Bush Supporters PLEASE Explain THIS!

How can it be that so many seemingly intelligent people can trick themselves into seeing this incredibly inept administration in terms that have them enthusiatically supporting this terrible president in his bid for re-election?

Can ideology actually mean that much to anyone???

Are people so in love with the "us" in a perceived "us versus them" scenario...that they would disregard the damage already done by these people...and actually invite more?

How can it be?

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Well said, Finn.

So, why are you voting for Bush?

Thank you.

I am voting for Bush because I think he will do a better job than John Kerry in leading this country over the next four years.

I don't believe Kerry will be a disaster should he win, although I have some concern that he might, just as Jimmy Carter was.

I believe Bush made the right decision to invade Iraq, take out Saddam, and build a democratic ally within the hotbed that is the Middle East.

I believe that the Patriot Act has been very instrumental in keeping us free from terrorist attacks during the last three years, and I do not believe it goes too far in impinging upon our personal freedoms.

I believe that the economy has turned around since Bush was elected and that his tax cuts were a primary reason for the turn around.

I don't trust someone like Kerry who so obviously and repeatedly changes his position to suit the momentary advancement of his political career. People so obviously desperate to become president make me nervous.

I have serious doubts about someone who has been a US Senator for almost 20 years and has left so scant a legislative legacy that he virtually never refers to his record as a Senator in his campaign.

I am opposed to almost every item of the American Liberal agenda and I recognize Kerry as an almost iconic American Liberal.

I believe that Bush is conducting a foreign policy in which he truly believes, rather than one which will get him re-elected. Aside from the fact that I agree with this foreign policy, I appreciate this characteristic of his.

I am closer in my thinking to Bush's pro-life position that I am to Kerry's pro-choice position.

I approve of conservative judges who interpret the law over liberal judges who try to create it.

I think that Kerry will, in effect, cede decisions of American national security to the UN, not at moments of crisis, but in the longer, slower run that leads up to such moments.

I find Bush more likeable than Kerry.

I could continue, but this lays it out fairly well.

0 Replies

Joe Republican wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
I will acknowledge, though, that to the extent that image does actually matter, in terms of leadership, Kerry won hands down. He looked like a leader, and Bush didn't. However, it would be truly foolish for any of us to base our decision of each individual's leadership capabilities on 90 minutes of a pseudo debate.

Good post, but you neglected the obvious. It wasn't Bush's demeanor that was his failing in the debate, it was his inability to answer a single accusation from Kerry.

As far as I could see it Kerry said Bush did the following.

Misled the American public about the threat and the reasons for going to war.
Profiteering done by the administration.
Failure to counter the threat of both Iran and North Korea.
Neglected to continue the fight on terrorism and instead went to Iraq.
Allowed Al Qaeda to regroup and outsourced the military help.
Claimed Bush took forces away from Al Qaeda and instead focused on Iraq.
Failed to get allies on board with the program.
Failed to generate any semblance of peace in the Middle East.
Completely ignored any and all counter intel associated with Iraq.
Failed to differentiate who attacked us.

All of these are serious accusations and Bush had absolutely no explanation of any of these accusations, but instead said "you're a flip-flopper, so you can't lead the country". These are the reasons he lost the debate, the demeanor and actions of the president only solidified the belief that the accusations were not only true, but that Bush had no counter for the obvious. This is why he lost and this is why it was looked on by America as such a failure for the GOP.

Well he did answer some of Kerry's accusations, you simply were not listening, and whatever failure he had in answering others was a function of his sorry debating skills and poor preparation as opposed to being struck dumb by the brilliant truth of Kerry's charges.

If you wish to believe that Kerry leveled Bush with unassailable accusations, be my guest.

Since Bush was generally acclaimed the winner in the Bush/Gore debates, do you conclude that Bush was able to do to Gore what you suggest Kerry did to Bush, or did he win because Gore made a fool of himself with his on stage antics?

I suspect you planned on voting for Kerry before the debate and if so it would have been essentially inconsequential for you other than providing you with an opportunity to beat your chest. My comments have been generally directed towards those who found the debate a certain reason for deciding upon their choice in the election.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

How can it be that so many seemingly intelligent people can trick themselves into seeing this incredibly inept administration in terms that have them enthusiatically supporting this terrible president in his bid for re-election?

