The Official US President Election Thread

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by Janny

And actually, what struck me was that actually there hadn't been attacks on UK soil either.

They had their war on terror... with the IRA (unless you're only counting muslim terrorists). They found that epanding hostilities over a near hundred year period didn't work and resorted to trying to solve the root problems of the conflict. Seems to be working since nothing is blowing up on Downing street lately.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

They had their war on terror... with the IRA (unless you're only counting muslim terrorists). They found that epanding hostilities over a near hundred year period didn't work and resorted to trying to solve the root problems of the conflict. Seems to be working since nothing is blowing up on Downing street lately.

One difference - the IRAs stated goal was never to destroy Britain - the way Al Qaeda has declared numerous times as it's goal to destoy the US and the West.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Its hard for a President to carry out something as big as this war on terror in just four years. In fact, its crazy. I don't think John Kerry is capable enough to take over something of this complicated. He has shown himself to be a master orater, but nothing much else.
And I think its too late to pull out of Iraq (if that was one of Kerry's plans...but I havent heard anything about him saying so...), if we do so, the battle is going to come over here.

Kerry can't handle something complicated? lol Bush can barely form a sentence. While Kerry was Lt. Gov. of Mass Bush was an unemployed alcoholic. Iraq is the worst mistake any president has made in decades. How much more incompetent does he have to be before you wonder whether even someone from "the other party" couldn't possibly be worse?

I have seen some great documentaries recently. Bush's Brain (about Karl Rove) and just today Rumsfeld's War (on PBS internet broadcast on 10/28 at PBS Online). The War on Terror is so complex Bush has delegated it all to Rumsfeld so as to focus on the more important issue... re-election, because Rove told him so.

One Republican US Senator (RI) just announced that he was voting for Kerry.

The worst periods of our government in the twentieth century have occurred when one party controlled all three branches. Democracy works best when the checks and balances force actions to have a greater consensus.

As far as an orator Kerry is good but not Clinton or Reagan good. It's the contrast with the Bush blathering, whining, twitching, pacing, and grimacing that makes Kerry look so much better. I would just enjoy having a president that didn't sound as though he just fell of a hay wagon for a few years. It's been a while...

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Incidentally, doesn't the USA have the most terrorist cells? I'm not saying you should attack yourself ( ), but shouldn't the money and attention on the 'war on terror' be focused inwards? Probably, this is already happening. But if you did severely hamper cells within the USA, attacks from outside the country would probably have less success (harder to plan, carry out etc.).

And how do we keep the terrorists from coming in - if we don't fight them where they train and plan? There was and is the huge outcry on finger printing people coming into this country who require visas. The US I don't believe have the most terrorist cells however - but things have to be done to disrupt them - which things are being done (but then again - people are pissed off at the Patriot Act which is for just that purpose).

Americans I think are getting laxed - thinking that terroristm really isn't that bad because we haven't been attacked in 3 years. People also seem to forget the many terrorist attacks the US suffered under Clinton's adminstration - which only received lukewarm response.

As for the comment regarding the terrorist alerts. So let's see - Pan Am supposedly knew that there was a bomb threat against flight 103 - huge outcry that they didn't report it. People bitch that there was no public warning regarding the possible attack against the World Trade Center. Can you imagine if the government has a shred of information about something - doesn't tell the public and something DOES happen. People bitch and moan both ways - Bush can't win. He's damned if warnings are issued and he'll be damned if they aren't and something happens. Anyone who doesn't think that there is a possiblity of an attack before or during the election - has their head in the sand. How many of the warnings have been stopped by intelligence? We don't know - because most of that is classified information. If people demanded the amount of information we do today during World War II - we would never have succeeded on D-Day.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

Kerry can't handle something complicated? lol Bush can barely form a sentence. While Kerry was Lt. Gov. of Mass Bush was an unemployed alcoholic. Iraq is the worst mistake any president has made in decades. How much more incompetent does he have to be before you wonder whether even someone from "the other party" couldn't possibly be worse?

Bush seemed to manage getting Pakistan on our side - which as far as I'm concerned is far more important than getting the French. No one wa saying he was an idiot during 9/11 - how quickly people forget what this country has been through.

One Republican US Senator (RI) just announced that he was voting for Kerry.

