my personal feelings about his history in the military, his policy on Iraq bothers me if for no other reason than the fact that I was there and took part in bringing stability to a turbulent region. his plan is crap. bringing more international forces into Iraq will ultimately work against the great strides that we have made. it will serve to slow things down with more political bullshit. it will hand over the future of Iraq to countries that didn't care enough to do The Right Thing (tm) long ago. and at the end of the day, they will still face the same problems Bush & Co have with Iraq.I don't quite understand what you're saying here. You quoted the serviceman's oath, which he presumably took, and then question why any serviceman would want him as the commander-in-chief. The only thing missing is how you get from point A to point B. I know there are conflicting reports about Kerry's Vietnam service. There are also conflicting reports about Bush's military service - yet nobody seems to have a problem with Bush being the commander-in-chief. And everyone agrees that Kerry did actually serve in a war, and that at best, Bush was in a national guard unit back home.

Moving on to Iraq, of course anyone elected will have to deal with Iraq, but it should be obvious that the reason is that we went to war in the first place. It would be a totally different (and possibly, but not necessarily better) situation if we hadn't gone to war. It was really easy to see that it would happen in the weeks leading up to our invasion. The Bush camp would simply restate their agenda ("WMDs - 9/11 - WMDs - 9/11"), and sidestep any real questions that were asked. It was found (after the fact) that there was no link between the 9/11 attacks and Iraq, and that there were no WMDs. Were they lying? Maybe, but we can't tell. So it seems that we were wrong to invade a sovereign country, regardless of how much of an ****ole the leader of that country is. (there are a lot of ****oles out there (and here), and we don't have the resources to eliminate them all, plus it's against the law)

He claims that "our men and women in uniform stand almost alone with the target squarely on their backs." if this is true, it is not because of the president or our chain of command. If any reason that troops feel alone out their its because the anti=war anti-bush pro-kerry followers tend to attack the feeling of pride that American troops have in the job that they are doing. Well - it's unfortunate, but our military IS mostly alone, and it's not because there are people here that oppose the war. It's because Bush is incapable of actually being politically effective with other national leaders. He doesn't want the US to participate in international law, ignores any and all treaties that he dislikes, and generally makes the rest of the world hate the US. It's a problem to decide that we can and should do anything we want, regardless of treaty or international law, and that we are right to do so. We may have the power right now, but that won't last - look at the empire of England. It's folly to assume that we can impose our will on the entire world.

It's a hard distinction to make, but not everyone who opposes war is opposed to the people who actually put their lives on the line, it's opposition to the person in the leather chair, eating a lobster dinner who made the decision that other people should risk their lives.

I will never say Bush is perfect. In fact, I have to admit that I had a lot of reservations when I voted for him in the first place - that was done mostly because I think that Al "I Invented the Internet" Gore would have fumbled things more than Clinton did. But, Bush's Presidency has not exactly been an easy one and overall he seems to have done a pretty decent job of it - certainly no worse than the Democrats have done in recent times.

He may not be the smartest or most charismatic president we have had. But, push comes to shove I believe he has already demonstrated his capability to do the right thing despite popularity... something that the democrats and even his own father didn't bother to demonstrate during their times in office.First - Al Gore never said that he had invented the internet. That was a misreperesentation of a statement he did make ("During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet" - which is true - see this (http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm) page for more info)
Bush really appears to be an idiot, but I'm not sure he is. Realize that if he were riding on his own accomplishments, he would probably be on welfare or in jail for some type of fraud. He was the president of three successive oil exploration companies, none of which managed to find oil. Nonetheless, he was able to get financing for each one (in the millions). I doubt that this was due to his charisma - it's much more likely that it was due to his family name. (he was on the board of directors for one company, and one of the other executives said "well, it can't hurt to have the vice president's son on your board of directors" - that doesn't sound like personal accomplishment to me)
Did he do the right thing regarding terrorism? We've all heard the questions about "failures of intelligence" - but let's assume that nobody actually did anything wrong - that things were just not at the level of organization that we needed to be able to coordinate all of this information. Great - so Bush made up the Department of Homeland Security to help out. Except that he didn't make it up - he inherited a plan from the Clinton administration to form an agency to oversee intelligence efforts, with the specific intent to reduce terrorist threats. Instead of actually implementing anything like that during the 9 months of office before the 9/11 attacks, he decided to take vacation 40% of the time (yes - that would be roughly 100 days of vacation in the first 9 months of office).

hmm, lots more thoughts on this. lets just leave it at $.02. The big problem with focusing on a war that ended 30 years ago is that we're forgetting things like the economy, taxes, education, international stability, etc. etc.
Bush has simultaneously lowered taxes and raised spending. Talk about "tax and spend Democrats", he's a "don't tax but spend anyway Republican". We can't afford it, and it will be a problem.

I'll raise you $0.02 :)

spadnos
31st August 2004, 00:46
Originally posted by KvHagedorn
I pretty much agree with DGhost. Good succinct assessment there. GWB has done the most important thing called upon him in his time in office, which was and is to confront terrorists and give them no quarter. It's not an easy battle, either. It requires steadiness and unflinching strength of purpose. Without this, terrorism will not only remain, but further crimes will be encouraged. Indeed, many governments are so afraid of these vermin that they give in to their demands and even allow them to literally get away with murder. I cannot imagine any more craven or contemptible behavior for a person who has been entrusted by his people with the leadership of his nation. ANY government which acceeds to the demands of terrorists or in any way gives them hope for success in their criminal behavior is an accomplice to their actions, and is deserving of being called out for having no backbone. One reason I am not voting for John Kerry is that I won't have my government be one of them. Terrorism has increased since we went to war with Iraq.
Bush did little to prevent terrorist problems before 9/11.
Kerry has said nothing of "acceding to the demands of terrorists". He would just deal with the situation differently. I don't really know how he would have done things, but I can certainly tell you that I think Bush did it wrong. It's impossible to "eliminate terrorism". You'd have to kill everyone (and I mean everyone - not just Muslims and North Koreans - EVERYONE), or you couldn't be sure that you had won. So where does it end? That's a problem with Bush and the congress, which should probably have actually read the delcaration of "War on Terrorism" before voting for it.
As for ragging on countries that "have no backbone" - that's ludicrous. Yes, we should state that we're unhappy with the decisions made by other nations and their leaders. However, democracy is founded on the principle that people can have different opinions, and that 's OK. It's even encouraged. It's hypocritical to go all over the world installing democratic governments, promoting free speech, and telling people to "do what they think is right", and then go back and tell them they're wrong when they disagree with us.

It seems more likely in this case that we have no brain, not that others have no backbone.

- Steve

DukeP
31st August 2004, 01:18
I - representing all of my friends here in Denmark - really hope that Bush is NOT reelected.

For the sake of my friends in the US, for the sake of the connection between our two countries, and for the sake of the betterment of the world at large.

I have not met even ONE Dane that would prefer Bush. Not even those that have actually met him in privat (including our minister of state). Our royal family does not make political statements. None the less, even our princess prefer Buhs's wife over him - when it comes to ruling the USofA.