Can ideology actually mean that much to anyone???

Are people so in love with the "us" in a perceived "us versus them" scenario...that they would disregard the damage already done by these people...and actually invite more?

How can it be?

In the words of the King of Siam

"Is a puzzlement!"

Aren't you really asking:

"How can so many people be so stupid as to not believe what I believe?"

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
How can it be that so many seemingly intelligent people can trick themselves into seeing this incredibly inept administration in terms that have them enthusiatically supporting this terrible president in his bid for re-election?

Can ideology actually mean that much to anyone???

Are people so in love with the "us" in a perceived "us versus them" scenario...that they would disregard the damage already done by these people...and actually invite more?

How can it be?

In the words of the King of Siam

"Is a puzzlement!"

Aren't you really asking:

"How can so many people be so stupid as to not believe what I believe?"

Nope!

I was asking exactly what I asked.

0 Replies

I quoted Bush directly from the debate, fin.

LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?

BUSH: I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that.

But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us.

Commission on Presidential Debates Debate Transcript The First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

How can it be that so many seemingly intelligent people can trick themselves into seeing this incredibly inept administration in terms that have them enthusiatically supporting this terrible president in his bid for re-election?

Can ideology actually mean that much to anyone???

Perhaps they don't believe that this administration is "incredibly inept", or that we have a "terrinle president". Furthermore many supporters of the administration would reject the notion that they are motivated primarily by ideology.

You keep shouting these and other like epithets, Frank. But that doesn't make them true - and it certainly adds nothing to either inform or persuade anyone.

I have seen little in the way of fact and argument from you on the subject - and nothing that might illuminate what, in your view, constitutes a competent administration or a non-terrible president. I'm not soliciting that from you, only pointing out that your shouting accomplishes nothing, and adds nothing to the discourse here.

0 Replies

Bush needs to talk more about Kerry's "global test", i.e. the idea of handing our security decisions over to all the French, German, Russian, and UN clowns who were taking money from Saddam Hussein. Kerry plainly figures they needed more time to take MORE money from him:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1291280,00.html

How much more time would YOU have given those guys?

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I am voting for Bush because...

You didn't mention Kerry being a "girly man" but....

Kerry vs. Diane Sawyer, 15 rounds with 10 ounce gloves: in your estimation, who wins?

0 Replies

Completely missed by the neocons. Quote, "But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us."

Commission on Presidential Debates Debate Transcript The First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate

The ENEMY is not and was not Saddam that attacked us. So, Frank's opinions still stands.

Frank Apisa wrote:
"How can it be that so many seemingly intelligent people can trick themselves into seeing this incredibly inept administration in terms that have them enthusiatically supporting this terrible president in his bid for re-election?

Can ideology actually mean that much to anyone???"

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Montana wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Montana wrote:
Before I go, I'd just like to say, Bush lied about Saddam being involved in 9/11. Bush also lied about the WMD's. I could go on and on, but as I said before, "I don't particularly like wasting my breath".

Bye now.

You broke your promise.

It's easy for you to say that "Bush lied about Saddam being involved in 9/11," but it would be infinitely more difficult for you to prove this rash charge. Break your promise yet one more time and provide us with substantiation of this alleged lie.

And while you are at it, provide us with some proof that Bush lied about WMDs as opposed to being mistaken.

But I know, you don't want to waste your breath.

Reminds me of when I was a a lot younger and some kid would back down from a fight with another kid who he knew would clean the floor with him, but try and cover his retreat with "I'd fight you, but I'm afraid I'd kill you."

Don't want you to waste your breath Montana, as I'm sure you can put it to better use.

I can't help but smile at your attempts to bait me :-)

It's Bush's job to prove that Saddam was involved and that there are WMD's, and the fact that he can't prove these aligations, makes him wrong. You can't just go around attacking countries on a hunch, duh!

