Political Experience

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
According to Bush, the war was over long ago. Remember when he declared victory?

A "Mission Accomplished" banner on a ship returning to home port from duty, in NO WAY implied victory or the end of the war but democrats love to mislead.

 

[shortbun]

Originally posted by Rokkitsci
War is the one legitimate reason for going into debt that nobody can argue with.

The answer is obvious - WE will pay for it - meaning us - our children - our grandchildren, etc.

Of course, we could use the OLD method of paying for wars - demanding tribute from the defeated enemy. However this has been proven by history to ensure that the hostilities that prompted the war continue to fester and grow and become the cause for ANOTHER war that the grandchildren of the original warriors have to fight - and pay for - and the cycle continues.

We last learned that lesson in WWI - in WWII we went MORE into debt after the victory to make sure the defeated nations survived and prospered. Look at what was created - the defeated nations are now leaders in the world economy and no longer a direct threat to our grandchildren.

In this war, we are going one step further. We are trying to rebuid the "enemy's" nation while the war is still going on. We could of course have chosen to completely destroy Iraq and all its infra-structure and allowed famine and disease to do most of the dirty work = thereby saving a lot of OUR lives and fortune.

I don't advocate that and I am sure you would not either - but it is essentially what we did in Germany - and were threatening to do in Japan unless they surrendered immediately.

Instead, we have chosen to try to fight this war by only concentrating on the enemy PERSONNEL, thereby sparing the innocent inhabitants of the battlefield.

WHY??

If this military had been built by the draft - I would oppose the strategy of sparing THEIR innocents by putting more of OUR innocent draftees into harms way.

But, this is a volunteer force - and God bless them for that - I thank God every day that we have such willing patriots who will CHOOSE to put their lives on the line to defend the better principles of this nation. These volunteers know the current military doctrine - they know what they are doing.

I think that they only ask to not be used by vainglorious politicians - either in victory or defeat - either in heroics or mistakes - either in survival or death. They don't even want much acclaim.

They fight for honor.

Don't ever take that from them.

You have to decide whether it is "worth it" or not.

Like drama do we? Try out for a play!

 

[Galahad]

Remember when he declared victory?

Nope I don't. Must be my advanced age.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
And the governor of Texas doesn't have a lot of power either.

The office of governor of Texas is probably, as per the Texas Constitution, the weakest governorship in the US. The power that you mistakenly believe is vested in the Governor is really vested in the Lieutenant governor and his name, may he rest in peace, was Bob Bullock. Bob Bullock was running the state of Texas, not George Bush.

And as to Bush "owning the Texas Rangers", he was one of many managing partners and he acquired that status via a sweetheart deal with Eddie Chiles.

Like Bush all you want, but don't try to make a political titan out of him.

Be that as it may, both items on his resume give him much more experience than Kerry has ever had in his 20+ years in public service. By the same token, don't try ot make a political titan out of Kerry either. Few had ever heard of him until he started running for President.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Planogirl
No one is answering the question of who will pay for this war. I thought that conservatives hated massive amounts of government spending. It surprises me that the cost of the war and some of the other spending issues never come up in these discussions.

Hey, I would LOVE for Bush to stop trying to appease the liberals by spending so much on domestic programs that are outside the pervue of the Federal Govt. That would then allow us to be able to better afford the costs of the war.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
What makes you think they've retired now? Because there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the US in the 3 years since 2001?

There was no terrorist attack on American soil from 1993 to 2001, a total of 8 years.

Jump to conclusions much? I never suggested or implied they have retired. I'm simply commenting on the failed logic that because we are in Iraq terrorism is worse than it ever was. As if not going to Iraq would have placated them.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Jump to conclusions much? I never suggested or implied they have retired. I'm simply commenting on the failed logic that because we are in Iraq terrorism is worse than it ever was. As if not going to Iraq would have placated them.

And I believe it's failed logic that because we're fighting them Iraq, it means we won't be fighting them here.

Troops in Iraq do not translate into no terrorist attacks here.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
According to Bush, the war was over long ago. Remember when he declared victory?

Please provide the quote where he declared victory. Otherwise, have the decency to admit you are wrong.

Oh sure, he was a threat, but the question is, "How much of a threat? Why did we rush to war against him when everyone as saying he had NO WMD and other countries were KNOWN to have them?

I'm sorry, I must have missed where he complied with the myriad of UN resolutions and proved to the world he did NOT have WMD. When did that happen? How much of a threat do you want? Selling weapons to terrorists. Pointing missles at Israel?

