Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

Thanks again for the links, fishin!

Oh, and roger: The point about Nixon was semi-sarcastic. Sarcastic, because I know who Nixon was. Semi, because I think that in terms of integrity Nixon was Mother Teresa compared with George Bush. I mean, Watergate was a burglary and a cover-up, and Nixon would have gotten impeached for it. But that's peanuts compared to George Bush, who used ficticious evidence to mislead the nation into a war. As one of my favorite lines in Pulp Fiction says: "That's not in the same ballpark, it ain't even the same fückin' sport!"

0 Replies

Anyone but Bush, Phoenix, because...

...well, just because.

If you continue to be ambivalent when you enter the voting booth -- just don't vote.

But do right by the things you KNOW are important -- and which are more likely to be advanced with a Kerry administration than by another Bush one.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

...in terms of integrity Nixon was Mother Teresa compared with George Bush. I mean, Watergate was a burglary and a cover-up, and Nixon would have gotten impeached for it. But that's peanuts compared to George Bush, who used ficticious evidence to mislead the nation into a war. As one of my favorite lines in Pulp Fiction says: "That's not in the same ballpark, it ain't even the same fückin' sport!"

Was Kerry using "fictitious evidence" when he said the following?

Quote:

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Jan. 23. 2003

That certainly puts Kerry in the same sport as Bush, if not in the same ballpark. :wink:

0 Replies

True dat.

0 Replies

It's no wonder Kerry wanted to trim the fat out of the intelligence budget so we might have accurate intel ever oh ten years or so.

0 Replies

How's cutting the intel budget logically lead us to getting more accurate intel?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

terrorism seems to have been reduced

You hear people say this a lot ... Bush reduced terrorism. It makes no sense to me.

There has been no new 9/11, it's true - much like there hadn't ever been a 9/11 before 9/11, if you catch my drift. One might as well credit Clinton for there not having been a 9/11 before 2001 as credit Bush for there not having been one since. Personally, I don't think either makes much sense.

Meanwhile, out in the rest of the world, terrorism is most definitely not reducing. I'm going to use that Newsweek quote again:

"Between 1993 and 2001, Al Qaeda was responsible for five major bombing attacks, including 9/11. In the two and a half years since, there have been 17 Qaeda bombings, most recently in Turkey."

I just can't countenance the perception that Bush has been a good "natural security president" because terrorism has decreased. I mean, that can only be held true by someone who doesnt read the news about Morocco, Saudi-Arabia, Turkey ... no new 9/11 = no new terrorism, they perhaps think, but if the number of terrorist attacks across the world by Al-Qaeda and groups connected to it is going up and up, its only a matter of time before it comes to the US again, too.

IMHO, crucial time has been wasted on Iraq, in terms of the war on terrorism, where there is now a terrorism problem that wasnt there under the secular dictatorship of Saddam, if that doesnt sound too cynical. We probably dont want to get into that, though. But basically, I dont think it reflects well on a "national security president" if, after the single worst attack on US territory in - time memorial? - he uses the resulting mandate to act to settle unrelated accounts - even if they did constitute a worthy cause of their own. It doesn't show - focus, it suggests - being opportunistic with the country's fate.

And if Bush was not a good national security president - then what good was he?

0 Replies

nimh - Please forgive me a little good natured sarcasm, but which nation do you think Bush is supposed to keep secure? Of course, we want to eliminate terrorism everywhere, but the primary goal of the US administration must be the safety and security of the US and its citizens. Surely you see that.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

nimh - Please forgive me a little good natured sarcasm, but which nation do you think Bush is supposed to keep secure? Of course, we want to eliminate terrorism everywhere, but the primary goal of the US administration must be the safety and security of the US and its citizens. Surely you see that.

And the number of Al-Qaeda attacks having multiplied since 2001 does not spell trouble for the safety and security of the US how?

