quote by red55: Bush lied to us to get us into a war we did not need. Meanwhile Osama runs free and the Koreans (who do have WMD's!) are getting ready for a showdown that Bush is again unprepared for. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will say I'm not happy about the North Korea situation but we can't do anything there until we get some of the middle east worked out unfortunately. Your statement about Bush Lying to us, does that mean that Clinton and his admin lied to us also about wmd's in Iraq?? Clintons Administration says the same thing that Bush's did about WMD's in Iraq and so did the dreaded UN...
Bu****es... please explain This is not meant as a flame. I am genuinely interested in talking to Bush supporters to find out why they do so. I am reasonably conservative myself... voted for Reagan twice and the first Bush once. But I do not understand the whole-hearted, almost fanatical allegiance that so many conservatives have towards Bush II. What has he done that is in the conservative tradition? He has in three short years gone from presiding over the largest surlus this country has eve had to the largest deficit. I understand we are in a recessiona and at war against terrorism, but eeven these two events combined should bot have allowed such a large surplus to accrue. And there's no end in sight. Bush say he will reduce the deficit by half in five years, but that is not true. Even hisown budget office admists that that does not include appropiations for Iraq and other "off Budget" items. How is this conservative. I do not think Bush has deliberately lied to the American public. I beleive he really does believe what he says and really does beleive in his policies. But that is just the point... they are beliefs and as with all beliefs do not depend on facts. Example: Have a huge surplus and a booming economy.... push for a tax cut Have a recessiona dn a war and a deficit...... push for a tax cut. In other words... whatever the economic situation, push for a tax cut. This is not an economic policy... it is an ideological position. He did the same thing in the Iraq war. He decided he was going to get rid of Sadaam and then looked for reasons to do so... and discounted reasons not to do so. Certainly there was intelligence that showed that Iraq had weapons of mass destuction... but there was also eveidence that he didn't, ot that if he did he did not have the platforms with which to deliver them. Bush totally disregarded all disconfirmatory evidence that did not fit into his world-view. The problem with going to war with Iraq is not nly that it was ot justified form an international law standpoint, but from a striclty pragmatice standpoint, it has gotten us enmeshed in "nation building" a process that bush stated on numerous times he was totlaly opposed to, but may very well enmesh us in another country's civil war, and, most importantly has diverted necesssary financial and personnel resource form the real war against terror. our country is LESS safe now, post Irqq, than it was beofre. Anybody that knows even the slightest amount of Middle East History would know that Saddam and Osama could never be allies. Sadaam was a secualrist Muslim, Osama is a Muslin fanatic. I assure you, Osama would have been quite happy if he could have helped overthrow Sadaam and have an Iranian style theocracy installed. This does ot mean that they could not cooperated on ad hoc enterprses when it suited both of their interests (and I'm sure they did) but Iraq was ot a haven for Al Queada (sp?) terrorists. Theseare two of the most important problems I have with Bush. There are others, but I think these two are so important that they will suffice for now. I would welcome a reasoned response. I am quite serious when I write that i do not know how these issues can be rebutted, but i am very interested in reading an intelligent defense of them. I'll read those types of responses with as open a mind as I can muster, and hope you will grant me the same courtesy. Please excuse the typing. This diatribe is way too long for me to proof. I know how to spel... I just cat'n tipe
First of all I'm not Bush's biggest supporter but I would say the whole ball of wax of why I would vote for Bush no matter what is the war on terror. There are basic needs like staying alive versus the economy....... Hmm, no brainer as far as I'm concerned. Let me ask you what Kerry is going to do to protect this country since it sounds like you will vote for him, do you think Clinton handled terrorism the right way? We are at war, plain and simple, 3,000 were killed on 9-11-01, that is reason for me for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. There may have not been any WMD's in Iraq but there were terrorists there and thats enough reason for my justificatiion in Iraq. I know the left doesn't want to talk about terrorists there, they only want to talk about WMD's for some reason. We'll have to disagree because you claim America is no safer than we were on September 11 and i would strongly disagree....... I'm not sure what you mean by international law but I would say the UN was in bed with Saddam via France and Germany including the new scandal with the oil for food program. The UN is worthless and can't do anything right IMO BTW, Dems scare me because they want the whole country to go to Hell just so they can be back in power as illustrated by Ted Kennedy in his comments yesterday as well as the worst economy we've had supposedly since the last time Bill Clinton said that in 92. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how Kerry and the Dems plan to protect this country from terrorism, what is their plan for dealing with terrorists. Sorry SabanFan, I didn't mean to hijack your thread!
I don't know if we've ever had someone run for President who has pretty much said that he is no longer for ANYTHING of SUBSTANCE that he voted for (or against) while he was in Congress. Almost EVERY important issue, his response is, "Well, I wouldn't vote that way any more". YEAH RIGHT!!! He learned well from Komrade Billy Bob - Say WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO SAY to get into office. You can even renege on all your campaign promise before you are inaugurated - it's not like ABC, CBS or NBC news will call you on it.
To Red: You are a consistently intelligent poster and I find it hard to believe that you have swallowed the line handed out by the Dems. By the way, Osama is not "running free". He's running alright, but to save his filthy hide. To BP: Tax and spend has never, doesn't and never will be good for the economy. Bush's policies appeal to working taxpayers. They do not appeal to those who sit on their a$$ with their hand out.
Although I will not vote for Bush, I think he will probably win. I have struggled very hard about this whole voting thing. Abortion is a very important topic to me and that says vote for Bush, but I don't think Bush's foreign policy is effective as it has only alienated allies for no reason other than having an opinion different than us. Kerry doesn't look much better honestly and I would have loved Edwards here, but Clark, being the Clinton's lapdog, came in the race just to take away votes from other candidates. This is so that a crappy candidate wins the nomination and is torn apart by Bush, which leaves 2008 open for Hilary. I cringe at the thought and ask: Who will be the Republican candidate in 2008, who is lined up? They better be one hell of a liar because that is what Hilary will do.