And there are democratic senators who support Bush - so what's the point?

The worst periods of our government in the twentieth century have occurred when one party controlled all three branches. Democracy works best when the checks and balances force actions to have a greater consensus.

You mean how democrats have had control over 3 branches of government - except when there was a Republican president for the last 50+ years? As for the 3rd branch of government - the judicial branch - they're not supposed to be partisan - that is why they must be approved by congress.

I also hardly consider congress being controlled by Republicans when it is so evenly split. Bush has hardly been handed things on a silver platter - except when MANY democrats have also supported things.

As far as an orator Kerry is good but not Clinton or Reagan good. It's the contrast with the Bush blathering, whining, twitching, pacing, and grimacing that makes Kerry look so much better. I would just enjoy having a president that didn't sound as though he just fell of a hay wagon for a few years. It's been a while...

Well - I'd rather have someone who isn't going to go to the failed middle East plan that we have been dealing with for the last 50 years - and instead actually takes a firm stand there to change the situation.

It's sort of funny - how long as their been a bush for palestian and israeli peace? There might not be peace - but who would havbe thought that Israeli would vote and approve dismantling all the gaza strip settlements without having any guarantees from the palestians? You know - Bush has been pushing Sharon on this as well as other things.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

One difference - the IRAs stated goal was never to destroy Britain - the way Al Qaeda has declared numerous times as it's goal to destoy the US and the West.

So, I guess that means Al Qaeda's grip on reality is not as good as the IRA's was? And I thought they both were just blowing up people they hated. The difference is meaningless if neither goal is achievable and the means are the same.

Sorry, but I grew up during the cold war with 40,000 nuclear missles pointed at me. Hard to get too frightened by these ragtag band of rejects.

Things that kill more people than terrorism:

Cancer
Criminal gun use in the domestic US
AIDS
Auto Accidents
Cigarettes
Alcohol
earthquakes
food poisoning
starvation
abortion
influenza
illegal drugs
suicide
pollution
diabetes

I'm sure there are others I've missed.

Running around invading every country that might be involved in terrorism or is in some way some kind of vague or peceived (incorrectly or not) is moronic. It will destroy our military readiness and plunge the country into debt. We may as well just nuke countries rather than put them through what Saddam and the Bushs have put Iraq through.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

So, I guess that means Al Qaeda's grip on reality is not as good as the IRA's was? And I thought they both were just blowing up people they hated.

The IRA didn't actually HATE the British - they wanted Northern Ireland to be free. They're goal was never to just kill British to bring down the British givernment and country. Al Qaeda has declared - they want ALL the world to be their type of Islam. They're first target is us - because they know if they can bring us down - the west will fall.

The difference is meaningless if neither goal is achievable and the means are the same.

Sorry, but I grew up during the cold war with 40,000 nuclear missles pointed at me. Hard to get too frightened by these ragtag band of rejects.

Things that kill more people than terrorism:

Cancer
Criminal gun use in the domestic US
AIDS
Auto Accidents
Cigarettes
Alcohol
earthquakes
food poisoning
starvation
abortion
influenza
illegal drugs
suicide
pollution
diabetes

I'm sure there are others I've missed.

Yeah - and more people worldwide died from those things than Hitler - should we have just let Hitler go then? That analogy makes absolutely no sense. I also was in the cold war - the thing is - the cold war was a KNOWN eneny we could talk to.

Running around invading every country that might be involved in terrorism or is in some way some kind of vague or peceived (incorrectly or not) is moronic. It will destroy our military readiness and plunge the country into debt. We may as well just nuke countries rather than put them through what Saddam and the Bushs have put Iraq through.

That isn't the reason we invaded iraq - but you are too closed minded to actually see the reasons - so I won't waste my breath here with it again. You want to feel that Iraq had no purpose go ahead, you want to ignore the Duelfer report and the conclusions they made - go ahead, you want to ignore the 9/11 commission report - go ahead. I'm not.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Bush seemed to manage getting Pakistan on our side - which as far as I'm concerned is far more important than getting the French. No one wa saying he was an idiot during 9/11 - how quickly people forget what this country has been through.

I was 3 blocks from the White House and could see the Pentagon buring from where I was on 9/11. Sort of hard to forget. It's just like any other job. It's not doing a good job part of the time that get's you fired. It's the times you really screw up.