Bait you? I am merely asking you to offer a shred of evidence, other than your opinion, that proves your claim that Bush lied to the American people and told them that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

If he did make this claim then it would be up to him to offer proof of Saddam's involvement. As he did not, why should he be expected to provide such proof? You are the one who has made an unsubstantiated claim: "Bush claimed Saddam was involved in 9/11." and thus it is up to you to prove your claim. Do you really expect Bush or his supporters to prove that he didn't make the claim? If so, then try this on for size: "Montana is a shoplifter." Now prove that you are not.

As for the WMDs, if the belief that Saddam had stockpiles of them was merely a hunch then most of the world shared in that hunch. The French, Germans and Russians never argued that Saddam did not have WMDs, simply that it was unnecessary to go to war to address the problem.

Again you have offered no proof that Bush lied as opposed to being mistaken. Perhaps in your circles it is acceptible to accuse people of lying without offering proof, but in most civil groups it is not.

Bush went and attacked a country because he CLAIMED they had WMD's and that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Thousands of people have died and continue to die every single day because of this man, so I do believe he is the one who needs proof to back his claims. The fact that he doesn't have one speck of proof to warrent the killing of thousands of innocent people, is my proof that he lied.
Bush had it out for Saddam right from the get go and that couldn't have been more obvious. Revenge is the name of his game and it's scary to have such a dangerous man behind the wheel.

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

Bush went and attacked a country because he CLAIMED they had WMD's and that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Thousands of people have died and continue to die every single day because of this man, so I do believe he is the one who needs proof to back his claims. The fact that he doesn't have one speck of proof to warrent the killing of thousands of innocent people, is my proof that he lied.
Bush had it out for Saddam right from the get go and that couldn't have been more obvious. Revenge is the name of his game and it's scary to have such a dangerous man behind the wheel.

You are being very selective and superficial in the facts you are considering. Moreover your logic is deficient in several areas,

There were many reasons for our attack on Iraq. WMDs and the capacity to produce them was one. Their potential to aid in the terrorism being used throught the Moslem world, mostly, but not entirely, Islamist was another. (There were some connections between al Qada and Saddam, and we knew beyond doubt that Saddam was funding terrorism in the former Palestine. ) Another reason was that our "allies" were close to ending the sanctions on Iraq and he would soon have several billions more each year with which to cause trouble. There are many more reasons (including getting an evil tyrant off the backs of the Iraqis) that have already been elaborated at great length on these threads.

The U.S. has now suffered more than a thousand casualties and I have read that over fifteen thousand Iraqis have been killed in the initial attack and the terrorist insurrection that followed. These facts do not in themselves change the logic of burden of proof: they, instead demonstrate the human cost of the transition that has (for good or evil) been achieved in Iraq. It is worth noting that, throughout his reign, Saddam murdered his people at the same or an even higher rate than has occurred during the intervention. Those deaths are no longer occurring. One could well argue that more Iraqis are alive today than would have been had we not intervened.

You say that Bush doesn't have one speck of proof (of what???), and that he is motivated by revenge (for what???). These far-fetched assertions are not based on any verifiable fact or argument, and fly in the face of many contradictions. They aren't worthy of consideration.

There are other fairly cogent arguments that could be made against our intervention in Iraq. However, you haven't used them.

OK by me if you cling to your superficial prejudgements. However don't make the mistake of trying to sell them to thoughtful people who know the relevant history.

0 Replies

Quote, "There were many reasons for our attack on Iraq. WMDs and the capacity to produce them was one." Just who do you think sold them to Saddam? If you don't know the right answer, I'd be more than happy to oblige with the answer.

0 Replies

I give up!

Have fun. I'm off for a swim in calmer waters.

0 Replies

Quote:

Their potential to aid in the terrorism being used throught the Moslem world, mostly, but not entirely, Islamist was another.

Attacking people over 'potentials' is a dangerous game, and one that is bound to bite us in the ass sooner or later. We must be extremely carefully when proceeding with such a strategy; the same logic can easily be turned against us by other countries, and it would be hard to counter their arguments.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Bush support among the military is running somewhere around 80%. Hmmm.

0 Replies

That seems rather low...if it was much lower I'd be afraid of a putsch

0 Replies

Well, ya know, they let them wimmins in the military now...

0 Replies

Ha!

0 Replies

I just knew she'd show up! Smile

0 Replies

Bush Supporters PLEASE Explain THIS!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know