Good luck USA.

~~DukeP~~

VJ
31st August 2004, 01:28
I hope it is not Bush, but I feel it is too soon to tell...

Main reason for me is that he doesn't take the rest of the world into account: he backed out of the Kyoto-agreements; he ingores other countries, other opinions and even previous agreements; and I feel he has too much of a hidden agenda (personal benefit, links with Saudi Arabia royals, ...).
I don't care that he isn't charistmatic or that he has made silly expressions, it is the deeper issue that bothers me.

No matter how big a country is, it isn't alone in the world.


Jörg

Brian Ellis
31st August 2004, 01:31
For Goodness' sake, this should be in Temp. Why should I have American politics rammed down my throat in the Lounge?

Rakido
31st August 2004, 03:19
I'm more surprised that this thread is still held in a friendly style. If all discussions before were like this, we wouldn't need a temp.

@Brian: i think the title of the thread was more than clear. Why have you clicked it?

I agree with Vj, especially the Kyoto back-out was not very clever for his reputation



Rakido

Umfriend
31st August 2004, 04:05
First - Al Gore never said that he had invented the internet.I said so already here: http://forums.murc.ws/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40605 and that was one and a half year ago :rolleyes:
Obviously, many would rather keep using a manipulated accusation instead of debating the actual achievements and errors of someone like Gore.

Other funny things said: http://www.dubyaspeak.com/

rylan
31st August 2004, 06:41
Originally posted by KRSESQ
Bush.

Better, the devil you know than the devil you don't. :D

Kevin

You hit it right on.
This is one of those times the majority of those who vote for Kerry are voting for something he is not (Bush) instead of voting for what he is or what he as done (which nobody really knows). This happened with Carter... and that worked out oh so well. :p

ZokesPro
31st August 2004, 07:36
Sounds like whom ever you vote for your screwed, or at lease that's what it sounds like.

GT98
31st August 2004, 07:39
Originally posted by ZokesPro
Sounds like whom ever you vote for your screwed, or at lease that's what it sounds like.

EXACTLY!

:D :D :D :D

Its pick your poison time come November. I just wish we had a viable 3rd party to vote for, not these splinter groups we have now.

Sasq
31st August 2004, 07:40
in Australia we have 3 simple definitions for polititions.

1) how do you know when a politition is telling a lie? his lips are moving.
2)definition of an honest politition: one that when bought stays bought.
3) definition of a good politition: a dead one.

after we asses our current batch against that criteria, we judge whats left on the lesser of the evils.

ZokesPro
31st August 2004, 07:46
Originally posted by Sasq
in Australia we have 3 simple definitions for polititions.

1) how do you know when a politition is telling a lie? his lips are moving.
2)definition of an honest politition: one that when bought stays bought.
3) definition of a good politition: a dead one.

after we asses our current batch against that criteria, we judge whats left on the lesser of the evils. Choosing a lesser evil... that doesn't inspire much hope.

Sasq
31st August 2004, 07:48
yes and no.
we long ago accepted the govt was going to rape and pillage us, we just choose the one who will do it the least

Umfriend
31st August 2004, 07:52
And most likely be convinced by the wrong one that he/she is the one that will do it least.

Sasq
31st August 2004, 07:55
Australians are a cynical bunch, and they are only elected for a period of 3 years at a time, tends to minimalize the damage.

DGhost
31st August 2004, 08:13
Originally posted by spadnos
I don't quite understand what you're saying here. You quoted the serviceman's oath, which he presumably took, and then question why any serviceman would want him as the commander-in-chief. The only thing missing is how you get from point A to point B. I know there are conflicting reports about Kerry's Vietnam service. There are also conflicting reports about Bush's military service - yet nobody seems to have a problem with Bush being the commander-in-chief. And everyone agrees that Kerry did actually serve in a war, and that at best, Bush was in a national guard unit back home.


Yeah, my english teachers would hit me for having written that. There is not really much to debate about his vietnam service. From my standpoint (that of an Infantryman) he seems to have been overdecorated for a job that is relatively (big relatively) safe and easy. Not to bash his service... just that there are people who endured far worse and did far more in it. He did his time and left for politics. He is *not* a boots in the mud sort of guy.

Generally, I have no problem with that. The only thing about it that gets under my skin is the fact that he is touting his military experience as if he was a true war hero that deserves as much recognition for it as the people who were on the front. That might just might be because of my prejudices as an Infantryman - when your boots are always in the mud (or sand, depending) people who have had it easy tend to annoy you when they start comparing how bad things were and how deserving they are.

No matter how bad things he had things in Vietnam, there were a *lot* of people who had it worse on a daily basis. There were a lot of people who were making a far bigger impact on the war on a daily basis than he was. Yet, for some backwards ass reason, he is the war hero with three purple hearts (heh - not a good thing, as one should not be trying to win those) touting his service to the country over Bush and his National Guard time.

my original point was about the behavior of "Hanoi John" after his service. I've read his testimony in front of congress. I've seen his protests. he undermined the military in which he served and swore an oath to. he sold out his brothers and sisters in the service for his own political purposes. and worse than that, he undermined the good things that many fine americans did do in Vietnam. that right there is my beef. if he turned his back on the military once, why does he deserve to be in charge of it?


Moving on to Iraq, of course anyone elected will have to deal with Iraq, but it should be obvious that the reason is that we went to war in the first place. It would be a totally different (and possibly, but not necessarily better) situation if we hadn't gone to war. It was really easy to see that it would happen in the weeks leading up to our invasion. The Bush camp would simply restate their agenda ("WMDs - 9/11 - WMDs - 9/11"), and sidestep any real questions that were asked. It was found (after the fact) that there was no link between the 9/11 attacks and Iraq, and that there were no WMDs. Were they lying? Maybe, but we can't tell. So it seems that we were wrong to invade a sovereign country, regardless of how much of an ****ole the leader of that country is. (there are a lot of ****oles out there (and here), and we don't have the resources to eliminate them all, plus it's against the law)


I will agree that the reasons we went are shady. I have my suspicions as to how the intel came about - probably from people covering their asses in case something did happen. "this info says they could have access to WMD" "well, that means they could have WMD" etc etc. it happened in the first gulf war as well. it is a key factor in military planning (ie, what *could* the other side have, doesn't mean they do). dunno if it is true or not, but it probably fits.

as to why we stayed... yeah... having been there I still say that we need to be there. People have needed to be there for a long time. It ultimately needed to be done. Sadly, the results we have achieved in Iraq does not seem to be enough to justify it.


Well - it's unfortunate, but our military IS mostly alone, and it's not because there are people here that oppose the war. It's because Bush is incapable of actually being politically effective with other national leaders. He doesn't want the US to participate in international law, ignores any and all treaties that he dislikes, and generally makes the rest of the world hate the US. It's a problem to decide that we can and should do anything we want, regardless of treaty or international law, and that we are right to do so. We may have the power right now, but that won't last - look at the empire of England. It's folly to assume that we can impose our will on the entire world.


alone? Like I said, the only reason I ever felt alone while I was in Iraq was when I watched (or read) the news. When I looked at what our country was seeing and what they seemed to think and didn't read about anything that we had done or were doing, just heard about fellow soldiers dying. when people protest our "evil" war and make a mockery of the things we have done.

it's not even so much the opposition to the war.

the other countries didn't care enough to step up in the first place. why should we want their help? our soldiers have done many, many good things over there for one simple reason - they genuinely care. who is to say that other countries will? will they sell the Iraqi people out?

I don't care much for international support. Some other countries have really sharp military forces. Some just don't care. In any case, the people of Iraq wind up loosing.


It's a hard distinction to make, but not everyone who opposes war is opposed to the people who actually put their lives on the line, it's opposition to the person in the leather chair, eating a lobster dinner who made the decision that other people should risk their lives.


see, when someone joins the military they have already said that they are willing to risk their lives. they volunteered for it.

commanders are where they need to be for the level of their command. my company commander stays with the company wherever it is - he can evaluate the area as he sees fit and relys on his lieutenants to give him feedback on their areas. the battalion commander relies on the company commanders to give their assesments and feedback. at the same time he is not expected to go down to the lieutenants and tell them how to do their job unless absolutely nessicary.

at the level of command that the president has, he is essentially cut off from everything. He relies on other commanders insights and opinions. it is quite likely that he was not the only person involved in the decision to go to Iraq. he is, however, the person who had the burdon of having to make the decision.


First - Al Gore never said that he had invented the internet. That was a misreperesentation of a statement he did make ("During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet" - which is true - see this (http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm) page for more info)


it was a low jab on my part. still don't like the guy - seems like he suffered oxygen deprivation as a child.


Bush really appears to be an idiot, but I'm not sure he is. Realize that if he were riding on his own accomplishments, he would probably be on welfare or in jail for some type of fraud. He was the president of three successive oil exploration companies, none of which managed to find oil. Nonetheless, he was able to get financing for each one (in the millions). I doubt that this was due to his charisma - it's much more likely that it was due to his family name. (he was on the board of directors for one company, and one of the other executives said "well, it can't hurt to have the vice president's son on your board of directors" - that doesn't sound like personal accomplishment to me)
Did he do the right thing regarding terrorism? We've all heard the questions about "failures of intelligence" - but let's assume that nobody actually did anything wrong - that things were just not at the level of organization that we needed to be able to coordinate all of this information. Great - so Bush made up the Department of Homeland Security to help out. Except that he didn't make it up - he inherited a plan from the Clinton administration to form an agency to oversee intelligence efforts, with the specific intent to reduce terrorist threats. Instead of actually implementing anything like that during the 9 months of office before the 9/11 attacks, he decided to take vacation 40% of the time (yes - that would be roughly 100 days of vacation in the first 9 months of office).
The big problem with focusing on a war that ended 30 years ago is that we're forgetting things like the economy, taxes, education, international stability, etc. etc.
Bush has simultaneously lowered taxes and raised spending. Talk about "tax and spend Democrats", he's a "don't tax but spend anyway Republican". We can't afford it, and it will be a problem.

I'll raise you $0.02 :)

i would love to see links for some of that. some of the stuff I agree with, some I don't.

i must also point this out - prior to Kerry joining the military he was publicly associated with the Kennedys. He was, from a relatively early age, being groomed for politics. between his own family name and his political connections, I have no doubt that his own personal accomplishments have come rather... easy... to him...

anyways, i gotta get back to work...

cjolley
31st August 2004, 08:37
Originally posted by DGhost
...Yet, for some backwards ass reason, he is the war hero with three purple hearts (heh - not a good thing, as one should not be trying to win those) touting his service to the country over Bush and his National Guard time.
...



What!?!?!?
Kerry was on a ship at sea for his first tour of duty.
He could have stayed on the ship or gone home right then if he had wanted to.
Instead he volunteered to go to swift boats for his second.
Which were not particularly at risk.
A couple of weeks after he started the swifts were retasked from the relative safety of shore patrol to the very dangerous river patrol duty.
He apparently stepped up to the plate and served with valor, winning Bronze and Silver Stars and awarded 3 Purple Hearts*.

Bush on the other hand got himself into National Guard duty that had virtually no chance of being sent over (he was flying an interceptor)
As soon as the new drug testing policy was enacted he stopped going for his flight physicals.
(My dad was an Air Force pilot. You just don't skip your physicals.)

And for this Bush's service should be held in higher regard than Kerry's!?

I weep for my country if this is what partisanship has descended to.

Chuck


*Do you plan on taking away your friends PHs whose wounds weren't "bad enough".
And this would include one of Bob Dole's PHs too by the way.

Greebe
31st August 2004, 08:54
wow DG you really said a mouthful for a guy who doesn't have an opinion of his superiors. Especially the last part, being groomed for politics and associated with the Kennedy's

Gee, Bush wasn't even in the real military, he only played a solder on the weekends. Was groomed at an early age by his father and the rest of DC/Texas Republicans... Took quite awhile to get him to straighten up and fly right too. There was that faultering while running a minor league baseball team, rumours of cocaine abuse and the, "where were you for the last 6months" in the Guard that was covered up. Heck his daddy played part in Watergate so the effectiveness of the coverup isn't suprising. Every job he's ever held was handed to him on a silver platter. It was nothing more than his fathers influence and name was what got him elected to Govenor. Only won the last election because his brother got the names of all pardoned felons votes tossed out on a techicality in the resulting recount... heck they still can't get that issue resolved here because it might come back and bite them the next time around. Bet your sweet bippy Jeb will be running in '08

All I honestly see is two greedy unruly polititions behaving like spoilt brats, throwing mud in the others face and pointing fingers without discussing the real issues and offering genuine solutions.

DGhost
31st August 2004, 09:04
Huh? where exactly do I say that Bush's service should be held in higher regard? just curious.

RE: medals and Purple Hearts. a guy down the hall was injured and medivac'd after an IED went off in front of the Bradley he was driving. the blast and shrapnel was enough to severely lacerate his face and render him blind for a reasonable period of time. last I checked, he had still not been awarded a Purple Heart. The flip side to this is that of a guy who was caught in another IED. He had a reasonable concussion and had to be pulled from duty for a few days. Last I heard they were trying to push him through for a PH as well. a PH doesn't mean much in and of itself. it's the story behind it that is what means everything.

another quick story on the topic of ribbons and PH's. one of our fire teams was manning a traffic check point when a vehicle rather abruptly pulled a U-Turn to avoid it after getting close enough to see what it was. the fire team moved to pursue in a humvee, and after passing a few buildings they got engaged by small arms fire from behind. as they were moving the humvee out of the line of fire, the team leader got caught in the wrist by 7.62, and it traveled up the inside of wrist and arm and exited from the upper arm. my room mate was sitting right next to him when it happened, and had to keep the TL from falling out of the vehicle while it went through drainage ditches while laying down suppressive fire at the same time. once they were in a relatively safe spot, my roommate gave immediate first aid and applied a tourniquet to the mans arm while the rest of the team pulled security.

in the end, the TL's arm was saved (at least, mostly. he pretty much has no ligaments in his wrist). because of my roomies actions, he was able to not only keep his arm but also his life. I know for a fact that the TL would rather have not earned the Purple Heart that night.

when our unit returned, pretty much everyone who was deployed recieved an Army Commendation Medal. My roommate received an ArCom w/ a V (for Valor). The only people who received Bronze or Silver Stars were either E-6/7's or Officers - despite the fact that they did not do anything to deserve them.


just because someone has Bronze or Silver stars doesn't make them a hero to me. nor does it mean they did anything valorous.

