Bush's Lost Opportunity

[LoraJ]

Originally posted by Rokkitsci
This is the type of post that makes it almost impossible to NOT label such posters as stupid and ignorant and uneducated and mendacious.

I wish I could find some more charitible words to describe such tripe.

You really need to get over yourself.

There you go with the tripe word again.

Someone points out facts about Bush's flip flops and it is tripe.

I read posts here about how there are terrorists in Iraq and nothing could be done unless we removed Saddam (wait I thought we went there because of WMD's Saddam had, not terrorists, do the reasons change to suit your needs?) so I made a little comment.

Do you seriously think I believe we should attack Washington, DC?

 

[momof2inPA]

Kerry made many substantial points:

1. Starting the war with Iraq when we did was a monumental mistake

2. We have lost the support and respect of most world leaders

3. Kerrry wants to finish in Iraq quickly with a much larger UN force

4. We will make it clear to the Iraqis that we have no permanent design on their country, which Bush has failed to do. Hopefully, this will calm some of the insurgents and future insurgents.

6. Then he wants to focus our resources on neglected areas, such as nuclear proliferation and securing nuclear material in the former Sovient Union

7. Kerry also wants to focus resources on securing our borders, especially our sea ports (this has also been a neglected area)

8. Bush out-sourced the attempted capture on Bin Laden and fouled it up

Perhaps some of the undecided, who I personally don't consider idiots, support these points.

 

[momof2inPA]

I think Bush made so many silly faces because he thought under the debate rules he wouldn't be on camera while Kerry spoke. We apparently were able to see his true colors, but at least he didn't stick his tongue out at Kerry.

 

[peachgirl]

Bush performed poorly in his first debate against Gore.

Actually the first debate was pretty much a draw. Gore lost the 2nd and the last one was a tie.

Gore Bush
10/17/00 41% 41
10/11/00 30% 46
10/03/00 42% 39

The real difference between results of the Bush/Gore debates and the first Kerry/Bush debate is that there was virtually no change in the polls regarding who voters preferred.


This certainly isn't the case with Kerry and his standing in the polls following the first debate.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by momof2inPA

Perhaps some of the undecided, who I personally don't consider idiots, support these points.

First - I apologize for the "idiot" remark - I should have said they were "ignorant." There is a difference.

Kerry made many substantial OPINIONS:

******1. Starting the war with Iraq when we did was a monumental mistake - NOT.

The only mistake was in not starting it SOONER. If we had delayed one more month - it would have meant a delay of another year. We actually waited until the very LAST MINUTE before starting the attack - in a vain attempt to "let sanctions work - let the inspectors do their job." The prime time was about two month EARLIER - in order to prevent the prospect of our troops having to fight is the desert in 120 degree heat wearing Chem/Bio Hazard gear.

******2. We have lost the support and respect of most world leaders - NOT

We did not have the respect of "most world leaders." We only had their "support and respect" when we did what they wanted us to do. In other words they did not "respect" us - they "used" us for their purposes and rained "popularity" on our leaders when the USA did what they wanted us to do.

Servants are popular with their employers as long as they keep the floors clean and the meals prepared.

******3. Kerrry wants to finish in Iraq quickly with a much larger UN force - ???

Sure - Bush wants to finish in Iraq quickly with a much larger UN force, too.

People in hell want ice water.

It ain't gonna happen - not the UN force part anyway. As long as the UN thinks there is a chance to get another APPEASER in the White House, they are not going to cooperate with the current administration.

And if they DID get Kerry in the white house - their "cooperation" would consist of convincing Kerry to pull out of Iraq unilaterally.

******4. We will make it clear to the Iraqis that we have no permanent design on their country, which Bush has failed to do. Hopefully, this will calm some of the insurgents and future insurgents. - NOT

The only thing that calms an "insurgent" - I call them terrorists - is the sight of another innocent head rolling in the street.