0 Replies

Phoenix, I know you said you didn't want to read any links, but I found this story in the Washington Post very interesting and an able explanation of Kerry's so-called waffling. Perhaps you'd consider reading a little of this, especially since you say you like "thoughtful reflections" and yourself want to "separate out which issues are crucial, which are important, and which aren't critical in the larger scheme of things." I can't vouch for Kerry personally, but can only point to what I read that seems to make sense. Certainly the story in the following link casts a different light on Kerry's thought processes, one which you may appreciate.

Kerry Dots Deliberation with Decision

As for my personal opinions:

BUSH NOT A UNITER
I am disenchanted with Bush because he is not what he claimed -- after saying he was a "uniter" he has done nothing to improve relations between the two major parties and has done a lot to disenfranchise the dems. His latest trick about appointing judges while Congress is not in session is just one example. I don't think anyone can claim that this country is more united under Bush... instead, we are more partisan than I have ever seen.

BUSH NOT COMPASSIONATE
After saying he was a "compassionate conservative," Bush has run roughshod over many -- gays, the poor, the elderly, children, foreigners, even the military... whose benefits have been effectively reduced under his watch while their responsibilities have risen. The deployment of Reservists to foreign soil and forcing regular military to stay beyond their enlistment periods seems particularly heinous. I just can't think of a single instant of compassion that Bush has shown. The latest news from his AG, Ashcroft (prior to his being struck down by pancreatitis), that he was seizing records of women & doctors involved in third trimester abortions is just the latest in a series of ugly incursions into civil rights.

AN ARROGANT LEADERSHIP
Despite receiving less than the majority of the popular vote, Bush has acted as though he won by a landslide. He has led with arrogance, selecting the most conservative cabinet & judiciary, and hiring foxes to guard the henhouse in many areas -- for example -- lumbermen & oil guys to oversee the environment and medical insurance & drug companies to oversee health services. His repeated defiance of the 9/11 commission's request for information is mind-boggling. His tax give-away to the very richest members of society is also mind-boggling, especially with the national budget running such a high deficit. As you may remember, Gore said the worst problem with deficit spending is that we have to pay it back... with interest.

BAD FOREIGN POLICY
I think that Bush's arrogance has been particularly disastrous in terms of foreign affairs. We need to keep close ties with other world governments, not act like Roman emperors who treats other countries as vassals. I don't think that our mid-east policy was well-thought-out, but instead it was based on faulty information (for which he has barely fessed up) and it is becoming a financial disaster. I understand the Saddam was a bad man, but I also understand that he didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Invading a country to make a regime change is bad policy. Invading it when it is not a serious and immediate threat is nearly criminal.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Clinton made no effort to put a lid on the pot or to turn down the flame. We got burned repeatedly and badly as a result.

If we put the lid on AND turn down the heat, we might keep the pot from boiling over for at least the foreseeable future.

Perhaps I should have added that I don't see Bush doing much to turn down the heat. If anything, it's been turned up.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you continue to be ambivalent when you enter the voting booth -- just don't vote.

Heresy!! I say vote. I say even spoil the ballot, but do something rather than nothing. I had a debate with someone once about spoiling the ballot. He felt it was the same as not voting. But my opinion was based on the idea that if those who usually don't vote spoiled the ballot instead, it would send some sort of message. Wouldn't you think?

0 Replies

Sure you're not from Florida, caprice?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Scrat wrote:
nimh - Please forgive me a little good natured sarcasm, but which nation do you think Bush is supposed to keep secure? Of course, we want to eliminate terrorism everywhere, but the primary goal of the US administration must be the safety and security of the US and its citizens. Surely you see that.

And the number of Al-Qaeda attacks having multiplied since 2001 does not spell trouble for the safety and security of the US how?

Refresh my memory as to how many of those have been on US soil or involved US civilians. Thanks.

0 Replies

caprice wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Clinton made no effort to put a lid on the pot or to turn down the flame. We got burned repeatedly and badly as a result.

If we put the lid on AND turn down the heat, we might keep the pot from boiling over for at least the foreseeable future.

Perhaps I should have added that I don't see Bush doing much to turn down the heat. If anything, it's been turned up.