And there are democratic senators who support Bush - so what's the point?

Any announced today? And who are they?

You mean how democrats have had control over 3 branches of government - except when there was a Republican president for the last 50+ years? As for the 3rd branch of government - the judicial branch - they're not supposed to be partisan - that is why they must be approved by congress.

Well, since there was a Republican president and a democratic congress most of the time and a Democratic president and a republican congress then yes. Any the the Court has always been political (Dred Scott, Roe v Wade), etc). The largely republican appointed court kept FDR somewhat in check. Anyway that was the Depression and WWII, hardly the good 'ol days.

I also hardly consider congress being controlled by Republicans when it is so evenly split. Bush has hardly been handed things on a silver platter - except when MANY democrats have also supported things.

When a party has the majority seat they control all committees, can block any bill from even being brought to a vote, and manipulate funding to get swing votes. This is a serious difference. Few have been handed an overwhelming majority. The Dixiecrats of the last century were hardly solidly in the liberal camp.

Well - I'd rather have someone who isn't going to go to the failed middle East plan that we have been dealing with for the last 50 years - and instead actually takes a firm stand there to change the situation.

What ? And make it worse? More Americans killed. More terrorist attacks than ever. The "road map to Peace" tossed out the window? And you say Jimmy Carter's accord between Egypt and Israel was a failure? Guess we'll have to take back that Nobel prize.

It's sort of funny - how long as their been a bush for palestian and israeli peace? There might not be peace - but who would havbe thought that Israeli would vote and approve dismantling all the gaza strip settlements without having any guarantees from the palestians? You know - Bush has been pushing Sharon on this as well as other things.

Bush has given a free hand to Sharon (aka ignored the situation). Sharon's actions are a response to the internal politics of Israel and not anything Bush has done.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The IRA didn't actually HATE the British - they wanted Northern Ireland to be free. They're goal was never to just kill British to bring down the British givernment and country.

Well actually, dearest JD, the IRA did and DO hate the British. Thats what the're fighting for in the first place. They hate the British for basically screwing them over the last 700 odd years. Thats hardly going to make them penpals, is it.
Now, tell me that you know more about the Irish Troubles then I do.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Al Qaeda has declared - they want ALL the world to be their type of Islam. They're first target is us - because they know if they can bring us down - the west will fall.

The "west will fall"? Dramatic, eh? Perhaps the all conquering Muslim hordes will raise the Cresent Moon over the White House, after they fly to mars on their winged Camels?
And Europe survived long before your country even existed, and it will survive long after. The west will fall... Come on. Even Shakespeare wasn't that melodramatic.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Its hard for a President to carry out something as big as this war on terror in just four years...

Ah yes... you KNOW about what is hard for a President to do, don't you?

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The IRA didn't actually HATE the British - they wanted Northern Ireland to be free.

LOL "Sorry I blew you up Lord Mountbatten. I don't hate you but it seemed politically expedient to do so. No hard feelings, then?"

Yeah - and more people worldwide died from those things than Hitler - should we have just let Hitler go then? That analogy makes absolutely no sense. I also was in the cold war - the thing is - the cold war was a KNOWN eneny we could talk to.

Yeah, Hitler was nuts. Invading countries, bombing villages and killing neutrals everytime a few members caused trouble, justifying the subjugation of peoples based on the superior nature of his leadership, his nation, and his beliefs. Too bad that damn liberal FDR let him go scott free. But least he didn't give him chemical and biological weapons, 10 Billion dollars and encourage him to invade Russia.

That isn't the reason we invaded iraq - but you are too closed minded to actually see the reasons - so I won't waste my breath here with it again. You want to feel that Iraq had no purpose go ahead, you want to ignore the Duelfer report and the conclusions they made - go ahead, you want to ignore the 9/11 commission report - go ahead. I'm not.

I just go by what the president says. What is he saying this week? Did you ignore the Schlesinger Report?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

I was 3 blocks from the White House and could see the Pentagon buring from where I was on 9/11. Sort of hard to forget. It's just like any other job. It's not doing a good job part of the time that get's you fired. It's the times you really screw up.

Actually - I think he's done mostly a good job. I think Kerry will bring us back to the appeasement of the past - which will get us no where - other than give time to al qaeda to rebuild.

