So, what the hell, he makes mistakes!

from JoeUser Forums

According to Senator McCain he is voting for Bush because he showed great leadership when at ground zero he put his arm around the fire-chief and announced to the enemy we’re coming. Dramatic as it was, and admittedly the country was unanimously behind the President, this is insufficient reason to vote for one on the basis of one day. After all, three years have gone by and what was done in that time is the criterion for casting a vote. McCain further said that whether in agreement or not what the President says he means and the voter can take those words to the bank. This is peculiar thinking — though not, I suppose, coming from one with an eye on the White House in ‘08 — that doesn’t allow for assessing the wisdom of the President’s words, let alone the consequences. McCain himself has been highly critical of the president’s decisions and impels one to suspect that the senator cut a Machiavellian deal with Bush.

But two months from planting the seed of resolve at ground zero, the invasion of Afghanistan was an introduction to faulty thinking and a telling clue to his failure to do what he says by truncating that war before the region was thoroughly secured. Little did anyone at the time realize his short-span attentiveness had been switched to Iraq. Moreover, he did not even learn from the flimsy effort at Tora Bora and other pockets of resistance: he simplistically set out to conduct another war and again underestimated the enemy, despite advice to the contrary.

Had Gore or Clinton conducted a war in this sloppy manner, the public would be up in arms. But because Bush looked so good with the bullhorn and arm around the chief, and later in his flight suit on the aircraft carrier, substance doesn’t matter. Give me a break!

 

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: September 23, 2004.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

politics
8,723 views 29 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

All I can say is that I totally disagree with you.

In 4 years Bush got rid of Saddam and eliminated Al Qaeda's home base of operations and took out the Taliban at the same time.

Outstanding foreign policy handling IMO.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Great article, as always.

I can't understand why everyone assumes that Afghanistan is "mission accomplished." We are still fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Warlords are back in power. Our soldiers are still dying there. Civilians are still dying there. It's a mess in Afghanistan, and our mission there has suffered because of our misadventures in Iraq. Outstanding foreign policy handling? I don't think so.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
In 4 years Bush got rid of Saddam and eliminated Al Qaeda's home base of operations and took out the Taliban at the same time.


He caught Saddam, but turned the region into the quagmire he was warned it would become. Now the NYTimes reports the Pentagon is holding off on the next major offensive until mid November because it anticipates high casualties. In any case, a slew of REPUBLICAN senators are now challenging the White House claims to success in Iraq.

As Bush and his supporters are quick to point out when they defend (i.e. change) their rhetoric about "smoking out" bin Laden, there is no home base for Al Qaeda, nor any official leadership. And Al Qaeda is not gone. Damaged, maybe. Gaining new and angrier recruits, possibly. Stirred up like a hornets nest, definitely!

Nor did he take out the Taliban, as they mostly ran for the hills and now threaten to disrupt the much anticipated elections in Afganistan. It would be nice if we had enough soldiers and materiel in Afganistan to limit that disruption, but we pulled resources from there to support our actions in Iraq.

So maybe we could return to the list of legitimate criticisms of the Bush years before we tote out this questionable list of accomplishments?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do you really think that GW Bush is personally responsible for the planning and execution of the military action in Tora Bora? Unless we are willing to blatantly violate Pakastani sovereignty, we won't be able to use the US military to capture Al Qaeda/Taliban located there.

McCain has and still does support the invasion of Iraq. He hasn't always agreed with everything Bush has done, but they share the same underlying philosophy for winning the war on terror.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
unanimously behind the President


Not unanimously. There were a lot of us who say "oh, hell, here comes Imperator Bush." I was 100% behind the families of the victims. But being for my country doesn't mean I was for the president.

In 4 years Bush got rid of Saddam and eliminated Al Qaeda's home base of operations and took out the Taliban at the same time.


By all accounts, Al-Qaeda is alive and well with many bases of operation. The Taliban are still in control of parts of Southern Afghanistan and still killing American soldiers. Hussein is out of power, and that's the only one you list that is actually true, so 1 out of 3 GOP talking points isn't bad, eh?

George Bush, Dick Cheney and their sycophantic hand picked speech crowds seem to think that if we say something enough, then it will magically come true. Put of a banner that says "mission accomplished," and the insurgency will crumble. Keep saying "Iraq is on a road to democracy" and magically strongman Allawi will be able to hold elections. Say that Afghanistan is free, then put a guy like Karzai in power -- the type of person that gave rise to the Taliban backlash in the first place. Kerry said that Bush is living in a "fantasy world of spin," and I think truer words have never been spoken. Just cause Condi Rice says something doesn't make it true.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Give me a break!
Yes Stevendedalus, I too feel as if my head will explode.  Overall,  it's not how you play the game anymore but how you look while playing. 

Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
Last time I checked, Senator McCain just does not really like Kerry so he prefers Bush, can't he choose who he wants to vote for?

Or is that your decision?

McCain has his own reasons does he have to prove them to you?

Why can't he just vote and support the person?

Since when did he need people's approval on who he votes for?