The only way for US to "calm some of the insurgents " is to retreat from the middle east - turn the entire region over to the mullas - quit making sexy movies - quit printing fictional novels - quit selling alcohol - quit wearing short skirts - quit shaving - abandon Israel - cover female faces when out in puplic - require females to stay in the house unless accompanied by an adult male relative - kill every non-muslim - and be willing to pay 100 dollars a barrel (or what ever they decide) for oil.

Calm away if you think that will dissuade them - I prefer to kill the "insurgents." And I prefer that we do it THERE rather than HERE.

Permanent design - which Bush has failed to do?? Have you heard of the soveriegn nation of Iraq yet? Were you aware that the president of Iraq came to the US Congress to offer his thanks to America for giving them their country back? With Bush stand proudly by his side? While Kerry denigrated him??

Are you aware that WE are giving THEM huge amounts of material support??

What part of our "permanent design on their country" do you object to?? the free and independent part?? That is the only design *I* am aware of for Iraq.

Now the FRENCH - I assume you approve of THEIR "design on Iraq" - wanted Iraq to stay in the grip of Saddam Hussein, who was building himself more palaces with the "oil for food" money and greasing the palms of FRENCHMEN, while Iraqi children were starving. THIS is the "design for Iraq" which would STILL be in effect had BUSH not been in the White House.

*******6. Then he wants to focus our resources on neglected areas, such as nuclear proliferation and securing nuclear material in the former Sovient Union. - YES

Has anyone suggested that Bush is NOT doing this?? Seems like a good idea - but as with all Kerry good ideas, they are already being done.

*******7. Kerry also wants to focus resources on securing our borders, especially our sea ports (this has also been a neglected area) - NOT

If Kerry would attend a few senate sessions and lend his mighty rhetorical skills to that agenda, and use his "debate" prowess to convince some of his Democrat brethren to listen to him - perhaps we would not have the situation we are in.

However, I have never heard these "ideas" coming from Kerry in his 20 years in the senate.

In FACT - any time there is an attempt to "do something" about the border situation - the first ones to raise the protest are the DEMOCRATs who charge RACISM on the part of the GOP.

Sadly, the GOP has come to acqueisce in this view. They realize it is political suicide to try to improve the conditions on the border without the support of the Democrats - which will never come. Democrats are too heavily dependent on the illegal votes provided by these illegal immigrants to ever change their stance.

Democrat could not carry California without the illegal immigrant vote - it ain't gonna happen as long as the Democrat party puts political power as more important than national security.

I have not kept up recently, but Kerry's latest position on the Patriot Act is that he now OPPOSES it again (if that has changed in the past week, forgive me - it is hard to keep up with his current position)

But, assuming no recent flip - he opposes the measures that would allow our investigative forces to try to intercept plans such as these. Yes - our seaports are vulnerable still - as are many other areas. The Bush administration is trying to work the problem and it is "hard work" = made ever harder by the incessant obstruction of the Democrat party to doing ANYTHING that is effective.

*******8. Bush out-sourced the attempted capture on Bin Laden and fouled it up - NOT

<yawn>

******Perhaps some of the undecided, who I personally don't consider idiots, support these points.

I consider the undecideds who are persuaded by this points to be ignorant.

 

[momof2inPA]

Perhaps you would have been better in the debate than president Bush, but those were the fundamental differences in their positions.

Bush wants to secure the former Soviet Union's "nucular" material in 13 years. Kerry plans to do this in four years. Yes, this has been a neglected area, because of the focus on Iraq and the diversion of resources to Iraq, a country without WMD.

With his arrogant attitude, Bush will never gain the cooperation of world leaders in Iraq, but Kerry has an oppurtunity to do so.

The foreign policy debate should have been Bush's strongest debate. He failed miserably. Face it.