The PIT
31st August 2004, 09:11
Tell you what chaps make history and have Blair as Presidant.

DGhost
31st August 2004, 09:13
Originally posted by Greebe
wow DG you really said a mouthful for a guy who doesn't have an opinion of his superiors.


hmmm.... did I acctually say I do not have an opinion? I've always had an opinion, I generally don't say it though.



Originally posted by Greebe
Especially the last part, being groomed for politics and associated with the Kennedy's

Gee, Bush wasn't even in the real military, he only played a solder on the weekends. Was groomed at an early age by his father and the rest of DC/Texas Republicans... Took quite awhile to get him to straighten up and fly right too. There was that faultering while running a minor league baseball team, rumours of cocaine abuse and the, "where were you for the last 6months" in the Guard that was covered up. Heck his daddy played part in Watergate so the effectiveness of the coverup isn't suprising. Every job he's ever held was handed to him on a silver platter. It was nothing more than his fathers influence and name was what got him elected to Govenor. Only won the last election because his brother got the names of all pardoned felons votes tossed out on a techicality in the resulting recount... heck they still can't get that issue resolved here because it might come back and bite them the next time around. Bet your sweet bippy Jeb will be running in '08


These days, National Guard soldiers get the ass perhaps more than Regular component ones. that being completely besides the point, I personally don't give a rats ass about his military career. he isn't flaunting about trying to claim he is a war hero with his record, is he? I remember him touting his military career back when he was elected, but I don't remember him trying to pass himself off as a war hero. the moment someone does that I care.

as far as the political grooming... I never denied Bush was groomed for it. I just think its a little stupid for people to go off on how Bush was groomed politcally and his successes came because of his political connections without looking at Kerry's own ties and rise to power.


Originally posted by Greebe
All I honestly see is two greedy unruly polititions behaving like spoilt brats, throwing mud in the others face and pointing fingers without discussing the real issues and offering genuine solutions.

agreed. it is amazing how similar the candidates really are, despite a few outward differences.

cjolley
31st August 2004, 09:24
Originally posted by DGhost
Huh? where exactly do I say that Bush's service should be held in higher regard? just curious.
...

That's about all I could make of this:

Yet, for some backwards ass reason,...

Chuck

Greebe
31st August 2004, 09:39
These days, National Guard soldiers get the ass perhaps more than Regular component ones. that being completely besides the point, I personally don't give a rats ass about his military career. he isn't flaunting about trying to claim he is a war hero with his record, is he? I remember him touting his military career back when he was elected, but I don't remember him trying to pass himself off as a war hero. the moment someone does that I care.

In those days it was considered the next step above a Cub Scout campout. Was the only thing worse than saying you were in the Coast Guard.

Bush doesn't have to tought his Heroism, there never was any. Besides he's already in office. His daddy sure did... and many saw his actions as suicide missions, that all or nothing effort.

You didn't happen to catch my post about how people who only doing their jobs are considered Hero's these days,.. Police, fireman, medical personel hyped up by the media and their supporters by chance did you? You should.

DukeP
31st August 2004, 10:02
Latest issue of Wired have some thoughtfull things to say about the US political system.

Namely that the next person that try to steer into the middle between the Dem and the Rep, gets the job.
Especially if he uses the internet to collect funds, with the "I will NOT accept fonds beyound 100$" statement. Each man who pays me to win, have equal say.

A refreshment, when the little guy on the floor have as much power over a candidate as the big money.

~~DukeP~~

spadnos
31st August 2004, 10:26
Yeah - the whole medals thing is weird.

I got an Army Achievement medal for being Soldier of the Cycle in Basic Training. I probably would have gotten another one in AIT if we had actually had a graduation ceremony (since I was top in the class).

As I recall, that's the third highest medal you can get during peacetime, which seems a little misplaced for answering a few questions in Basic Training. (although it is a little intimidating to be sitting in front of a General and several Colonels while answering those questions :) )

Check out this article (http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=1) about Bush's early business performance. (the organization that did the article is reviewed here (http://www.ojr.org/ojr/glaser/1077668140.php).)

I think the "war hero" thing came about mostly because people were questioning whether Kerry could be as good a "war president" as Bush, and they were bringing up Kerry's involvement with anti-war protests in the 70's. So the "War Hero" schtick is a response to the "Pacifist Wuss" image being painted by the other side.

I think it's important to realize that people who are against the war are NOT against the troops. If someone asks if I support our troops, I say yes. I would support them by not throwing them in the line of fire unless it's absolutely necessary. I think it's tragic that so many people have lost their lves, and many others have had their lives irreparably altered, because of dubious reasons for going to war. So I support the troops by wishing that they would be brought out of harms way, until there's a compelling reason to put them there.

Other countries didn't go to war because they weren't convinced that there was sufficient reason to go to war. Look at this the other way - would you expect the US to "go along" with another country if we didn't think their reasons were sufficient? We even seem to have a problem placing our troops under the command of UN forces in joint operations)

Incidentally, I read a short biography of Saddam Hussein. I think that he pissed off the Bush family in the early 70's when he nationalized Iraq's oil production away from "Western Oil Companies" (see this (http://history1900s.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iraqi-mission.org%2FSaddam%2Fsaddamcv.htm) encyclopedia entry. I don't know what the bias of that site is, but this looks like a reasonably factual bio.)

- Steve

Dr Mordrid
31st August 2004, 10:43
Originally posted by VJ
I hope it is not Bush, but I feel it is too soon to tell...

Main reason for me is that he doesn't take the rest of the world into account: he backed out of the Kyoto-agreements; he ingores other countries, other opinions and even previous agreements;
>
No matter how big a country is, it isn't alone in the world.

Jörg First of all understand that it's NOT the Presidents job to represent the interests of foreigners but of his own people, and to act in those interests. The Kyoto treaties were hopelessly screwed and skewed in that while further limiting already regulated emissions by developed nations they allowed high quantities of very low quality emissions by developing countries. Where's the gain in that other than robbing Peter to pay Paul?

I say put the limitations on those countries like China who are putting out high emissions by using low quality fuels. Since they're building an industrial infrastructure from scratch anyhow let them put windmills across the Gobi or whatever else is popular with the enviromental types.

Bottom line: it's more efficient, and cheaper, to change tech for those using low quality fuels than for those whose emissions are already 90% plus clean already.

In terms of not listening to "Europe" re: Iraq; that was a no-brainer. First of all not all of Europe was united on this issue. Secondly those major Euro-powers who were against it were not so because of policy but because of ECONOMICS.