- GX

"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Thanks, for the warm reception wisefawn.  My schedule hasn't alloted me much time for blogging as of late but I hope to start posting again somewhat.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Last time I checked, Senator McCain just does not really like Kerry so he prefers Bush, can't he choose who he wants to vote for?
Aren't McCain and Kerry friends?  Did he not denounce the Swift Boat adds on Kerry's defense?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't understand how you can say that Bush 2.0 is a master at foreign policy Drag. We are still playing "wheres Osama" in Afghanistan, and Iraq is a total mess right now. We have alienated most of the of the planet because of the current foreign policies of this administration (Bush's speech at the UN this week is plenty of proof of that, he didn't even get a golf clap at the end)

As far as McCain is concerned, i dont think he really likes either of them too much. He supports Bush 2.0 because he's a repub. But i think he agrees with Kerry more on the issues.
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
Aren't McCain and Kerry friends? Did he not denounce the Swift Boat adds on Kerry's defense?


First one, not the second or third. They maybe friends openly, but McCain does like Bush more, that and McCain wants Bush to win so he does not have to deal with Kerry when it comes around 2008 and McCain runs for President. Don't you think he does not want to have to deal with Kerry in 2008?

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
GX,

You analysis is untrue. If McCain really want to be president, he should accept Kerrry offer to be his VP mate. With McCain on his side, Kerry will probably win. Most republicans trust McCain very much. Of course the logic after that is: McCain will be president after Kerry leave office. Don't forget, as popular as McCain is. Being senator is the highest office he held. It is difficult for a senator to become a president, I think there is Kennedy is the only one after 1950 become president without a governorship or a Vice Presidentship. For what I understand, McCain although friend with Kerry doesn't like Kerry foreign policy approach. Don't forget that McCain strongly believe in the War on Iraq and never believe in that we need the French or German... look at his positions for the last 8 years.... it is always like that. The fact that Kerry kept on saying we need the France... doesn't really click with McCain. The following is a great quote from McCain, and he has used it more than one occasion: You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it
Reply #15 from PolMach Forums Top
If McCain really want to be president, he should accept Kerrry offer to be his VP mate


We are talking about the difference between 4 years and 8 years, which is the wiser choice to make if you were McCain?

Yeah he dislikes Kerry's view on the French, which France has gotten us into more trouble than they are worth, and they don't help because they are French.

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

You analysis is untrue. If McCain really want to be president, he should accept Kerrry offer to be his VP mate.
Kerry never would have chosen McCain anyway once he got the drift that McCain, the so-called renegade, was in reality a loyal ultraconservative. 

 

Why can't he just vote and support the person?
Of course, that's his prerogative, but why does he keep posing as freind of Kerry?

George Bush, Dick Cheney and their sycophantic hand picked speech crowds seem to think that if we say something enough, then it will magically come true. Put of a banner that says "mission accomplished," and the insurgency will crumble. Keep saying "Iraq is on a road to democracy" and magically strongman Allawi will be able to hold elections. Say that Afghanistan is free, then put a guy like Karzai in power -- the type of person that gave rise to the Taliban backlash in the first place. Kerry said that Bush is living in a "fantasy world of spin," and I think truer words have never been spoken. Just cause Condi Rice says something doesn't make it true.
Wow, what a great statement!

same underlying philosophy for winning the war on terror.
Oh, really, and just what is that philosophy so deeply underlying?

Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
Kerry never would have chosen McCain anyway once he got the drift that McCain, the so-called renegade, was in reality a loyal ultraconservative.


Wishful thininking.... The reality is that McCain turns Kerry down, not the other way.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
McCain might have been flattered by the courtship but he was never offered the ring when he balked at a nuptial agreement.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #5 By: jesusstayscrunchy - 9/23/2004 8:32:23 AM
George Bush, Dick Cheney and their sycophantic hand picked speech crowds seem to think that if we say something enough, then it will magically come true. Put of a banner that says "mission accomplished," and the insurgency will crumble. Keep saying "Iraq is on a road to democracy" and magically strongman Allawi will be able to hold elections. Say that Afghanistan is free, then put a guy like Karzai in power -- the type of person that gave rise to the Taliban backlash in the first place. Kerry said that Bush is living in a "fantasy world of spin," and I think truer words have never been spoken.


Gee jesusstayscrunchy sort of like what the Dems do huh?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gee jesusstayscrunchy sort of like what the Dems do huh?
Accentuating the positive when it does not exist is yet truth; citing the negative is necessarily false, eh?
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #20 By: stevendedalus - 9/26/2004 10:58:46 AM
Gee jesusstayscrunchy sort of like what the Dems do huh?
Accentuating the positive when it does not exist is yet truth; citing the negative is necessarily false, eh?


You know what? You need to READ before you post! Anyone with a half a brain could see what I was refering to!

they seem to think that if we say something enough, then it will magically come true.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then you should be more incisive when you cut and paste. Besides, in attributing spin to Dems "magically" becoming true, implies that what they spin is false. Half brain.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #22 By: stevendedalus - 9/27/2004 1:06:30 PM
Then you should be more incisive when you cut and paste. Besides, in attributing spin to Dems "magically" becoming true, implies that what they spin is false. Half brain.


Excuse me half-brain! SPIN IS FALSE! Think about it for awhile.....
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not entirely; spin is an offshoot of the truth, however caricatured or one-sided. Spinning a "road to democracy" despite the obstacles can nevertheless be possible, if not probable. The wrong reasons to go to war spins a perspective that is true, though unacceptable from another perspective. The element of falsity stems from extreme ideologies.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Spin is also a wartime propaganda tactic. During a time of war, a constant "spin" of the actual events and the actions of leaders has always been used to undermine their authority and cause discontent among the military, while robbing leaders of support at home. The fact that "votes" are what is being robbed somehow blinds people to the damage being done. Given the torrent of such now, I am at a loss how people can't see parallels between people like Ted Kennedy and Tokyo Rose...