And what was Bush doing 35 years ago?

[_BiB_]

Yeah, actually.  The War on Terror is never going to be a force-on-force war.  As an asymmetric conflict that's likely to last two generations at least, public perception counts far more than the commitment of a CVBG for six months.  The war's going to be won, for better or worse, on public perception, not on behind-the-scenes commitments of a couple squadrons of tired old Super Etendards.

6733[/snapback]

 

Those other countries don't care about us. We need to care about us. Raoul the croissant maker is not going to help us root out an AQ cell in Marseilles. You know my ideas on the strategies and outcomes here. France, Germany, Russia and several others were given a chance to play ball in a big way, they said "non" and "nein" and "nyet". Why, is pretty obvious once you start to look. Awful lot of non-existent WMD precursors in Iraq have French packaging. some really fine German built bunkers Sadaam has under the palaces. Nice Russian reactors, BTW. Lots of money to be lost out there. So we are supposed to say, OK-we won't play because you won't play with us. Here, let me hold the door open while your buddies come over to blow up my country. Let's diplomatically discuss this. Odd how the countries that did ally with us pretty well didn't have a few billion tied up in Iraq.

[beaker]

What exactly do you like about George Bush?

 

It's been too long a day to go into detail on this tonight, but I will tell you the first thing that comes to mind, and I'll elaborate tomorrow should the opportunity presents itself.

 

I like the fact that he (Bush) doesn't waver. I like his stability. I like the fact that his message never changes on the issues that are important to me....

 

Oh, whatdayaknow...it's the lack of these traits that dictate exactly what I hate about Kerry.

 

This is an interesting answer. I think a lot of people in America share this viewpoint, too.

 

What I don't understand is WHY people put so much value on stability and not wavering.

 

Suppose, for example, I do something stupid at work that ends up unnecessarily costing my company thousands of dollars. And rather than stop doing that stupid thing, I continue to do it, over and over again, claiming that I'm correct in doing so. I'd probably get fired. In business, if you don't acknowledge your mistakes and correct them quickly, you can go out of business.

 

In the business world, if a company changes direction, it's called a tactical move. But when a Presidential candidate changes direction, it's called a weakness. Why is this? Why are people so attracted to a President who stubbornly pursues the same course of action no matter what?

 

My theory is that Americans enjoy living under the illusion that their President is wise and never makes mistakes. He's sort of a father-figure... someone you trust to always make the right decisions. People like to think, "Sure Iraq seems like a quagmire now, but our President sees the bigger picture. He (and his advisors) are much smarter than we are, and they'll do the right thing."

 

Basically, if you have a confident, non-wavering President, it's easier to live under the illusion that everything is fine. It means you can go home at night, watch sitcoms and reality TV, and not think too deeply about national and international issues... because the President has all of that under control. The President will do all the deep thinking for you, thank you very much. Ignorance is bliss.

 

A while ago, I stumbled over the following quote:

 

"Cults thrive on the belief that they have all the answers. That's why, in politics, conservatives and radicals often constitute cults whereas liberals do not."

 

When I read it, I thought it was a stupid quote because Democrats like to pretend they have all the answers too. I still think it's a stupid quote. But maybe there's a slim grain of truth to it.

[IDBillzFan]

Suppose, for example, I do something stupid at work that ends up unnecessarily costing my company thousands of dollars. And rather than stop doing that stupid thing, I continue to do it, over and over again, claiming that I'm correct in doing so. I'd probably get fired. In business, if you don't acknowledge your mistakes and correct them quickly, you can go out of business.

 

Because there is a difference between intent, actions, and results.

 

Did you do something stupid at work with the intent of doing something stupid? Or did you have good intentions, but bad execution? In that case, you maintain your intentions and change your execution. Bush has not been afraid to tweak the execution to some extent. But he never strays from his intentions.

 

The problem with Kerry is, he keeps changing his intentions.

[beaker]

Because there is a difference between intent, actions, and results.

 

Did you do something stupid at work with the intent of doing something stupid? Or did you have good intentions, but bad execution? In that case, you maintain your intentions and change your execution. Bush has not been afraid to tweak the execution to some extent. But he never strays from his intentions.

 

The problem with Kerry is, he keeps changing his intentions.

7444[/snapback]

I believe people generally do things with good intent... including George Bush. His problem / virtue(?) is that he continues down whatever path he's chosen, regardless of what the results are. The build-up to the Iraqi war is a good example. Bush was determined to go to war, on his timeline, regardless of what the weapons inspectors or the international community were telling him.

[Alaska Darin]

I believe people generally do things with good intent... including George Bush.  His problem / virtue(?) is that he continues down whatever path he's chosen, regardless of what the results are.  The build-up to the Iraqi war is a good example.   Bush was determined to go to war, on his timeline, regardless of what the weapons inspectors or the international community were telling him.

7471[/snapback]

Probably didn't have anything to do with the military opportunity and the small weather window available to invade a desert country. Nah, couldn't be that.