Germany, France and the Russians had been trying to un-do the UN sanctions against Iraq for several years so they could make good on lucrative oil contracts they signed with Saddam years ago. With those sanctions out of the way GF&R would have made lots of Euro-bucks and Saddam would have the money to re-arm in very short order. In no time we would have been right back where we started pre-1991. No thanks.

Not to mention that the major sources of supply for Saddams chem-bio and nuclear programs were (guess who?): Germany, France and Russia.

Wow....what a suprise :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Uppance: we share decision making with those who are responsible. Germany, France and Russia shed their responsiblity cloak re: Saddam years ago.

Not to mention that France has a policy of opposing the US whenever it can; be is sensible or not. Their idea of forming an alternative power center has been around since DeGaulles day. Unfortunately this often collides with common sense.

Many of the EU members secretly, and not so secretly, feel the same way which is why you're starting to see divisions between G&F and the smaller nations in the community. Don't deny it; it's blatantly obvious even from over here....maybe even more so since Europe has a history of "forest for the trees" oblivious thinking. Sorry, but that's been proven more times than I can count.

Does the US taking the advice of an "ally" like France make any sense at all? Not in my book, and not in the book of the vast majority of the American people. Even a high percentage of Democrats are fed up with them.

Dr. Mordrid

GT98
31st August 2004, 11:29
The worse thing about this whole situation is that both parties are still dragging up a very painful part of the past and using it suite their own needs. The vietnam issue should be dead and buried, not something dug up to throw around mud with.

Compairing the two canidates military records is somewhat assine...Put yourself into GWB's shoes, if you could get into a cushy job where you didn't have to be sent over to Vietnam, wouldn't you take it? I know I would, and this is coming from someone that did 4 years active duty and another 4 years in the National Guard.

I'm not sure of Kerry's background and if he could have skated out of getting drafted or not, but voltneering to go off and getting yourself killed doesn't make you automaticly a hero in my book. It shows that your an idiot or just full of bravaodo. In all likelyhood he served with honor, even though he can't get he's stories straight of what excactly happened over there. What bugs the hell out of me is what he did after the war. I see it as a betrail to my fellow soldiers or sailors. I can understand having oppsition to the war due to its nature, but reading what was in his book and testomony to congress I would be pissed off.

RC Agent
31st August 2004, 11:41
Where's the WMDs again?

RC Agent
31st August 2004, 11:47
Bush is against gay marriage.....
Yet, his VP, whose daugther is gay, recently stated....he thinks that the issue should be left to the states......

RC Agent
31st August 2004, 11:54
Originally posted by rylan
You hit it right on.
This is one of those times the majority of those who vote for Kerry are voting for something he is not (Bush) instead of voting for what he is or what he as done (which nobody really knows). This happened with Carter... and that worked out oh so well. :p
It's more like because Bush as President of the USA misled the country into a war. Number of soldiers killed is 1,000+ and rising....

GT98
31st August 2004, 11:58
Originally posted by RC Agent
It's more like because Bush as President of the USA misled the country into a war. Number of soldiers killed is 1,000+ and rising....

Well Bush himself was mislead by all the intellence reports from various services around the world. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Its not as cut and dry as you make it out to be...He based his info that was found out to be fautly at this time.

cjolley
31st August 2004, 12:13
Which is why it's not wise to rush into a war (even if you do want to get revenge for your Daddy).
He had me the way Afganistan was handled.
Then went completely off the tracks with the Iraq thing.
Which had a negative effect on our first priority:
Really winning in Afganistan.
Chuck

RC Agent
31st August 2004, 12:17
Originally posted by GT98
Well Bush himself was mislead by all the intellence reports from various services around the world. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Its not as cut and dry as you make it out to be...He based his info that was found out to be fautly at this time. So, it's ok??? Uh... as President, he got bad intel, made the decision....and well..ok, let's re-elect him. Gotcha. OK. So, it's ok....as President, he can just say the intel was bad and that's that. Gotcha.

schmosef
31st August 2004, 12:23
We might not know the truth(tm) about Iraq for a long time.

If I was President and my top advisors told me that the case for war was a "slam dunk", wouldn't I be compelled to proceed?

The responsibility ultimately lies with the President but there was obviously a serious problem with his cabinet.

cjolley
31st August 2004, 12:23
Originally posted by RC Agent
So, it's ok??? Uh... as President, he got bad intel, made the decision....and well..ok, let's re-elect him. Gotcha. OK. So, it's ok....as President, he can just say the intel was bad and that's that. Gotcha.

Remember, this is an administration of CEO types.
If they do well, they get a raise.
If they screw up, they get a raise.
Nice gig, if you can get it.

Chuck

PS Interesting and not too one sided:http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/30/klein.tm/index.html

Umfriend
31st August 2004, 12:50
The responsibility ultimately lies with the President but there was obviously a serious problem with his cabinet.And of that cabinet, how many resigned/were fired? I'm sure I missed a lot, cause I did not see a huge cleansweep operation.

Any guys here working in larger corps where investigations/research and due deliberation ussually ends up where management wants it? Sure, with a government, it's gonna be different. sure.

schmosef
31st August 2004, 13:05
Umf, I agree. If he gets re-elected, he needs to clean house. He probably won't though. It's up to the American people to make him responsible, if they don't, it's like wiping the slate clean.

Umfriend
31st August 2004, 13:33
Ah, I see, if he does not get re-elected, he should leave a mess for his successor? I think I don't see. Why wait?

schmosef
31st August 2004, 13:39
We're not talking altruism here, we're talking Politics.

And it would be political suicide to radically alter his cabinet at this point. It would be exploited as a sign of weakness by all his enemies, both domestic and foreign.

If he gets a new mandate, that would be the time to shuffle the deck. I don't think that he will though.

Umfriend
31st August 2004, 13:48
He could have done it at an earlier point if he felt it was needed. I guess he did not.

schmosef
31st August 2004, 13:56
I think the Political suicide issue was in play even then. His opponents were being told to wait for the smoking gun. It wouldn't have looked good if he didn't seem inclined to wait either.

mmp121
31st August 2004, 14:04
Originally posted by schmosef
We might not know the truth(tm) about Iraq for a long time.

If I was President and my top advisors told me that the case for war was a "slam dunk", wouldn't I be compelled to proceed?

The responsibility ultimately lies with the President but there was obviously a serious problem with his cabinet.

First of all, it was the CIA director who suggested that finding weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) in Iraq would be a "slam dunk". Not that the war would be a slam dunk.

Secondly for those of you asking for a shuffle of the cabinet should be aware that CIA director George Tenent (who happens to be one of the few CLINTON appointee's in President Bush's inner circle of advisors and cabinet members) has either been forced to resign or did so out of his own free will. :rolleyes:

I have a feeling that current Secretary of State Colin Powell will not be a part of President Bush's 2nd term if he wins re-election.

The shakeups you are all suggesting should have taken place, for all intents and purposes HAVE taken place.

Umfriend
31st August 2004, 14:25
Schmo did not say anyone said the war would be a slam dunk. The case for war is what he said.