Any announced today? And who are they?

Oh - I didn't know they actually had to be announced today. I thought it was just any democrats in congress who have endorsed bush. No - there weren't any today.

Well, since there was a Republican president and a democratic congress most of the time and a Democratic president and a republican congress then yes. Any the the Court has always been political (Dred Scott, Roe v Wade), etc). The largely republican appointed court kept FDR somewhat in check. Anyway that was the Depression and WWII, hardly the good 'ol days.

That's funny though - since the congress had been controlled by democrats for 50 years until Newt Gingrich. So where was it republican Congress during a democratic president other than with Bill Clinton?

When a party has the majority seat they control all committees, can block any bill from even being brought to a vote, and manipulate funding to get swing votes. This is a serious difference. Few have been handed an overwhelming majority. The Dixiecrats of the last century were hardly solidly in the liberal camp.

And the democrats have fillobuster. Most of the things liberals whine about were endorsed by a major majoriity of the congress (Patriot Act, No Child left Behind)

What ? And make it worse? More Americans killed. More terrorist attacks than ever. The "road map to Peace" tossed out the window? And you say Jimmy Carter's accord between Egypt and Israel was a failure? Guess we'll have to take back that Nobel prize.

I didnt' say anything about Egypt and israel - but where else has their been peace between israel and any other arab country and the palestinians? Wow - you had to go far for a success there - almost 30 years.

More Americans killed where? You mean more than the US Embassies (we had 2 or 3 bombed during Clinton's Admin), you mean more than the US Cole being bombed (which under any other circumstances would have been an act of war).

Bush has given a free hand to Sharon (aka ignored the situation). Sharon's actions are a response to the internal politics of Israel and not anything Bush has done.

Bush has far from ignored the situation - he just want deal with the roadblock - which is arafat. Why should he deal with someone who refuses to negotiate at all and come up with a workable plan. How can you say Sharon is reacting to internal politics - especially considering he is putting his neck on the line for this and now needs 10 body guards? Bush has far more to do with this than people realize.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

LOL "Sorry I blew you up Lord Mountbatten. I don't hate you but it seemed politically expedient to do so. No hard feelings, then?"

So your saying the IRA was just blowing up british because they hated them - huh? Then if that's the case - then why did they stop? The british are still in Northern Ireland. Might it be because their goal was NOT to destroy Britain or just to kill Britons?

Yeah, Hitler was nuts. Invading countries, bombing villages and killing neutrals everytime a few members caused trouble, justifying the subjugation of peoples based on the superior nature of his leadership, his nation, and his beliefs. Too bad that damn liberal FDR let him go scott free. But least he didn't give him chemical and biological weapons, 10 Billion dollars and encourage him to invade Russia.

Soi what he was nuts. Is Bin Ladin anymore sane? Also - I notice you love bringing up items which have nothing to do with the situation. I'm sure if we were a world power, had a powerful enemy who was supporting another country to overthrow europe - we would have supported Hitler. Hell - don't forget - during world war II - we SUPPORTED the Soviet Union, not because they were our friend - but because we had a common enemy. That is why we support Hussein - becaue the Soviet Union was supporting Iran to take over the Middle East. It would have been disasterous to let that happen. You want to ignore cause and affect, ignore the historical reasons why things were done - go ahead, but don't think I won't state the REAL reasons why things were done the way they were in the past.

Can you imagine a world today where the Soviet Union had gained countrol over all the oil of the middle east during the 80's? yeah - it was about oil - and preserving the FREE flow of it.There isn't anything wrong with saying it, there isn't anything wrong with that. This today however isn't about oil (except to keep it out of the hands of al qaeda). The Middle East needs to be changed to prevent terrorism - period. Iraq is a key part of the puzzle.

I just go by what the president says. What is he saying this week? Did you ignore the Schlesinger Report?

Shouldn't the question be - what is kerry saying this week? kerry says whatever will get him elected to the people that he is currently talking to. By the way - you just don't go by what the president says - you go by what the liberal media says he says and then tells you what to think about it all.

[jerseydevil]

Yeah, Hitler was nuts. Invading countries, bombing villages and killing neutrals everytime a few members caused trouble, justifying the subjugation of peoples based on the superior nature of his leadership, his nation, and his beliefs.