Went to congress and even with many telling him not to, went to Iraq anyhow. That country is now in Chaos. I wouldn't call what state it is in now "free". We are appalled(or atleast I am) because of the choice to go to this country over the others and the spending. I want our 120Billion or so back in the US!

Do to what? Spend on failed social programs? We are fighting a war on terrorism. Don't you understand? How would you propose we fight it? Wait unitl we are attacked and then hunt people down? Are you so naive as to think that once OBL is proven to be caught or dead that terrorism will end? BTW, does anyone find it rather interesting that we've not heard anything from OBL since the final days of Tora Bora? No tape condeming Israel over Jenin? No tape commemorating the annivesary of Holy Tuesday? Hell, no tape condemning the invasion of Iraq by the Great Satan? Things the make you go..."hmmmmmmm"

You seem to be echoing what Kerry says in that Iraq is a long long way from the fight on terrorism. I'm guessing you studied history in a government school. Before 9/11 the last time we were attacked was Pearl Harbor, remember? So, what was our response? Remember? No, not the Disney version of Pearl Harbor where we attacked Tokyo (which we eventually did). Our very first land battle we fought was in Tunisia of all places. Why was that, do you think? I mean, Tunisia is a long long way from Japan. The reason that was was the Tunisia was the best front against Hitler and Mussolini. The word for this in military war is "foothold". A place where the enemy is weak. A place we can fortify and launch other attacks. As for Japan, we were not attacked by the Marshall Islands, but yet that's where we went. Why? (see answer above)

Terrorists have been fighting us in Iraq since "major combat operations ended". If there were no terrorists in Iraq, where did they come from?

Read a history book once.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
And I believe it's failed logic that because we're fighting them Iraq, it means we won't be fighting them here.

Troops in Iraq do not translate into no terrorist attacks here.

Thankfully no one looks to you for military planning advice

 

[missyc]

20 years (Kerry) vs 8 years (Bush)
Hmmmm.................quality vs quantity maybe?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by missyc
20 years (Kerry) vs 8 years (Bush)
Hmmmm.................quality vs quantity maybe?

How much experience can one really gain by doing nothing for 20 years?

 

[missyc]

Originally posted by dmadman43
How much experience can one really gain by doing nothing for 20 years?

This is exactly what I meant. Kerry's 20 years of holding any title is hardly enough to give him the right to claim superior qualifications over President Bush. Bush's 4 years as President of the most powerful country in the world give him so much more than all of Kerry's ever could. Even IF (and that's a BIG if!) you thought Kerry was wonderful at what he did and Bush was the worst president ever. There is still no comparison.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Thankfully no one looks to you for military planning advice

You just can't help yourself, can you.

Having a discussion with you is an utter and complete waste of time, effort, and energy.

I'm going back to taking the pledge: You aren't worth it.

Goodbye, adios, shalom, etc.

 

[diznygirl]

[Anything else they say is nothing more than window-dressing to cover up the fact that they simply oppose the MAN.

They will do anything - say anything - twist logic - defy truths - embrace evil - look for nits - ignore the obvious - employ semantical arguements - sacrifice their credibility - engage in smear tactics - ANYTHING to oppose the MAN.
[/B]

Well..... the MAN is president and is running for another term. If we aren't electing the MAN, whom ARE we electing? (I've already read the posts that say the answer is "Dick Cheney")

I'm sad to see the anti-Muslim comments here. I'm interested in comments on the candidates - pros and cons regarding their experiences that will help them in the office of the presidency.

I'm still having a hard time reconciling myself to the fact that Bush's experience with the Texas Rangers was better for his role in the Oval Office than Kerry's in the senate. Maybe if the Rangers won the World Series........

So far - Bush was governor for such a short time, apparently we've heard the Lt. Gov actually does all the work (much like Dick Cheney), the legislature in Texas only meets every two years - so there's not much to do, and Texas never went to war with anyone.....(and neither did Bush)....

So far - Kerry is a senator and senators don't run anything so he can't run the country, and he didn't do anything while he was there anyway.

This is from an AP story: "Kerry has been the lead sponsor of eight bills that have become law. Two are related to his work on the Senate panel on oceans and fisheries - a 1994 law to protect marine mammals from being taken during commercial fishing and a 1991 measure for the National Sea Grant College Program Act, which finances marine research.
In 1999, President Clinton signed his bill providing grants to support small businesses owned by women.
The rest of the laws he saw passed were ceremonial - renaming a federal building, designating Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day, National POW/MIA Recognition Day and World Population Awareness Week in two separate years."