It took long enough for Tennet to drop, and I am not convinced he was forced or would have been soon, if at all.

If you agree that the shakeups should have taken place, then I don;t see how you can say they have [for all intents and purposes]. Are you saying the casualties of the coming shake-up are effictively not part of the policy process anymore?

Schmo, that's a weird ecxuse. It did not happen because that would undermine the "wait-and-see" stance? But we did not see yet, and still it should not happen?? Did he himself then still believe they would be found or not??? In both cases, yes or no, it's an error in my book, and I think not a small one.

If I felt that my prime-minister (which is a rather different position from a US president, I know) gave this much weight to such political suicide arguments, that'd sure be a reason to vote "anything but".

schmosef
31st August 2004, 15:07
Umf, thanks for clarifying my position re: "case for".

My understanding is that Tennet made his famous remark in the Oval Office with other members of Bush's cabinet present. Bush said something to the effect of "If we're gonig to do this we have to be sure the case is strong." To which Tennet replied, "It's a slam dunk". There were other important people in the room and the record, to my knowledge, does not reflect any descent. If I was President, I'd be holding everyone in that room to Tennet's word.

And as far as excuses for not reshuffling sooner go... That's the part I believe will not be known for quite some time.

If he believed that he would find a smoking gun, then there'd be no reason to replace people. If he didn't believe that he'd find a smoking gun, then the US went to war in bad faith and it's a reason to replace him.

If he later changed his mind about whether a smoking gun would be found, well, the timing of the policy shift and the handling thereof would heavily impact his political strategy.

Dr Mordrid
31st August 2004, 15:52
Originally posted by RC Agent
Where's the WMDs again? According to Egyptian, Israeli and other Middle East intel sources they were taken to the Bekka Valley in Lebanon by way of Syria.

How?: because Turkey prevented the 4th Mountain Division from covering the northern escape routes by denying landing rights, leaving a wide open door.

Why?: Saddam thought this situation would end up like 1991; with him still in power, allowing him to slowly re-import them after things cooled down.

Dr. Mordrid

Umfriend
31st August 2004, 16:00
Dr. Some may remember the proof presented to the UN that Iraq had WMD. They were hiding them with the greatest effort possible, but luckily, US intelligence proved those attempt futile. I can understand therefore that the actual moving of these WMD to Syria went by unnoticed to US intelligence.

KvHagedorn
31st August 2004, 19:14
Originally posted by DukeP
I - representing all of my friends here in Denmark - really hope that Bush is NOT reelected.

For the sake of my friends in the US, for the sake of the connection between our two countries, and for the sake of the betterment of the world at large.

I have not met even ONE Dane that would prefer Bush. Not even those that have actually met him in privat (including our minister of state). Our royal family does not make political statements. None the less, even our princess prefer Buhs's wife over him - when it comes to ruling the USofA.

Good luck USA.

~~DukeP~~

So.. why do half the people in the US want Bush reelected?

Your friends would probably say because Americans are stupid, right? Truth be told, the reason is that you and your friends are completely clueless about how things are here, because you do not live here. Thank God Euros can't vote in our election, as they seem to feel they should be entitled to. I could get into it in depth about how and why things are different here than there, but you will not really understand this until you come and live here a few years.

Adis
31st August 2004, 19:59
Edit: uncalled for.

Dr Mordrid
31st August 2004, 20:05
Originally posted by KvHagedorn
Your friends would probably say because Americans are stupid, right? Truth be told, the reason is that you and your friends are completely clueless about how things are here, because you do not live here. Thank God Euros can't vote in our election, as they seem to feel they should be entitled to. I could get into it in depth about how and why things are different here than there, but you will not really understand this until you come and live here a few years. AMEN to that!!

Dr. Mordrid

Sasq
31st August 2004, 20:26
Right, point 1 lets make this realy very clear, i would prefer to leave this in the lounge.

Point 2, and I direct this at KvH and to a lesser extent doc, the reason the rest of the world has an oppinion on who should be in the white house is not because we have any idea what things are like in America, but if you see it or not, America pushes its Ideals, laws and all the other crud you put up with onto us.

If you don't want the rest of the world to have an oppinion, vote someone in that doesnt try to play world god.

/rant off

mmp121
1st September 2004, 00:00
Originally posted by Sasq
Right, point 1 lets make this realy very clear, i would prefer to leave this in the lounge.

<i>*SNIP*</i>



Sasq, in all honestly, you should also single out Adis in point 3 and warn him about his totally uncalled for trolling on the topic, which I think was rather civil for once.

KRSESQ
1st September 2004, 00:15
I second that. Totally uncalled for, regardless of political persuasion.

Maybe a thinly veiled effort to get this bumped to the temp forum? Maybe not such a bad idea.

Kevin

Sasq
1st September 2004, 00:38
I missed his post. yes you are correct.

DukeP
1st September 2004, 00:43
KVH, USA is such a big power that people everywhere in the world is affected.
Its a bit like gravity. :)

Mayhaps we SHOULD be able to vote?
I mean, it sure is annoying to have someone somewhere have influence on your life, without being able to do anything about it.
True, I dont live in the USA, and I therefore does not know on a firsthand basis, how it is.
But then again; You dont live in Denmark (or EU for that matter), so you dont know why I might be affected by your choice of president.
And yes, im all for world democracy!
Star Trek all the way, baby!
:)

~~DukeP~~

Dr Mordrid
1st September 2004, 01:04
You couldn't sell a "world government" in the US on a bet. This is why most people here think we should ship the UN, one of the most corrupt organizations of the last century, off to the moon and use those $$'s we spend on it for something useful.

Europe, by and large, has chosen a low growth economic system where unemployment is relatively high and gross domestic product growth is artificially restricted by heavy handed government regulation and confiscatorial tax structures aimed to support the "nanny-state".

While we complain that our regulations are restrictive and our taxes too high they're nothing like what you deal with.

Until Europe loosens up and becomes more growth oriented this means our economy and culture will dominate with lower unemployment, higher after tax income and a higher gross domestic product.

If your system were to become more growth oriented then things would be different. Then you too could have high growth, higher real wages and be able to project power in your own interest....hopefully in a more responsible manner than you did in the last century.

Your choice, not ours.

Dr. Mordrid

KvHagedorn
1st September 2004, 01:12
Have you ever noticed what an anencephalic simpleton the "federation president" is in the Star Trek (TOS) movies? Could that be a dig on the real state of the UN? Dunno.

If I was a Danish citizen, I might vote completely differently than I would here, since the social strata there is different. Americans' concerns when voting are still primarily our own, though. This is a very different place from Denmark (and not necessarily all in good ways.)

A friend from The Netherlands told me how he never watched German TV because it was mostly American shows dubbed into German. Why would they want to watch that crap?? German culture is one of the richest on the planet, and they can't make their own TV shows? I like most European movies made before they just became reactions to what they don't like about America, like Dancer in the Dark. In fact I like them better than many American films. Fanny and Alexander and Heimat were both extremely good. It's a shame there haven't been more films like these coming over here in recent years.