BTW Cirdan - I see you are once again trying to slyly compare Bush to Hitler. yeah - Bush just went into iraq for no reason - right. I hope you know how ridiculous that is - and that it's completely laughable when these left wing nutcases are marching in the streets with signs of bush dressed as Hitler.

So tell me - is Clinton Hitler? We went into Bosnia. So what was Meloshivic doing that hurt America? What interest did we have there? What interest did France, Britain, Germany, Russia, etc have there? Where was the UN resolution that allowed us to go in there? It was a civil war - if you want to denounce Bush - then denounce that - because we had no business going in there. Now I supported Clinton on that. See unlike liberals with Bush - I can support things that Clinton did. I don't agree with many things Clinton did though - but I will state what I agreed with him on.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

So your saying the IRA was just blowing up british because they hated them - huh? Then if that's the case - then why did they stop? The british are still in Northern Ireland. Might it be because their goal was NOT to destroy Britain or just to kill Britons?

Ummm... Bill Clinton actually had something to do with the peace actually. (Also see Irish response above)

Soi what he was nuts. Is Bin Ladin anymore sane?

No, but neither is the crazy bum yelling down on the Mall. I sure I can take him without getting my hands too dirty. Hilter had an entire industrialised nation at his disposal. Bin Laden has some of his dad's pocket change and a gang of frustrated muslim virgins. Hilter killed millions, bin laden thousands, the crazy bum... not sure/

So, where is Bin Laden anyway?

It's ironic that Saddam can get health care paid for by American tax dollars but millions of citizens of the US can't.

Shouldn't the question be - what is kerry saying this week? kerry says whatever will get him elected to the people that he is currently talking to. By the way - you just don't go by what the president says - you go by what the liberal media says he says and then tells you what to think about it all.

The "liberal" media... LOL!!!... Like FOX, CNN, Chris Matthews, Rush Limbaugh. That pathetic epithet has lost all potency in the last 15 years. Time to find a new one. This claim would lead me to think you see the news with one eye and one mind closed to what is really going on.

There was an excellent documentary on Bush and Kerry on PBS. Kerry is shown on a CSPAN clip in July 2002 saying he would vote for the war resolution because Saddam needed to be contained but he was concerned about the lack of international cooperation, and the lack of a coherent plan to with the peace. Verbatim what he said in the debates 2 years later. He hasn't changed position and the flip-flop accusation is just a character smear tactic.

Bush lied outright about Kerry 's vote on the homeland security bill, and since it passed 98-0 it would be hard to claim he may have forgotten. Then he will turn around and accuse Kerry of "being someone who will say anything to get elected." What a hypocrite.

[Earniel]

I came across this article today. I know we have both supporters of Bush and Kerry (and most probably of third parties too) here on the Entmoot, do the conclusions of this article reflect what you notice around you or is it totally off?

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

BTW Cirdan - I see you are once again trying to slyly compare Bush to Hitler.

You brought up Hitler. I just used the opportunity to show that military adventurism is often couched in noble words but usually constitute ignoble deeds.

So tell me - is Clinton Hitler? We went into Bosnia. So what was Meloshivic doing that hurt America? What interest did we have there? What interest did France, Britain, Germany, Russia, etc have there?

It's called humanitarian. Instead of saving the oil and getting revenge we stopped tyhe genocide as it was occuring instead of turing our back on it and then denouncing it 12 years later. There was a joint effort. It was supported by the people and the peace was secured quickly thanks to international support. I'm looking forward to the picture of the voting booth standing in the middle of the rubble of what was once Fallujah.

- if you want to denounce Bush - then denounce that - because we had no business going in there. Now I supported Clinton on that.

We had no business there but you supported it so I should support Iraq? Whatever... I supported the Afganistan effort. There is a long way to got there even though they had elections. Some people have been without electricity in Kabul for three years. The Taliban is active again. The pesidential election wa a great step but there is no enforcement of the constitution, not parliment, and there is still conflict in the loya jurga. Waiting on Iraq, finishing Afganistan, and catching Bin Laden was a plateful without this war. There were many alternatives to the choices this administration made that would have been more effective.

