Election fall out?

[IHateCats]

Where’s all the bragging and whining? Who is planning to move to Canada because they can’t take 4 more years of Bush?

[y82benji]

Well, it is my perspective that if Bush continues his policies, he could basically be dooming America to either decline as a superpower or be destroyed entirely as a nation, but that’s a bit pessimistic, so I’m busy hoping the next four years don’t suck.

By the way, as a Christian I do not think that Bush was the moral choice.

[Posc]

I think Kerry would have doomed the country. He would have reconciled us with France because he is also a socialist. I am mildly amused it is considered politically incorrect to have voted for Bush.

Support terrorists. Vote Bush out of office.

[y82benji]

France is not a socialist country actually.

Bush’s policies:

Preemptive war (explain the morality in that)

Lack of plan for exit strategy (according to Colin Powell, not according to a left wing Bush-hater)

Sept.11 bombings did happen during the Bush administration.

Sink the value of the dollar so that international industry and trade eventually favor American business (however, this requires toeing a very careful line, otherwise we get runaway inflation, exodus of foreign investors, and a global depression, but even if successful it means that the poor will bear the burden of dealing with the weak dollar in buying basic necessities … again a questionable ‘moral’ option)

Send out strong rhetoric that has turned public opinion of American around the world quite sour (in countries both supporting the Iraq war and opposing it, with only a very few exceptions). This has of course given terrorists extra recruiting opportunities.

I have never heard the concept of it being “politically incorrect” to have voted for Bush. I don’t think political correctness is even an appropriate evaluation of one’s voting choice. I just think it is unintelligent and/or misguided to have voted for Bush.

[Posc]

Chirac and his ruling party are socialist.

There was a lot of intelligence that Iraq had WMD and Saddam didn’t try too hard to deny it. If someone tells you they have a gun under their jacket and you preemptively punch them, are you really a bad person for statring a fight? The political fallout has sadly encouraged Iran who should also be preemptively defeated.

Exit strategy. Make it up as you go along. Don’t let it stop you from what should be done to protect this country. I don’t care if democracy fails and the Iraqis fall into more chaos. As long as they lack WMD. If democracy works, all the better though.

Good point on Sept 11. There were no WTC or embassy attacks when Clinton was pres. UBL would hate any pres who didn’t wear a turban and scream Allah Akbar and encourage kids to be matrys and kill as many infidels as possible.

Leaders should have strong rhetoric. The terrorists are extremists and have hated us ever since they began practicing their Wahibism.

Support terrorists. Vote Bush out of office.

[y82benji]

Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. Significant numbers of people with high level access to intelligence information doubted the “WMD evidence.” The evidence was never strong. They had photos of large trucks. They assumed the trucks were moving weapons. They had photos of large trucks. They had highly questioned documentation that Saddam had tried to acquire nukes – not even that he actually did! The inspectors never found anything. Sure their job was tough, but they never found anything. Never. Because there wasn’t anything to find. Saddam made no moves to threaten our country, at least not to the extent that others have. (How about North Korea?) Who is more likely to get WMD? Saddam, who most other arabic nations hate? or the newly infusing terrorists, who have a broader following? Saddam didn’t try too hard to hide information about the WMD because (1) there weren’t any and (2) as evidenced by several confiscated documents and the preparation of his army, he didn’t believe we were actually going to invade and he wanted the Arab world to think that maybe he did have them so they would fear/respect him.

The point on Sept. 11 to be made is that the Bush administration did select policies that allowed it to happen. Whether the Clinton administration would have had a different scenario doesn’t change that fact. People assume Bush can protect us even though it should have been apparent on Sept. 11 that his administration wasn’t doing what was necessary. Furthermore, the current 9/11 report changes are being opposed by the Republican leadership – and again when Bush differs from them (in this case in wanting the measures passed) – he does very little to press them into action.

As for your last point: Go to a bar in Boston. Then get up in a guy’s face and tell him how much the Red Sox and Red Sox fans suck. Then when you get out of the hospital, you may understand the concept of what happens when you p*ss people off. The terrorists are people – they don’t pop out of the womb as terrorists, they are shaped by their experiences all through life just like the rest of us. Many of them are ingrained with their hatred from very very early on, but there is a continuum between those that are utterly recalcitrant and those muslims that are not radical. Too much rhetoric will press the middle ground towards the radicals. And for those not quite pressed into terrorism, they may be more likely to at least not oppose the terrorists and/or offer them small measures of aid. You don’t solve your problems by engaging in actions that definitively create more enemies unless the action will be swift, sudden, and complete.

As for the exit strategy, you DON’T make it up as you go along. Napolean tried that – he dominated Europe with a force much more powerful than the one that we have in the U.S. today (in relative terms compared to the rest of the world) and charged into Russia, only with poor planning and too much haste he lost his army to a supply shortage and a famine/pestilence plagued retreat through the Russian winter. You might also remember something called the Vietnam War.

Oh, and if someone tells you they have a gun under their jacket and you punch them, you better knock them out cold because otherwise you might have a bullet in your head.

Leaders should have wise rhetoric. Wisdom is strength, but strength is not always wisdom.

[y82benji]

I should add on the exit strategy part that many of Bush’s advisors (including Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and other high ranking military officers) made it an adamant point that there could be a significant post-liberation struggle to control insurgent groups seeking power and/or reacting to the idea of occupation. Bush chose to mostly ignore this possibility and approach the post-war situation with a rather rosey outlook (which he also advertised to the American people). That they didn’t plan significantly for an “exit” or “post-war” strategy was a lack of thoroughness and care by Bush. If they knew it should be considered a reasonable possibility that there would be a lot of mess after the liberation then the only prudent thing to do would have been to plan for it, even if it turned out that those plans didn’t need to be carried out.

[Posc]

quote:

---

Originally posted by IHateCats

Where’s all the bragging and whining? Who is planning to move to Canada because they can’t take 4 more years of Bush?

---

Seems to have been another empty promise from the far left. Damn! []

Support terrorists. Vote Bush out of office.

[Author]

Posts