 

Couldn't be the non-compliance with the toothless resolutions backed by the spineless international community who were far more concerned about their personal gain from graft. Nah.

 

What a crock of stevestojan.

[_BiB_]

Once again, when you objectively look at the situation, I just can't fathom how one would hand over the reigns to this country to John Kerry.

 

Leggo my Eggo.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Probably didn't have anything to do with the military opportunity and the small weather window available to invade a desert country.  Nah, couldn't be that.

 

Couldn't be the non-compliance with the toothless resolutions backed by the spineless international community who were far more concerned about their personal gain from graft.  Nah.

 

What a crock of stevestojan.

7477[/snapback]

 

Personal gain from graft? I think Haliburton, General Dynamics, Raytheon, etc. have greatly increased their coffers from those WMD that were SUPPOSED to be a huge threat to the US, and a Hussein who SUPPOSEDLY had Al-Qaeda connections. I DO NOT doubt the fact that Germany, Russia, and France's lack of support for the war WAS because they had great monetary interest in keeping Saddam in power, and I said that frequently throughout... BUT...

 

You cannot defend the fact that some of Bush's BIGGEST campaign supporters and contributors had a GREAT MONETARY INTEREST in going to war with Iraq. Eisenhower was RIGHT ON when he feared that complex he spoke of so many years ago.

 

The UN resolutions that ISRAEL breaks contantly are NEVER followed up by the US, which cause us a HELL of a lot more problems in the region than Saddam. We don't even NEED to go to war with them!

 

NO ONE STILL has answered why in the HECK we started this war when Bin Laden is still out there. IT IS UNDEFENDABLE.... and it makes me very angry. ZEIGLER Saddam... I want Osama.

[Arondale]

I believe people generally do things with good intent... including George Bush.  His problem / virtue(?) is that he continues down whatever path he's chosen, regardless of what the results are.  The build-up to the Iraqi war is a good example.  Bush was determined to go to war, on his timeline, regardless of what the weapons inspectors or the international community were telling him.

7471[/snapback]

 

I understand you are trying to make a point, but your example also speaks against what you are saying. With the Iraq war, Bush was the one who didn't continue down the chosen path regardless of the results. For a decade the weapons inspectors and the international community, including the US, stuck to the same chosen path, despite Saddam's obvious defiance. Bush is the one who took the correct yet unpopular path because he chose not to continue to let Saddam play games. He is the only one that stuck by the UN resolution to use force, instead of hiding behind the same old chosen path that produced no results for over a decade.

 

Not only does Bush do things with a good intent, he does what he believes is right and he stands behind his principles. John Kerry does what is safe, what is politically beneficial and will change his principles in a heartbeat. His record shows it. That is just one reason why I am voting for Bush.

[IDBillzFan]

I understand you are trying to make a point, but your example also speaks against what you are saying.  With the Iraq war, Bush was the one who didn't continue down the chosen path regardless of the results.  For a decade the weapons inspectors and the international community, including the US, stuck to the same chosen path, despite Saddam's obvious defiance.  Bush is the one who took the correct yet unpopular path because he chose not to continue to let Saddam play games.  He is the only one that stuck by the UN resolution to use force, instead of hiding behind the same old chosen path that produced no results for over a decade.

 

Not only does Bush do things with a good intent, he does what he believes is right and he stands behind his principles.  John Kerry does what is safe, what is politically beneficial and will change his principles in a heartbeat.  His record shows it.  That is just one reason why I am voting for Bush.

7630[/snapback]

Well put.

 

BiB is right when he qualifies his statement by saing "when you look at it objectively." The Dem's hatred for Bush, coupled with the obvious bungling of the Kerry campaign, does not permit Democrats to see things objectively. They see what they want to see, they repeat what they're told to repeat, and if you do not agree with them, then you are wrong.

 

I have said many times; it is impossible to debate or argue with a person who believes you are wrong simply because you do not agree with their way of thinking.

[BRH]

Well put.

 

BiB is right when he qualifies his statement by saing "when you look at it objectively." The Dem's hatred for Bush, coupled with the obvious bungling of the Kerry campaign, does not permit Democrats to see things objectively. They see what they want to see, they repeat what they're told to repeat,  and if you do not agree with them, then you are wrong.

 

I have said many times; it is impossible to debate or argue with a person who believes you are wrong simply because you do not agree with their way of thinking.

7708[/snapback]

 

Thank you for setting us all straight. It's much easier to discuss things with people when you understand that the only objective way of looking at things is their way of looking at things. I feel better now.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Well put.

 

BiB is right when he qualifies his statement by saing "when you look at it objectively." The Dem's hatred for Bush, coupled with the obvious bungling of the Kerry campaign, does not permit Democrats to see things objectively. They see what they want to see, they repeat what they're told to repeat,  and if you do not agree with them, then you are wrong.

 

I have said many times; it is impossible to debate or argue with a person who believes you are wrong simply because you do not agree with their way of thinking.