Do you remember our discussion prior to the war about possible outcomes. I said the best defense Saddam could choose would be to send his troops home with as many weapons as they could and wage an asymmetrical war. If I could think of that why couldn't the pentagon? Oh right, some of them did and got fired for disagreeing with Rumsfeld's Invasion Lite view of the war.

See unlike liberals with Bush - I can support things that Clinton did. I don't agree with many things Clinton did though - but I will state what I agreed with him on.

So... all liberals are think alike and you stand alone with an open mind free from bias, eh? funny.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

Ummm... Bill Clinton actually had something to do with the peace actually. (Also see Irish response above)

yeah he did - but the comparison with Al Qaeda is apples and oranges - which you seem to want to ignore.

No, but neither is the crazy bum yelling down on the Mall. I sure I can take him without getting my hands too dirty. Hilter had an entire industrialised nation at his disposal. Bin Laden has some of his dad's pocket change and a gang of frustrated muslim virgins. Hilter killed millions, bin laden thousands, the crazy bum... not sure/

See - I told someone that people were starting to think that Bin ladin really was just a "man in a cave" again - they didn't believe me. Thanks for confirming it for me. let's see - that's what the world was telling Clinton when he started going after him, he backed down, we then suffered 9/11. Lucky most of the people weren't in work at the time, lucky that the NY/NJ Port Authority was quick thinking enough to move the trains out from underneath the buildings - 3,000 would have been a SMALL number. That man with "dad's pocket change and a gang of frustrated muslim virgins" killed 3,000 people and destroyed two buildings whihc contained more office space than all of San Diego.

So, where is Bin Laden anyway?

Isn't that the big question? How would you suggest finding him in mountains which are more hostile than the Rocky Mountains, in an area which is inhabited by tribes who take him in and support him?

It's ironic that Saddam can get health care paid for by American tax dollars but millions of citizens of the US can't.

I don't see the correlation here? I'm not for national health care. Also - NO ONE in the US is turned away from emergency medical treatment.

The "liberal" media... LOL!!!... Like FOX, CNN, Chris Matthews, Rush Limbaugh. That pathetic epithet has lost all potency in the last 15 years. Time to find a new one. This claim would lead me to think you see the news with one eye and one mind closed to what is really going on.

Believe me - I seem to have my eyes opened and mind opened a lot further than you do. As for CNN - that is a liberal network. As for your comment regarding liberal losing it's potency - yeah right - I know that is what liberals are saying. it's like your a mouth piece for them at all. You don't analys cause and affect, you don't look at the way the world is - as is the case with all liberals you look at the world in terms of the way you wish it was. Well it's not that way.

There was an excellent documentary on Bush and Kerry on PBS. Kerry is shown on a CSPAN clip in July 2002 saying he would vote for the war resolution because Saddam needed to be contained but he was concerned about the lack of international cooperation, and the lack of a coherent plan to with the peace. Verbatim what he said in the debates 2 years later. He hasn't changed position and the flip-flop accusation is just a character smear tactic.

It's fine that kerry was concerned about the peace, etc. if you look back on my old posts - you will see that I was concerned about it too. the thing is - now kerry is saying "Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" - so tell me - how does that fit in with him voting for war? All intelligence - all the world's intelligence said that Hussein had WMD - so the "bush lied" statement can't be used. Everyone voted on with the information that the world had, which Clinton had. WMD was only one reason ever given. yeah - it was given to try to convince the rest of the world to come on board - particularly France. But then with what we know about France today - they were NEVER going to come on board because they were in bed with Hussein.

As for lack of international cooperation - sometimes we have to take things on ourselves - if the world isn't going to come along. I'm not going to put our national security into the hands of the likes of the UN or France.

Bush lied outright about Kerry 's vote on the homeland security bill, and since it passed 98-0 it would be hard to claim he may have forgotten. Then he will turn around and accuse Kerry of "being someone who will say anything to get elected." What a hypocrite.

I have never heard Bush say anythjing about Kerry on the Homeland Security Bill - but there have been several different bills regarding that. Bush has talked about Kerry voting against the military support bills - which he did vote against.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I came across this article today. I know we have both supporters of Bush and Kerry (and most probably of third parties too) here on the Entmoot, do the conclusions of this article reflect what you notice around you or is it totally off?