What was Kerry doing all that time he was senator?

I find myself looking around for someone else to consider...

 

[oracle]

Originally posted by dmadman43


Please provide the quote where he declared victory. Otherwise, have the decency to admit you are wrong.

How's this for you?

"My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

You can save your predictable response.

 

[jfulcer]

Originally posted by Disney Doll
[BSpain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw their troops. Anyhitng else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished. The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast. If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the <b>Muslims</b>? If we can't stop the <b>Muslims</b>, how could anyone else? The <b>Muslims</b> fully know what is riding on this war and are therfore fully committed to winning at any cost. We better know it too..."

Don't kids yourselves that Iraq has no ties to Al Qaeda. They do. Stop the PC litany that "the Muslims are a peaceful people"...maybe the majority are, but the minority that aren't peaceful are after us, and the majority that are peaceful isn't speaking out against it. Pretty much (note I said pretty much) every act of terrorism against the USA since 1979 has been perpetrated by Muslim extermists...young men between the ages of 17-40. Let's not kid oursleves, let's stop the PC baloney, and throw it on the table.
[/B]

And people wonder why the entire middle east, and Muslims everywhere HATE the USA? Because statements like this brand EVERY Muslim a terrorist with garbage like this. (The quote did not say "A Small minority of Muslims need to be stopped"...) Like yuo said, every Muslim is NOT a terrorist. I know quite a few Muslims and they are all peaceful, caring people that are as appalled at the Terrorists as we are. The ones that I've directly talked with about it are ashamed that the extremists go to such lengths. Why are the extremists like this? Because even though ONE person wrote this, many thousands of Muslims will read this and say "wow, America sure is short sighted". The ones that were teetering on the edge will now say "America is out to kill us, let's kill them first".

This is like saying that because there are few bad priests that molest little kids that all priests are child molestors.

In addition I can think of many things that have happened inside our borders that can be considered terrorist, and they are not Muslims.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by oracle
How's this for you?

"My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

You can save your predictable response.

Predictable or not, what the President said was correct. Major combat operations did end and we did prevail. That did not mean the job was done, nor did it mean we wouldn't face combat again.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
You just can't help yourself, can you.

Having a discussion with you is an utter and complete waste of time, effort, and energy.

I'm going back to taking the pledge: You aren't worth it.

Goodbye, adios, shalom, etc.

Ouch. I'm hurt! Being relieved of your pedantic arrogance will be welcome.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by diznygirl
I'm a little confused on this - I've heard people say they are voting for Bush based on his record - that his is better than Kerry's. So I'm doing my research and I find that Bush was governor of Texas for 2 of his 6 years when he announced he was running for president. He served four years. And that the Texas Legislature only meets every 2 years. He did not serve in any politcal office before this - he was elected while he was working for the Texas Rangers baseball team. And he has been president now for 4 years.

Total politcal experience - 8 years

Meanwhile Kerry served 2 years as Lt. Gov. of Mass. and has been a US Senator for 20+ years.

Total experience - 22+ years.

So when people say they are voting for Bush based on his record I'm wondering - What record? Is it better that he has done nothing and that is better than Kerry who was in office and people don't like what he's done?

I'm still reading Kerry's voting records - I'll see if I agree with how he's voted on stuff.

In the meantime, what about the level of experience each candidate has?

Sooo......

What's worse, 8 years of nothing or 22 years of nothing?

Ah, sorry, this has already been covered. Carry on!!

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by diznygirl
I'm still having a hard time reconciling myself to the fact that Bush's experience with the Texas Rangers was better for his role in the Oval Office than Kerry's in the senate. Maybe if the Rangers won the World Series........

So far - Bush was governor for such a short time, apparently we've heard the Lt. Gov actually does all the work (much like Dick Cheney), the legislature in Texas only meets every two years - so there's not much to do, and Texas never went to war with anyone.....(and neither did Bush)....

So far - Kerry is a senator and senators don't run anything so he can't run the country, and he didn't do anything while he was there anyway.

Let me reiterate - you are making an arguement that was appropriate 4 years ago, but not today.

Bush now has three full years as president - you now have to consider whether or not to re-hire him. His qualifications for the job four years ago are now moot.

He has the job now. You either want to get rid of him or retain him based on what he has done in the past three years - in relation to the qualifications of the man you would replace him with.

Simple as that.