7708[/snapback]

 

All right then.. let's see. What has Bush done wrong since he has been president?

Has he done anything wrong?

 

I'm curious to find out the answer.

[LasBillz]

Probably didn't have anything to do with the military opportunity and the small weather window available to invade a desert country. Nah, couldn't be that.

 

Couldn't be the non-compliance with the toothless resolutions backed by the spineless international community who were far more concerned about their personal gain from graft. Nah.

 

Let's see, AD. Logically following your claims, when we went into Iraq, we should have found huge warehoses full of WMD's. Nuclear weapons. Chemical weapons. Bin Laden's phone number.

 

But...we didn't, did we? Why? Because the countless inspections worked! When Blix said there were no WMD's, he was right! Saddam's regime was a shell, due to the trade restrictions and, you must admit, the UN inspectors.

 

Not bad for being "toothless".

 

The point you fail to see is that Saddam was precisely where we wanted him- under the microscope, helpless. Finding nothing there proves this.

 

Now what we have is a war that Bush wants to expand into Iran, thus involving most of Islam against us.

 

Yep, that Dubya is brilliant.

[Alaska Darin]

Let's see, AD.  Logically following your claims, when we went into Iraq, we should have found huge warehoses full of WMD's.  Nuclear weapons. Chemical weapons.  Bin Laden's phone number. 

 

  But...we didn't, did we?  Why?  Because the countless inspections worked!  When Blix said there were no WMD's, he was right!  Saddam's regime was a shell, due to the trade restrictions and, you must admit, the UN inspectors. 

 

  Not bad for being "toothless".

 

  The point you fail to see is that Saddam was precisely where we wanted him- under the microscope, helpless.  Finding nothing there proves this. 

 

   Now what we have is a war that Bush wants to expand into Iran, thus involving most of Islam against us. 

 

   Yep, that Dubya is brilliant.  

7866[/snapback]

I'm not sure I understand the logic of finding WMD vs the timeline of waiting another 6 months martialed outside the border of Iraq waiting for the right weather to attack a desert country.

 

The inspections weren't working. I'm alot more concerned that they haven't found anything.

 

It's a good thing that those companies didn't get any contracts from the government before the current administration took office [/sarcasm]

 

I was against the war, pinhead.

[KRC]

I'm not sure I understand the logic of finding WMD vs the timeline of waiting another 6 months martialed outside the border of Iraq waiting for the right weather to attack a desert country.

 

I was against the war, pinhead.

7924[/snapback]

 

...but...but...Bush Bad.

[erynthered]

I'm not sure I understand the logic of finding WMD vs the timeline of waiting another 6 months martialed outside the border of Iraq waiting for the right weather to attack a desert country.

 

The inspections weren't working.  I'm alot more concerned that they haven't found anything.

 

It's a good thing that those companies didn't get any contracts from the government before the current administration took office [/sarcasm]

 

I was against the war, pinhead.

7924[/snapback]

 

 

"Pinhead" I like that. Can I use that?

[KRC]

It's a good thing that those companies didn't get any contracts from the government before the current administration took office [/sarcasm]

7924[/snapback]

 

You mean that Haliburton got no-bid contracts BEFORE Bush took office? This can't be right. There is nothing on this website about that.

[Alaska Darin]

You mean that Haliburton got no-bid contracts BEFORE Bush took office? This can't be right. There is nothing on this website about that.

7936[/snapback]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the premise that the military/industrial complex is very dangerous to our way of life. I'm simply not stupid enough to think only one side of the aisle is guilty of engaging in this sort of behavior.

 

You ain't either. Apparently a few here are.

[_BiB_]

  Let's see, AD.  Logically following your claims, when we went into Iraq, we should have found huge warehoses full of WMD's.  Nuclear weapons. Chemical weapons.  Bin Laden's phone number. 

 

  But...we didn't, did we?  Why?  Because the countless inspections worked!  When Blix said there were no WMD's, he was right!  Saddam's regime was a shell, due to the trade restrictions and, you must admit, the UN inspectors. 

 

  Not bad for being "toothless".

 

  The point you fail to see is that Saddam was precisely where we wanted him- under the microscope, helpless.  Finding nothing there proves this. 

 

  Now what we have is a war that Bush wants to expand into Iran, thus involving most of Islam against us. 

 

  Yep, that Dubya is brilliant. 

7866[/snapback]

 

On what basis do you come up with these brilliant leaps of logic? Were you there? Anyone ever tell you that you generally show that you have no idea what you are talking about? Can you do anything besides sit in the manure field and wildly sling what you are sitting in into the air?

[Alaska Darin]

On what basis do you come up with these brilliant leaps of logic? Were you there? Anyone ever tell you that you generally show that you have no idea what you are talking about? Can you do anything besides sit in the manure field and wildly sling what you are sitting in into the air?

7944[/snapback]

CNN and the DNC website told him it was so.

[erynthered]

Dont worry, help is on its way.

 

 

Kerry Bail bonds