This is very strange. I thought most people understood that while Saadam probably lay awake at night dreaming of having nuke and other fun toys to massage his ridiculous ego, I'm shocked that people seriously believe that he had any significant stockpiles, didn't use them, and got them out of the country but didn't get himself any farther than a rat hole in Tikrit.

I can only guess that this poll is dated since the final report about WMDs came out recently. It's possible people would be in denial since no one wants their "guy" to be so very wrong. The fact that the media pounded the acronym "WMD" into our heads for two years might have something to do with it.

Many we should have been more worried about the weapons of regular-sized destruction. (WRDs)

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

You brought up Hitler. I just used the opportunity to show that military adventurism is often couched in noble words but usually constitute ignoble deeds.

So what military "adventurism" is Bush doing? Also - what "noble words" did hitler have?

It's called humanitarian. Instead of saving the oil and getting revenge we stopped tyhe genocide as it was occuring instead of turing our back on it and then denouncing it 12 years later.

That's sort of funny - concidering that the genocide in iraq liberals only want to acknowledge is what happened during the 80's - NOT the milliions killed and tortured all through the 90's even while the Un was there.

There was a joint effort. It was supported by the people and the peace was secured quickly thanks to international support. I'm looking forward to the picture of the voting booth standing in the middle of the rubble of what was once Fallujah.

The problem is - not all the the insurgents are iraqis though. And it's not AGAINST us - it's against freedom. Why do you think they are killing humanitarian workers? why they are killing policemen? The insurgents want to control iraq. The majority of people did support us in iraq and they DID throw flowers and kisses at our feet. They problem is that the terrorists then gained too much power.

We had no business there but you supported it so I should support Iraq? Whatever...

Figured you wouldn't understand what I was getting at.

I supported the Afganistan effort.

Good for you. An improvement on your normal bush bashing.

There is a long way to got there even though they had elections. Some people have been without electricity in Kabul for three years. The Taliban is active again. The pesidential election wa a great step but there is no enforcement of the constitution, not parliment, and there is still conflict in the loya jurga. Waiting on Iraq, finishing Afganistan, and catching Bin Laden was a plateful without this war. There were many alternatives to the choices this administration made that would have been more effective.

yeah and it took 10 years to establish democracy and peace in japan and Germany after World War II. As for catching Bin Ladin - that is only one piece of the puzzle. That;s like saying we shouldn't have gotten involved with Germany because we had enough to deal with with Japan. Unlike Europe during World War II - we had two enemies. But then again - you few iraq as a seperate issue from the war on terrorism. I feel that the war on terrorism encompasses ALL of the Middle East and beyond - into Indonesia, Europe, America, etc.

Do you remember our discussion prior to the war about possible outcomes. I said the best defense Saddam could choose would be to send his troops home with as many weapons as they could and wage an asymmetrical war. If I could think of that why couldn't the pentagon? Oh right, some of them did and got fired for disagreeing with Rumsfeld's Invasion Lite view of the war.

You really do twist facts and spew the liberal crap - don't you. it has been repeatedly stated on multiple that the person you are referring to getting fired - did not get fired, but was scheduled for retirement and did retire. The president had nothing to do with him leaving.

So... all liberals are think alike and you stand alone with an open mind free from bias, eh? funny.

About time you understand something and got it right. You see - at least I'm willing to look at other news sources - you won't even watch Fox. See I watch french news (which is very biased, I look at the BBC site, I go and search out other news sources that may not agree with my opinion) I think go to the sources of the documents, or watch C-SPAN and look at the raw data. That is how I base my opinions. I'm not afraid to watch or read a liberal media source. When was the last time you watched Fox?

BTW - there was a study done about media bias. ABC - which I watch the most of in terms of network news - had the most negative coverage toward Bush, CBS surprisingly had the least negative coverage of Bush (which I never watch), while FOX was actually the most even in their coverage. If this study is true and I watch ABC the most - then if I am blinded by my media source - wouldn't I hate Bush? Or might it be that I get my news from a cross section of political spectrums, have analysed the data and have come up with my own conclusions.

I support bush on one thing and only one thing matters to me in this election and that is terrorism. That is NOT restricted to just capturing bin Ladin - but changing the middle east to prevent future bin ladins down the road. This will take time and WILL NOT and CAN NOT be done in 4 years or maybe not even in 10 years. It will be long and hard - that's a fact.