Just because people do not agree with you, that does not mean they are idiots or ignorant. I have many Republican, Democrat, and Independent friends who are well informed, well read, well educated, and have reached differing political conclusions.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Reaching a different conclusion is completely ok. I welcome well-thought out and well-presented discussions of other points of view. However, to engage in such a discussion you must be willing to put forth your rationale. I rebutted each of your "points" with my own rationale. You have not supported your points with anything. Utterance of a point of view is worthless unless you are prepared to defend it. It is nothing more than a bumber-sticker - intended for the ignorant.

It is coming to this point in history WITHOUT a conclusion that I deem to be a sign of ignorance.

Whether that ignornace stems for genetics (stupidity) or from apathy (not keeping up with the most important issue in 60 years) is immaterial to me.

Ignorance should be a dis-qualification for decision-making.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by Rokkitsci
I am still saddened over the poor performance of president Bush in the Thursday debate. I wanted Bush to bury him so deeply that he would never be able to climb out of the hole. It appears that Bush was either extremely tired, or he had made a strategic decision to just play "defense" in order to avoid making any sort of gaffe, or appear "offensive."

Ever consider the possibility that the Bush you saw on Thursday night is the REAL George Bush?

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by Tuffcookie
Rokkitsci wrote:

"However, in case you missed it - we were attacked on September 11, 2001 in the most unmistakably way - it was in all the newspapers - you must have heard about it.

On that day - the world changed - and leaders stood forth.

On that day, the character of people became the issue.

On that day, the "sunshine patriots" had to make a decision.

On that day, some people decided to declare war on terrorism and pledge not give up until it was defeated - regardless of the cost - the tragedies - the popularity - the polls - the election. Some people decided that the security of our nation and its way of life were more important than any personal advantage."

Thank you, Rokkitsci, it seems like a lot of people either missed it or have forgotten about it.

TC

Here they go again with the offensive arrogance and utter stupidity that anyone who does not support George Bush has somehow forgotten 9/11.

No one's forgotten 9/11.

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by Planogirl
Based upon the justification used by so many that Iraq was indeed involved in terrorism, does this mean that Iran, Syria and even Saudi Arabia could be next? They have also harbored terrorists and so on if I'm not mistaken. I'm not taking either side here, I'm just wondering what you think.

The "and so on" is a big part of it. There were other incentives to war with Iraq....being able to remove our military presence in Saudi, remove the sanctions and overflights that were fueling the fires of resentment, and end the diplomatic standoff in the UN, where two permanent members of the UNSC were working to overthrow Saddam and the other three were trying to do business with him. Plus ending one line of state sponsorship of Palestinian suicide bombers. "Regime change" in Iraq was US policy since 1994 for a lot of reasons.

I don't think other countries have been as problematic for the US, so I don't think we're going to be dealing with any other countries unilaterally in the near future. Lots of countries want a piece of the terrorists now - it does Syria and SA no good to harbor them. Iran is different, run by an Islamic council, with an opposition movement inside and a fledging democracy next door - it does us no good to invade it. They have their own problems.

JMO.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by momof2inPA

The foreign policy debate should have been Bush's strongest debate. He failed miserably. Face it.

I started this thread with the proposition that Bush lost this debate - and it should have been his strongest point.

I have "faced it."

It is the source of my displeasure.

Other posters have used the thread as an opportunity to support Kerry's positions. I disagree with them and post responses as I see fit.

At no time am I arguing that somehow Bush "won" the debate.

He failed miserably. There is no excuse for his performance. I fear a strategy is in play to stay on the "defense" for the remaining time of the campaign. If he does that, he will lose to a lesser man - and to a man that is dangerous for our country.

I await the next debate with anxiety - whereas I went into the first debate with bounding confidence.

I wholeheartedly agree with Bush policy - and I wholeheartedly oppose Kerry's policy (as I interpret it based on his record - it is hard to know what his stated policy really is - or whether he himself actually believes what he says)

It pains me that style and stagecraft rather than critical issues are factors considered important by the "undecideds."