I suppose that depends on how you define heat and where you look. You can argue that the heat is up in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is decidedly lower in other places where it was consistently hot before. The heat is down considerably in Libya where Khadafi has revealed and given up his weapons programs, turned his back on terrorism and where the US and UK have now lifted sanctions. There has been a clear reaction in many countries to the news that America is not sitting back and getting their ass kicked by anyone. And I suspect the heat will drop in Iraq and Afghanistan with time. But I certainly recognize that there's another way to look at this.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

caprice wrote:
Scrat wrote:
Clinton made no effort to put a lid on the pot or to turn down the flame. We got burned repeatedly and badly as a result.

If we put the lid on AND turn down the heat, we might keep the pot from boiling over for at least the foreseeable future.

Perhaps I should have added that I don't see Bush doing much to turn down the heat. If anything, it's been turned up.

I suppose that depends on how you define heat and where you look. You can argue that the heat is up in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is decidedly lower in other places where it was consistently hot before. The heat is down considerably in Libya where Khadafi has revealed and given up his weapons programs, turned his back on terrorism and where the US and UK have now lifted sanctions. There has been a clear reaction in many countries to the news that America is not sitting back and getting their ass kicked by anyone. And I suspect the heat will drop in Iraq and Afghanistan with time. But I certainly recognize that there's another way to look at this.

Did anyone see Geraldo's spot on Hannity and Combs this week? Nobody but nobody could say Geraldo is pro-Bush or pro-conservative--he used to use his former television show to bash the first president Bush in any way that he could. But he was positively glowing in his report from Iraq. As he pointed out, we aren't rebuilding Iraq; we are building it.
Schools and hospitals and roads and electricity and telephones are being used where none existed before. There are no more rape and torture rooms. People are free to speak their minds with impunity. The media gives us daily reports on the bombings and shootings but as Geraldo put it, they aren't reporting on the buildings that aren't burning.

And as for Afghanistan, remember that when the Taliban was in power, women were pure chattel with no rights at all. Now the leadership is actually debating on how and when to give women the vote. Men are no longer tortured or killed because their beards are too short.

Evil people who hate the west, liberty, freedom do not want to see success in these ways. And they will no doubt keep the pressure on trying to break the resolve of those who want things to be better. The media will continue to report on bombings and shootings. But almost everywhere I think it is safe to say the heat is being turned down.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

Sure you're not from Florida, caprice?

There's no mistaking freezin' yer @$$ off. Nope, quite sure I'm not in the land of oranges and grapefruit. Wink

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

I suppose that depends on how you define heat and where you look.

I suppose I would define it as how those who are or support terrorists and how they see Americans. I could be wrong on this, but I believe Bush is viewed as a war monger. I have seen countless commentary done with Iraqi people who state they are glad Hussein is gone, but they don't feel it was America that should have been the ones to remove him from power and they do not want Americans there now. That should be obvious judged on the soldiers there who are continually being killed. And this is only Iraq. The impression I get from the interviews done with people in the middle east is not that America is standing up for itself, but is a nation throwing its military might around. Especially now that it has come to light that no WMD's were found in Iraq, the war Bush created serves only to anger those in the terrorist world not frighten them. As for Khadafi, from everything I have heard/read, his concern is more for retaining his power in Libya. Sure he may have decided to cooperate seeing what happened to Hussein, but as long as he retains his dictatorship, I'm sure he has no concern over the existence (if any) of terrorist groups in his country.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Evil people who hate the west, liberty, freedom do not want to see success in these ways. And they will no doubt keep the pressure on trying to break the resolve of those who want things to be better. The media will continue to report on bombings and shootings. But almost everywhere I think it is safe to say the heat is being turned down.

You can sum it up in that manner, but it doesn't explain it all. I have seen more than one interview done with youth in the middle east. They all readily agree that America is where they would love to go to become educated, that there are many positive aspects of America, however they also state just as unequivocally that they would go to war against America. Why? Because they are not Americans. They feel about their countries as you do about yours. That is something I notice that many Americans fail to recognize.

0 Replies

Sorry Phoenix, I won't get sidetracked on your thread after this.

0 Replies

Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know