If you want to have a say in U.S. politics, learn about the place and what we have to deal with. Here's a clue.. it's not going to be in left wing newspapers or magazines or tv, especially those produced there.

schmosef
1st September 2004, 01:18
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/OldWarNewWar-X.gif
Read the subtext here. (http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000397.html)

schmosef
1st September 2004, 01:33
As a Canadian, who likes his health care and has no interest in becoming an American, I have to say that the rest of the world tends to treat the US as a brutish ex-boyfriend, who can always be counted on for a favor or a loan, always ready to be used and abused, isn’t supposed to get jealous when you flirt with others in his presence, and ultimately shouldn't expect anything in return.

Even suggesting that a citizen of another country should have a right to vote in America's national elections is mildly offensive. Would you vote in your own country's best interests, or America's? By voting for your own county's interests, you're effectively saying that American tax payers should be subsidizing your county's national agenda. That's just wrong.

And to answer Sasq’s point 2, American culture is just as influenced by the rest of the world as the rest of the world is influenced by America. It’s an inescapable fact of globalization.

Umfriend
1st September 2004, 02:15
I agree that the notion of non-US citicens voting is rudiculous. As is the notion that many Europeans would think they should be able to :rolleyes:

I am interested in an analysis of the differences between here and there. But not in this thread please. I'd hate this thread to be all about misconceptions. How long did you live here KVH? How much coverage do you get on Europe compared to what we get on the US?

Dr. M. Yes, by and large the european economies have lower growth than the US has. There may be many explanations for it and certainly, our economic systems (which vary between ourselves still) could be one of them (although these could be explained in their turn to other causes in which the US differs from Europe).

I'll admit europe has a lousy track record looking at the 20th century (and the 19th, not sure but possibly quite a few before that). [SIDE NOTE: Some of Europe at least, any comments on Denmark in this respect? Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Chzech?] That does not mean that the US did only good. It does not mean that the US is not using her economic (and other) powers internationally for her own good, sometimes at the expense of others. The US is not alone in that to be sure, but I don't see why "we", being affected by US policy should not have an opinion on it and voice it.

I think it is fair to say that most of the issues brought up by non-USsers are foreign policy related. I do understand that for USssers, domestic politcal issues will be very important, but they don;t affect me so I don;t get into that all that much.

Schmo, that generalisation about ROW is rubbish. I'd say most enemies of the US are those who have been negatively affected by US foreign policy (not saying US was wrong here or anything). Aside from the perpetual France, show me some solid cases.

Finally Schmo, it;s not about influence on culture, It's influence on economic, political, legal and enforcement issues that the US has that affects me as a Dutch.

Obviously, US culture is far more influenced by ROW than the other way around; they had none of their own. [OK, cheap shot, can I have fun for once guys? :p ]

KVH: Actually, Germany did and does make some good "shows" of their own. You can ask, but your friend probably watched those on Dutch TV as we tend to buy a number of them. I don't know which movies you would deem as reactions to what they don;t like about America, but you might PM me some examples. I rarely get to see any US movie that is not hollywood related (OK, I see few movies), and typically, I like them.

schmosef
1st September 2004, 02:40
Originally posted by Umfriend
Schmo, that generalisation about ROW is rubbish. I'd say most enemies of the US are those who have been negatively affected by US foreign policy (not saying US was wrong here or anything). Aside from the perpetual France, show me some solid cases.Who's talking enemies? I'm talking allies. You want a solid case? Look in the mirror. You don't like the influence that America has on your country. But that's the cost of trading with the US. Don't like it? Stop trading with the US. At the same time, if you were invaded, or if your economy was wiped out for some unknown reason, it's a safe bet that your country would request and receive US support. One doesn't come without the other (support without influence). It's politics, but on a bigger scale.


Finally Schmo, it;s not about influence on culture, It's influence on economic, political, legal and enforcement issues that the US has that affects me as a Dutch.Again, it's the cost of doing business. We feel it here in Canada more than you. America fights dirty whenever there's a trade dispute. But ultimately we know that our economy wouldn't survive without them, so we suck it up. As a consequence the American stereotype of Canadians is that we're polite.

edit: spelling and clarification

schmosef
1st September 2004, 03:13
Originally posted by Umfriend
Schmo, that generalisation about ROW is rubbish. I'd say most enemies of the US are those who have been negatively affected by US foreign policy (not saying US was wrong here or anything)
Right now America's biggest enemies are the Islamic radicals. If you do a little digging into their agenda you'll discover that their beef with America is not foreign policy related. They have a beef with anyone who is not exactly like themselves. In just the last few decades, in the name of Allah, they have killed tens of thousands of other Muslims simply because they did not share their hard line beliefs. And, if you look back over the approximate 200 years of the Wahhabi movement, the number of civilian dead rises to the hundreds of thousands. These people were not killed because of their foreign policy beliefs. They were killed because they were close at hand. These radical groups have used the cover of Saudi charitable institutions to spread their bile throughout Asia and have made a serious push into the West as well. Now it is us that are close at hand, and it is us that they intend to kill.

The idea that America is a target because of its foreign policy is what KVH would describe as (KVH, forgive me if I'm putting words into your mouth) "a liberal-minded attempt to rationalize the irrational".

These people hate you and hate me because we do not worship the way they do and believe that God commands them to subdue us or to kill us trying.

America's next biggest enemy is probably North Korea. Kim Jong-Il’s hatred for America stems from his desire to maintain power. He starves his own people because he spends his money on weapons instead of food and expects the US to give him food in return for not using or continuing to develop his weapons. It's just as irrational as the Islamic extremists. You can twist this around to say that he hates America because she refuses to give him more food while he continues to break his side of the bargain (ie, for her foreign policy) but the truth is that he hates America because she stands for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (domestic policy); freedoms KJI does not wish for his people.

Now the US does have a pretty bad track record of propping up dictatorships around the world in the interests of maintaining domestic stability. And that was wrong. It’s largely blown up in her face. But that was then and this is now. Today, the US is trying to change the facts on the ground in the Middle East. By creating a real democracy in Iraq, the hope is for this to be a catalyst for peace and stability throughout the region. The ROW will benefit by this as much as the US will and it’s time for all of us non Amercians to suck up our pride, put how we got to where we are behind us, and all pitch in (financially, logistically, militarily, intellectually, etc) for the greater good.

edit: clarification

DukeP
1st September 2004, 03:19
I really dont think a high economic growth is a good thing™.

Im quite comfortable with the amount of cash available to me, and to the Danes as is. Why should I need any more?
If I had twice the cash I have now, I would not be one bit more happy or satisifed or fulfilled. I allready do exactely what I want to do. True, there is things I need to save up to. But I choose to see that as a priviledge, not a disadvantage - I only have this much time on my hands, if I could do ANYTHING ANYTIME, I would never ever complete anything at all. :D

So judging states by their economic growth is perhaps not the right way to go about it.

