Peter Posted September 11, 2004 Share Posted September 11, 2004 Three years ago, this country was attacked by Al Qaeda (not Iraq). A few days later, Bush went to Ground Zero. In the finest moment of his presidency, he said: "I can hear you. The rest of the world can hear you. And the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon." At that moment, I had the highest hopes and confidence in George W. Bush. The entire world was rallying around us. Moreover, with all of the goodwill that the US, and by extension this administration, had at that moment (around the world and in the country), there was so much that we could accomplish both overseas and at home. It was a tremendous moment in history. Although we were all in mourning, we rallied around each other and our government with a purpose -- which, at least in part was, in the words of George Bush was that "the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon." In my view, we squandered the opportunity that we had in order to cater to the pre-9/11 goals of the neocons in the administration who used the memory of 3,000 dead Americans for their own purposes. The neocons should have sold this war on its own merits and been up front with the reasons as well as the tremendous price that we have asked over 1,000 Americans and their families to pay as well as the billions of dollars that we all will have to pay. I realize that the neocons and unilateralists on this board disagree. That is your right. That is what makes this country great. We can disagree and hopefully be civil to one another at the same time. In the end, my high hopes (as both a citizen and a Republican) for this administration and the President have nearly evaporated. I just hope that, if GWB wins in November, that he will jettison the neocons and do more to fulfill the promise that all of us had for him (Democrats and Republicans) on that day in September nearly three years ago when it seemed that we could all unite around him and accomplish so much together. Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted September 11, 2004 Share Posted September 11, 2004 Hmm...I'll agree with you somewhat....The deal on Iraq is he had bad info..He trusted George "It's a Slam Dunk" Tenat on Iraq....That may be his biggest problem....But Tenat is currently unemployed...and Saddam Hussein is out of power. A good trade. Bush was and is still right for the job...We are not out of the woods yet and IMHO he will lead us better than Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 11, 2004 Share Posted September 11, 2004 Hmm...I'll agree with you somewhat....The deal on Iraq is he had bad info..He trusted George "It's a Slam Dunk" Tenat on Iraq....That may be his biggest problem....But Tenat is currently unemployed...and Saddam Hussein is out of power. A good trade. Bush was and is still right for the job...We are not out of the woods yet and IMHO he will lead us better than Kerry. 27066[/snapback] I'd say Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are his biggest problem... they are too eager to stick it to everyone like a bunch of wolves, and they are very abrasive and unwilling to accept any form of criticism, even though it is totally justified sometimes... In other words, they are never wrong, and those kinds of people make others suffer needlessly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Never liked Rumsfeld....Cheney is ok.....Woulda liked to seen Cheney ditched for Pataki or Powell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Powell, FOR SURE. I would NEVER hesitate to put him in ANY high-level position. A man to totally respect and admire, and to put total trust and faith in, unlike a lot of the other bozos. I have NEVER liked Pataki... he's MUCH too smug and arrogant for my taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 I have NEVER liked Pataki... he's MUCH too smug and arrogant for my taste. Hmm..Never got that vibe from him....Maybe because I am from NY he just seems like a regular guy to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Never liked Rumsfeld....Cheney is ok.....Woulda liked to seen Cheney ditched for Pataki or Powell. 27072[/snapback] Um, assuming W wins in November, Powell and Condi Rice are as good as gone from the Bush administrations cabinet. GW will have to find two others to fall on the sword for his inept (and corrupt) reign....still, I wouldn't have minded seeing Pataki there. There is a chance then, that someome would see to it that WNY gets some of the attention it needs..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Um, assuming W wins in November, Powell and Condi Rice are as good as gone from the Bush administrations cabinet. GW will have to find two others to fall on the sword for his inept (and corrupt) reign....still, I wouldn't have minded seeing Pataki there. There is a chance then, that someome would see to it that WNY gets some of the attention it needs..... 27204[/snapback] There's a typical WNY attitude. Let's hope someday a politician fixes the problems. Hard to believe that mentality still exists given that's the reason the mess exists in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 There's a typical WNY attitude. Let's hope someday a politician fixes the problems. Hard to believe that mentality still exists given that's the reason the mess exists in the first place. 27330[/snapback] When you haven't got a legitimate choice in candidates due to the two-party system, you hardly HAVE any chance to solve the problems. Fix the system FIRST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunTheBall Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Um, assuming W wins in November, Powell and Condi Rice are as good as gone from the Bush administrations cabinet. GW will have to find two others to fall on the sword for his inept (and corrupt) reign....still, I wouldn't have minded seeing Pataki there. There is a chance then, that someome would see to it that WNY gets some of the attention it needs..... 27204[/snapback] If W wins the election, why will he have to find anyone to fall on the sword? I agree that Rice and Powell will likely be gone but I don't think that if a guy wins the US Presidency he's going to feel bad about his "inept and corrupt reign". Why would the american people re-elect someone who was inept and corrupt? RunTheBall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 When you haven't got a legitimate choice in candidates due to the two-party system, you hardly HAVE any chance to solve the problems. Fix the system FIRST. 27351[/snapback] The system is of the people and by the people. There are plenty of candidates out there - but too many are unwilling to break from tradition to vote for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 The system is of the people and by the people. There are plenty of candidates out there - but too many are unwilling to break from tradition to vote for them. 27382[/snapback] Votes aren't enough!! The MONEY for campaigns flow DIRECTLY through one of major two parties, and therefore their message is drilled into everyone's head, and the sheer NUMBERS drown the other guys in elections. It's about unity in solving the problem... it can't be just a loose, scattered electorate that makes the change.. a MOVEMENT is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 If W wins the election, why will he have to find anyone to fall on the sword? I agree that Rice and Powell will likely be gone but I don't think that if a guy wins the US Presidency he's going to feel bad about his "inept and corrupt reign". Why would the american people re-elect someone who was inept and corrupt? RunTheBall 27362[/snapback] Sorry, I was just making the point that Powell and Rice seem to be the official apologists for the Bush administration. You will never hear George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rummsfeld, Tom Ridge, or anyone else ever admitt that everything is not going just the way they had planned things. In, they more often than not would suggest, to question them is inappropriate. They will answer with some "hot" words like "terror", "terrorosits" "evil", "evil doers", "September 11th", "9/11", "Iraq", "liberating Iraq", etc. etc. Powell and Rice are the only ones who have ever tried to answer the "hard questions" put to the administration, without smug arrogance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Votes aren't enough!! The MONEY for campaigns flow DIRECTLY through one of major two parties, and therefore their message is drilled into everyone's head, and the sheer NUMBERS drown the other guys in elections. It's about unity in solving the problem... it can't be just a loose, scattered electorate that makes the change.. a MOVEMENT is required. 27393[/snapback] Sure. And as long as there are people out there willing to swallow the thing like a salmon on the Kenai, it'll continue. I prefer to watch what they do, not what they say. Hence the reason I don't vote for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts