kerrys malaise vs GWB's Optimism

[Chef Jim]

We want reality, whether it is pleasant, optimistic or frightening.  By the way, you still haven't answered my question, how many Americans were killed by Saddam Hussein between 9/11 and our invasion of Iraq?  It is a simple question isn't it?

78665[/snapback]

 

I'll say zero Alex. So we wait until he does. How many Americans did Hitler kill prior to our entering WWII?

[John Adams]

GWB's plan (s) are pretty simple. he has done a good job of pointing them out publically. There is really not much question about what his plans are. The real question here is.....

77931[/snapback]

 

Yeah. Stop telling me about his "plans." He's had four years of Republican support in the Congress and Court. Tell me what he DID to shrink the size of government (gov't payrolls up 800,000 during his tenure). Tell me what he DID to curb the intrusion of government in my life. Tell me what he DID. i.e., the list of people he fired, when he found out he was wrong about WMDs. Staying on that topic for a minute, I know intelligence is a guessing game, but you know what, when we lose 1000 American lives and spend 200 billion and counting on a war whose underlying justification cannot be found, don't you think a few heads should roll? Tell me what he DID to reduce the deficit- even ignoring that he increased homeland security.

 

And on and on.

 

I don't need to hear Bush's plans. I know what he's about. Big government. Gut feelings. Some brand of idiotic loyalty where no one is accountable for their mistakes.

[DC Tom]

Tell me what he DID to shrink the size of government (gov't payrolls up 800,000 during his tenure). Tell me what he DID to curb the intrusion of government in my life.

79276[/snapback]

 

If that's a litmus test for a presidency, neither one of these yahoos should be elected.

[Alaska Darin]

Yeah. Stop telling me about his "plans." He's had four years of Republican support in the Congress and Court. Tell me what he DID to shrink the size of government (gov't payrolls up 800,000 during his tenure). Tell me what he DID to curb the intrusion of government in my life. Tell me what he DID. i.e., the list of people he fired, when he found out he was wrong about WMDs. Staying on that topic for a minute, I know intelligence is a guessing game, but you know what, when we lose 1000 American lives and spend 200 billion and counting on a war whose underlying justification cannot be found, don't you think a few heads should roll? Tell me what he DID to reduce the deficit- even ignoring that he increased homeland security.

 

And on and on.

 

I don't need to hear Bush's plans. I know what he's about. Big government. Gut feelings. Some brand of idiotic loyalty where no one is accountable for their mistakes.

79276[/snapback]

Your last paragraph pretty much described both of the supposed "choices" for November 2nd. Yeah, America!

[Mickey]

I'll say zero Alex.  So we wait until he does.  How many Americans did Hitler kill prior to our entering WWII?

78669[/snapback]

 

I think AD had a rule that the first one who brings up Hitler in a debate on the board loses. However, because I am in a good mood today I will let that one slide, besides the question that is disguised behind that poor comparison is a valid one, do we have to wait until we are attacked before we invade a country?

 

There are several reasons I think looking at how many Americans were killed by Saddam in that time period is a relevant inquiry. First, the President's father and Cheney left Saddam in power and did so for compelling reasons. From the end of the Gulf war until sometime after we invaded Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11, no one was seriously arguing that we should invade Iraq to take out Saddam. Republicans were not clamoring for Clinton to invade Iraq before 9/11. Everyone was willing to just keep on trying to contain him and swat him down once in a while whenever he got out of hand. Sure, people carped about that situation but no one was seriously talking about going to war with Iraq again. That didn't happen until 9/11 so I think you have to look at that period and see if there was some new reason to justify going after Iraq.

 

Surely, if Saddam could have killed Americans, is there any doubt that he would have? Fact is, he didn't. Now that means that he either was unable to do so or that despite his lunacy, he had decided that it wasn't what he wanted to do. He was either prevented or refrained from doing so. If prevented, why couldn't we go on preventing him? If he refrained, why were we suddenly seeing him as an imminent threat?

 

Maybe the question isn't a simple one of just whether he was or was not a bad guy. Maybe it was a more complicated question such as whether or not he was worth a war to remove. The President frequently says that we are safer with Saddam out of power as if that is a self evident proposition that needs no proof. No Americans were killed by him between 9/11 and our invasion. Since then over a thousand Americans have been killed and plenty of Iraqis, at least some of whom were innocent of having anything to do with Saddam. If losing a thousand lives makes us safer, would losing two thousand make us safer still? At what point do our losses in this war reach a point that one would conclude that Saddam was not, in fact, worth a war to remove? Maybe that question can't be answered yet since the war is still going on. Yet we certainly know more now than we did when this debate took place before the war.

 

Sure he was a threat, but how much of a threat was he? Sure I am glad he is gone but was the price we paid and are continuing to pay too much?

 

I am not trying to go after Bush here. I supported this war and now I want to see if I was wrong to have done so. Everyone who took a stand on the war can now take a look at what has happened and check up on the soundness of their original position.

[nobody]

Yea actually I did. Then I took a few asprin and tried to make sense of it. However, I ran out of asprin.

GWB's plan (s) are pretty simple. he has done a good job of pointing them out publically. There is really not much question about what his plans are.

 

 

Kerry's plan (s) are pretty simple. He has done a good job of pointing them out publically. There is really not much question about what his plans are.

[Alaska Darin]

Kerry's plan (s) are pretty simple. He has done a good job of pointing them out publically. There is really not much question about what his plans are.

79450[/snapback]

There are plenty of questions. You just choose not to ask them.

[Paco]

If Senator Kerry is saying that President Bush has done a lousy job isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

77771[/snapback]

It's like having stevestojan telling me I watch too much TV.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Kerry's "job" as a senator is to represent his state to the best of his abilities, and vote according to what the majority of the people that he represents want.  He's done it well enough to continue to get re-elected, and keep his "job".  Bush didn't, and won't keep his.

77778[/snapback]

 

 

I wouldn't be so sure...recent (this week) polls from Michigan and PA show the president either in a statistical tie or in the lead. If he takes EITHER or BOTH of those states, the party's over for the Johns.

[Paco]

I think it's interesting that the "I have a plan" mantra is getting beat up the way it is. There are two reason for this, I think. First and foremost, the GOP campaign machine destroys boulders while Kerry and his campaign machine can do little more than chew on pebbles. This is a direct result of Kerry micromanaging his campaign because he believes no one is better at running his campaign than he is.

 

Second, the Kerry folks needs to stop sending people to a website. While, yes, the internet is a wonderful tool, somewhere along the line it is believed that everyone has internet access, and that's just not the case. Even those WITH internet access dont' want to do any more than they have to do to hear what the plan is. This is a fundamental fault in the Kerry campaign in that it is a way to hide the weakness of his plans while living off the fact that people are inherently lazy and won't look even if they can.

 

To make matters worse, WHENEVER a Dem is asked about Kerry's "plans," the answers are always the same: go to the website, it's all there. That in an of itself sends the message, right or wrong, that the Kerry folks either don't know his plans or don't know how to sell them.

 

Kerry is the reason this topic keeps coming up. I wish Dems would stop looking at those of us asking for his plans as though we're backwoods morons when they can't even answer the question themselves.

[Johnny Coli]

I think it's interesting that the "I have a plan" mantra is getting beat up the way it is. There are two reason for this, I think. First and foremost, the GOP campaign machine destroys boulders while Kerry and his campaign machine can do little more than chew on pebbles. This is a direct result of Kerry micromanaging his campaign because he believes no one is better at running his campaign than he is.

 

Second, the Kerry folks needs to stop sending people to a website. While, yes, the internet is a wonderful tool, somewhere along the line it is believed that everyone has internet access, and that's just not the case. Even those WITH internet access dont' want to do any more than they have to do to hear what the plan is. This is a fundamental fault in the Kerry campaign in that it is a way to hide the weakness of his plans while living off the fact that people are inherently lazy and won't look even if they can.

 

To make matters worse, WHENEVER a Dem is asked about Kerry's "plans," the answers are always the same: go to the website, it's all there. That in an of itself sends the message, right or wrong, that the Kerry folks either don't know his plans or don't know how to sell them.

 

Kerry is the reason this topic keeps coming up. I wish Dems would stop looking at those of us asking for his plans as though we're backwoods morons when they can't even answer the question themselves.

79878[/snapback]

 

I agree that assuming people in rural areas have computers and directing them to the Kerry website seems dumb, and were this discussion taking place over a stump in northern Maine, you would be dead on. But I'm assuming RichIO has a computer, so when he keeps asking for "The Plan" and people keep directing him to the freaking pdf files on the website, well, I think it's appropriate.

[Rich in Ohio]

I agree that assuming people in rural areas have computers and directing them to the Kerry website seems dumb, and were this discussion taking place over a stump in northern Maine, you would be dead on.  But I'm assuming RichIO has a computer, so when he keeps asking for "The Plan" and people keep directing him to the freaking pdf files on the website, well, I think it's appropriate.

79882[/snapback]

 

 

hey johnny coli...you have to pay better attention. I already said earlier in thise thread that I have been out there to that website. The problem was, I ran out of asprin and I could get thru the gobbly gook.

 

My point is, can any normal american make sense of his plan, or simply put them into words? That is what I have been asking here. Not for his website spin, but for what you hav heard, and what you ae voting for.

 

If he is as articulate as the lefties claim, this should be an easy task.

 

What I saw was an incoherrant collection of babble that could be spun 30 differet ways. Again, typical kerry...this allows him to be all things to all people, and responsible for nothing.