As for being unemployed - theres something I look forward to! Currently Im working at least 12 hours a day on completing my master thesis. Im SO looking forward to my 3 months unemployment - at least. :)

Remember, being unemployed in Denmark still earns you approx 1800$ a month (after tax) - more than enough to live on, easily enough to survive on. :)
As an academic, being unemployed is simply a way of life. We tend to get specific jobassignments that only lasts until fulfilled. From as little as one month to, on average, 12 months of work. This is highly payed, and typically quite intense. Deadlines abound, and ultimately you NEED to finish before your founding rounds out. But afterwords, its out to find another job. My girlfriend have had 3 jobs this year allready.

Ah that was quite a rant. Sorry!
:)

Point is, I think the Eu and the USA is much farther away from one another to allow easy comparison.

~~DukeP~~

schmosef
1st September 2004, 03:24
I think that one thing that Europeans have over Americans and Canadians too is the ability to see the forest for the trees financially speaking. That money is a means to an end and not an end in itself. That family and quality of life is more important than $$$ and quantity of life.

DukeP
1st September 2004, 03:26
Originally posted by schmosef
[B]Right now America's biggest enemies are the Islamic radicals. If you do a little digging into their agenda you'll discover that their beef with America is not foreign policy related. .....

Actually I think its much more simple than this.

The Islamic radicals are simply bandits. They attack the US, the Eu, heck, they attack anybnody that they cant bend to do their will. They do this out of fear of loosing power. They do this simply to EARN power. Religion is only the thinnest of excuses - they use it as a weapon and as a levelling rod. But the leaders are in no way crusaders. They are just plain bandits. If the US feels more targeted than the rest of the world, its simply because the US is disturbing these bandits more than the rest of the world.

~~DukeP~~

schmosef
1st September 2004, 03:31
Originally posted by DukeP
Actually I think its much more simple than this.

The Islamic radicals are simply bandits. They attack the US, the Eu, heck, they attack anybnody that they cant bend to do their will. They do this out of fear of loosing power. They do this simply to EARN power. Religion is only the thinnest of excuses - they use it as a weapon and as a levelling rod. But the leaders are in no way crusaders. They are just plain bandits. If the US feels more targeted than the rest of the world, its simply because the US is disturbing these bandits more than the rest of the world.

~~DukeP~~ I think what you say is true of many of the terrorist leaders or some of the corrupt governments like say the Saudi Royal family, which has a history of relying on the Wahhabis to maintain power. But I think that many of the religious leaders themselves, the ones who don't hold political office, truly believe that they are on a devine quest to cure the world of evil.

Your theory works too. ;)

Umfriend
1st September 2004, 05:27
Schmo – Yes, you were talking allies. I misfrased. My bad.. I am still trying to come up with good examples supporting your statement (Post 92, 1st para) though.


You want a solid case? Look in the mirror. You don't like the influence that America has on your country. But that's the cost of trading with the US. Don't like it? Stop trading with the US.
I did. I don’t feel we (i.e. the Netherlands) have the attitude towards the US as you put it in post 92, 1st para. I see no reason why, given that on balance we prefer to trade with the US, I can not voice concerns with their actions. I don’t see that to be as Post 92, 1st para. Same as the US may be critical of other countries’ foreign and/or domestic policies does not mean they stop trade, or should per se.

Would it help if in the future, I would start any critique on US policy of whatever kind by saying: “Oh US of A, thank you for liberating us in WWII at great cost and safeguarding us from the USSR threat! But erhm, what you are doing now is not alright in my view”? Are we that mature? Or should I now accept and obey like a dog, just like I had to when the germans came along?

On the actual enemies of the US, I agree with most of what you say. Denying that US foreign policy added anything to the animosity towards her is silly IMO. That is not the same a justifying anything. There are people that hate the US for what it is, just because, but the number of these people, the length they go to etc is, I am convinced, easily influenced for the worse and hard for the good. Don’t get me wrong though, I’m not, and never have, saying that any other country in the same position as the US would do any better. Doubt it actually.

[I am sure that this is not what DukeP actually meant, but I disapprove of people being unemployed and benefitting from the state simply because they can and social security provides enough. IMO there may be some but not many who actually do that.]I agree with DukeP. Economic growth as such is not, IMO, that important. I remember a cabaret new-years eve 2002/2003 where the guy said something along the lines of:
“He! You know what I read? We;re heading into a reccession. It’s awful, a disaster. You know what they say? Next year we’ll make as little money as we did in 2000!!!! Remember 2000? The deprivation, poverty and hunger?”

schmosef
1st September 2004, 09:06
Before I respond too directly, I'd reallly be interested to hear what some Americans think of my opinion as stated in post 92 para 1. I'm not asking for help in justifying my claim, just what your opinions are based on your perspectives.

spadnos
1st September 2004, 09:40
Originally posted by schmosef
Before I respond too directly, I'd reallly be interested to hear what some Americans think of my opinion as stated in post 92 para 1. I'm not asking for help in justifying my claim, just what your opinions are based on your perspectives. First off - of course - there's no reason to even consider someone who isn't a citizen having a vote (or any authoritative say) in an election. Anyone can have an opinion of course, it's just that there's no power behind it (other than reputation, respect, etc.).

Although it might be accurate to say the US is treated like an ex-boyfriend, I'm not so sure. If you look with a slightly left slant, it's easy to explain every US action as a self-serving act.

We didn't join in WW2 until Pearl Harbor was attacked (a lot of people in this country believe that the war started in 1941). At that time, there were op-ed pieces talking about how we didn't want to get involved in Europe's mess. (I saw a cartoon which showed Americans in fancy evening attire watching Europe/England sinking in quicksand, and saying "don't help them - we wouldn't want to get stuck" or something like that)

The Marshall plan was implemented after WW2 so that there would be an economically (and militarily) sound buffer between the US and Russia. (after all, we wouldn't want the evil communists to just invade the war-torn europe now, would we?) Yes- it was a good thing to do, but there were other motivations.

We have bolstered small dictatorships (like Iraq), because the Russians were doing the same thing (with Iran and Afghanistan). This is done without regard to the impact on the locals - anything to further our interests (keep the commies at bay).

Right now, there are terrible things happening in the Darfur region, and we aren't being active there because they don't meet the "legal definition" of Genocide. Yet we take similar things done by Saddam Hussein and make them into reasons why our war was justified (he gassed 20,000 of his own people ya know - he's a bad guy - we had to take him out).

The US looks out for itself. That's not a bad thing itself, but when we go out and proclaim that we're the liberators of the world, a bright beacon of democracy, an example to the rest of the world of how well capitalism works, and how wonderfully altruistic a country can be, it's a lilttle tough to swallow.

- Steve

Umfriend
1st September 2004, 09:42
Bring it on! ;) I'd like to hear some specific cases.

schmosef
1st September 2004, 15:39
Ok, so we've heard from one American on his perspective on how Europe treats the US. I'd like to hear from more...

(KVH and Doc M., that means you) ;)

Jammrock
1st September 2004, 20:40
I don't think most Europeans really care about the US. Some of the vocal youth may make it apear that Europeans hate the US, but I think most don't care. Reasoning? Have lots of relatives in Europe, lived in Europe, family has been to Europe several time ... none of us ever met masses of anti-Americans.

Just my opinion.

Jammrock