It pains me further that Bush cannot communicate effectively to these "undecideds" since this is a political "game" we are playing. In a perfect real world these "undecideds" would have no input on important matters - we would let them vote on the Oprah show about who had the most tear-jerking anecdote, but we assuredly would not ask them about anything important to national security.

But - this is not a perfect world - the "game" we are playing gives the "undecideds" as much political clout as the "well-informed" and the coming election seems to depend on who can "appeal" to the "undecideds" best - at the last minute. And my guy is not good at this game.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Here they go again with the offensive arrogance and utter stupidity that anyone who does not support George Bush has somehow forgotten 9/11.

No one's forgotten 9/11.

YAWN - again - what I, and others, are saying is not that you FORGOT about it, it is that you don't view it as RELEVANT to the new world we are facing.

You are using arguements that would have been the same on Sept 10.

You are failing to recognize that it is not a police action - designed to arrest only the "guilty - in a court of law."

You don't recognize the need to go on the offensive - anywhere - anytime - against anyone - with or without allies - to fight this war.

You are a partisan Democrat - IF there were a Democrat in the White House - with EXACTLY the same decision trail as Bush has - and with EXACTLY the same results as are now evident, you would be proclaiming that Democrat president as GREAT and UNBEATABLE.

And he probably WOULD be unbeatable. The GOP would certainly not perform the gutter tactic opposition to a national security issue like you Democrats are doing. You would have had the total support of the GOP in going after terrorists anywhere - anytime - anybody. The GOP would be COOPERATING with a Democrat president doing what Bush is doing. They ABSOLUTELY would not be trying to STOP him from doing his job.

Sadly, you are too partisan to admit it.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Rokkitsci
Hey - what a GREAT SUGGESTION - ROFLMAO

It is, however, true that I sincerely respect Kendra17 - both in her analytical prowess, and her command of the language, and her willingness to devote her time to articulating her arguements in a very powerful way.

She takes the time to actually present her analysis in a way that anyone who has the interest can understand. i have found little to disagree with on any post she has ever made.

She handles the expected "slings and arrows of outrageous insult" in stride - just ignoring the worst and commenting with substance on the not-so-bad.

My hat is STILL off to Kendra17 = consider us (at least for my part) joined at the brain = if you must.

Thanks, Rokkitsci!

 

[bsears]

If everything you read here is boring you so much why do you keep hanging around? Frankly, many of us find your condescending yawns growing extremely boring and tiresome.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Rokkitsci

You are a partisan Democrat - IF there were a Democrat in the White House - with EXACTLY the same decision trail as Bush has - and with EXACTLY the same results as are now evident, you would be proclaiming that Democrat president as GREAT and UNBEATABLE.

And he probably WOULD be unbeatable. The GOP would certainly not perform the gutter tactic opposition to a national security issue like you Democrats are doing. You would have had the total support of the GOP in going after terrorists anywhere - anytime - anybody. The GOP would be COOPERATING with a Democrat president doing what Bush is doing. They ABSOLUTELY would not be trying to STOP him from doing his job.

Sadly, you are too partisan to admit it.

DH (ooh! just kidding, just kidding!) --It IS a gutter tactic. Absolutely. . .a DANGEROUS gutter tactic. This is why I've said repeatedly, and have repeatedly gotten flamed for saying it, that the Democratic Party NEEDS to be reorganized. Using opposition to our National Security as a tactic was a huge mistake for this party. If they win in November, it will STILL be a mistake, but the Democratic party will be able to pretend it wasn't for a little while longer. If they lose in November--and I really think they will lose--hopefully they will take the time these next four years reclaim the honor they once deserved.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by bsears
If everything you read here is boring you so much why do you keep hanging around? Frankly, many of us find your condescending yawns growing extremely boring and tiresome.

Everything I read here does not bore me.

I do find it tiresome to have to AGAING slap down the same non-arguement the same poster has made many times on other threads without response there, yet seems to think that it can be effective if she just keeps on posting it.

I am condescending of that lack of intellectual honesty.

Once a point has been slam-dunked by an opponent, you really have only two choices and remain intellectually honest.

1) you can withdraw that comment until you can defend it.

2) you can defend it.

It is really tiresome = and worthy of condescention = to just repetitively make the same assertion.

You know - like a robot.


AND


if you find me boring and tiresome - then why bother to respond at all - and if you do respond why don't you say something??

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Rokkitsci
Everything I read here does not bore me.

I do find it tiresome to have to AGAING slap down the same non-arguement the same poster has made many times on other threads without response there, yet seems to think that it can be effective if she just keeps on posting it.

I am condescending of that lack of intellectual honesty.

Once a point has been slam-dunked by an opponent, you really have only two choices and remain intellectually honest.

1) you can withdraw that comment until you can defend it.

2) you can defend it.

It is really tiresome = and worthy of condescention = to just repetitively make the same assertion.

You know - like a robot.


AND


if you find me boring and tiresome - then why bother to respond at all - and if you do respond why don't you say something??

Or, you forgot number three, which is what they take advantage of a lot on the DisBoards. . .they can start denigrating your character.

Oh, oh, i'm sorry. . you did say choices that are intellectually honest. Yes, I'm sorry, you are correct. . .those two choices you gave are correct.

 

[AmyBeth68]

I wasn't going to respond to this post because I am BURNING mad at your insensitive comments, specifically your repeated references to "undecided idiots", and I know I will probably write something I regret. Furthermore, I certainly don't need to defend myself, or others like me, to you. However, I just HAD to get this off my chest!!! I am certainly a defender of your freedom of speech, so you are entitled to name-call all you want, but that was probably one of the more ignorant AND arrogant posts I have ever read on the dis.

I guess I should start by stating the painfully obvious "Hello, My Name Is Amy, and I'm an undecided idiot". Bet that made ya' feel all warm and fuzzy inside .

So here's my bio...shockingly I do plan to make the MOST informed decision that I can possibly make given all the junk we need to get through to find the truth. In the past I have been politically active, I have campaigned for candidates, I knew who I was voting for a year prior to the election. I also don't need to be reminded or patronized about the relevance of 9/11, I lost friends that day. Yes, I know that the world has changed and I feel that the stakes of this election are far greater than anything we have seen since WWII. So, my dear friend, I do not take this vote lightly. I am waiting for an epiphany, a lightening bolt, SOMETHING that fully convinces me that one of these men is the most capable leader and thus able to protect us from terrorists AND stabilize Iraq AND move our economy forward. No easy task to be sure. Add to that the burden of helping Iraq become a fully-functioning, autonomous and democratic country and you really start to up the ante. What about North Korea? What about Russia? What about the issues with immigration, healthcare, taxes, education.....OK!!! There are a lot of issues at hand. I need to do my homework. Voting is a right, it is a priviledge and I for one will not cast my vote lightly. So if that makes me ignorant.......

As for the debate...unfortunately the ridiculous "rules" don't really allow for hardy discourse between the candidates which, IMHO, would help me to see past all the rhetoric and gain better understanding. But I will do my best to stay informed AND try to ignore those on BOTH sides that make me want to vote for the other guy just to spite them . I may be ignorant....but I'm able to rise above this kind of @$#*.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by AmyBeth68
I wasn't going to respond to this post because I am BURNING mad at your insensitive comments, specifically your repeated references to "undecided idiots", and I know I will probably write something I regret.

You did great - nothing to regret - Your response was thoughtful and well presented. I appreciate that.

For the record, I have apoligized for the use of the word "stupid" and all its synonyms. I clearly mean to say "ignorant" which is entirely different.

My point - again - is exactly what you recognize - that this is THE most important election since WWII.

That to me means that anyone who cared would have been paying attention to the campaign of the Democrats over the past three years - and they would have already formed an opinion of President Bush over that same interval.

There is NOTHING that either candidate can say NOW which should get them off the hook for their performance over the past three YEARS.

Anything that "pops up" now - aside from some external event - should have no effect on your opinion.

Are you waiting to see which of Kerry's positions he has taken he will actually stick with on the last day of the campaign??

Are you waiting to see if somehow Bush will suddenly become a silver-tongued charmer?

Are you waiting to see if MAYBE there are WMDs in Iraq after all?

Are you waiting to see if one of the parties will totally reverse its position at the last minute??

IF you are still waiting for Kerry to explain his position - then that should be all you need to know - he is not qualified - that is if you have been paying attention. If you have not been paying attention, then do you really trust that what he says is what he means?

IF you are still waiting for Bush to "admit" that he lied about WMDs then that should be all you need to know - you already have your mind made up that Bush is a liar - so you should not be undecided - you should just admit you are for Kerry.

IF you are still waiting to see if the Democrat party or the GOP is better situated to defend America against terrorism, then you really have not been paying attention - and anything you learn in the next four weeks will be based on political 'spin.'

SO - my opinion remains - if a person is undecided at this point - the best I can say about them is that they have not been paying attention.

And I DO regret that such people have such an influence on THIS election. It has always been true - BUT - this IS the most important election since WWII.

I wish the ignorant and the apathetic had no decision power over the future of my grandchildren.

My apology again for the "insensitivity." To me this is of utmost importance. I have little patience with those who play political games with it. Or with those who don't care about it.

 

[AmyBeth68]

Apology accepted and I'd like to apologize for not reading through the whole thread before responding LOL. But I still can promise you that I'm not ill-informed. I actually listen to political talk radio several hours a day. I read several papers each day. The Drudge Report is the first site I visit...even before the Dis . I'm a political junkie, I studied international politics and used to work overseas. So PLEASE don't insult my grasp on the issues affecting this election or my reasons for being UNDECIDED!

I don't really like Kerry.

I actually think that Bush is a good person. I think that he has done a good job THUS FAR in protecting our homeland.

BUT....I don't think we should have gone to Iraq. I am truly opposed to us being in that country at this time. I agree that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. But if we go after every evil dictator on this earth then, well....where will it end?! I truly believe the billions of dollars spent on Iraq could have been put to better use for homeland security AND continuing the just war in Afghanistan.

So where does that leave someone like myself? I wish I had a better candidate to vote for. I don't know what Kerry will do and frankly he makes me nervous? I'm not happy with all of Bush's decisions and that makes me nervous! I agree that we have to stay in Iraq but I am very unhappy with how things have been handled since Bush stated "Mission Accomplished". If Bush could truly say WHY we are in Iraq. And I mean give us the real, whole no BS truth, then I would be willing to vote for him. I was really hoping that would happen on Thursday night. We all know that the WMD situation wasn't the only reason. For that matter N. Korea is a much greater threat and was at that time. Heck, Iran was farther along with WMDs than Iraq IMHO. Look...I just want him to be intellectually honest with us. Are they trying to create a Democracy in the Middle East for a greater purpose...for a greater strategic reason? Just tell me WHY we are there and I'd be willing to accept it and move forward. But for now, all I get is the same stuff "WMD Intelligence" and 9/11. Look....Iraq did not have involvement in 9/11 and our CIA intelligence on Iraq was wrong. But he won't admit that....and that is what really really bothers me. I'd be willing to accept either a mistake...or perhaps some explanation that makes sense to me. I have not heard either from the Bush administration.

So....there you have it. I still don't think you can call me ignorant. I know the stakes are high...I have a brother-in-law who just returned from serving in Iraq. I also have two small children who should have the joy of growing up in a safe and secure world. This is most certainly not a GAME to me or a decision which I take lightly.