George Bush: What does America like about his leadership?

from PolMach Forums
I must know: why did America Re-elect a George Bush. Admittedly, Kerry had his weak points, but Bush didn't have a strong point! He lost 820,000 jobs, drove the surplus of the 90's into a multibillion-dollar deficit, hrt education so bad that it's embarrassing, made healthcare a thing of the past, did away with the environment, led us into a black hole with no good solution, let Osama bin Laden live to see 2004, and repulsed traditional allies, all the time governing as if he had a seventy percent majority of approval, instead of a forty-six percent. I will now go into depth with a few that people aren't getting.

1. I will admit that 9/11 hurt the economy, but this is beyond 9/11. I refuse to believe that the entire deficit is a product of three buildings. Even if it were, are you telling me that we let the guy who orchestrated the attacks get away? Then, six months later, we're done with Osama, and have decided we need to kick Saddam's butt over in Iraq. WHERE IS THE LOGIC? So we go over to the UN, and give "facts" about Saddam's WMD's. I'll tell you a secret! Not only were we basing this war on WMDs, but it turns out he had none! The other thing that the Bush admistration wants you to forget is the third choice! There was: take the word of a madman, Go to war immediately, OR wait a couple of months for the inspectors to finish, find out there are no weapons, tell the UN that Saddam needs to be removed, have the support of the UN, have more coutries to share the burden, and prevent the alienation of nations. Just think, at least twenty thousand innocent Iraqis dead, at least one thousand soldiers dead, just because Bush couldn't wait for the inspectors to finish. Meanwhile, somewhere in Tora Bora, Osama bin Laden waits and schemes for next time...

More absolute truths to follow on more that was mentioned at the beginning...
politics
5,567 views 11 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ouch. I want to read this, but I can't because of the font and color.
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
The font is really bad. However, I can copy and paste the text to somewhere else like right here:

I must know: why did America Re-elect a George Bush. Admittedly, Kerry had his weak points, but Bush didn't have a strong point! He lost 820,000 jobs, drove the surplus of the 90's into a multibillion-dollar deficit, hrt education so bad that it's embarrassing, made healthcare a thing of the past, did away with the environment, led us into a black hole with no good solution, let Osama bin Laden live to see 2004, and repulsed traditional allies, all the time governing as if he had a seventy percent majority of approval, instead of a forty-six percent. I will now go into depth with a few that people aren't getting.

1. I will admit that 9/11 hurt the economy, but this is beyond 9/11. I refuse to believe that the entire deficit is a product of three buildings. Even if it were, are you telling me that we let the guy who orchestrated the attacks get away? Then, six months later, we're done with Osama, and have decided we need to kick Saddam's butt over in Iraq. WHERE IS THE LOGIC? So we go over to the UN, and give "facts" about Saddam's WMD's. I'll tell you a secret! Not only were we basing this war on WMDs, but it turns out he had none! The other thing that the Bush admistration wants you to forget is the third choice! There was: take the word of a madman, Go to war immediately, OR wait a couple of months for the inspectors to finish, find out there are no weapons, tell the UN that Saddam needs to be removed, have the support of the UN, have more coutries to share the burden, and prevent the alienation of nations. Just think, at least twenty thousand innocent Iraqis dead, at least one thousand soldiers dead, just because Bush couldn't wait for the inspectors to finish. Meanwhile, somewhere in Tora Bora, Osama bin Laden waits and schemes for next time...

More absolute truths to follow on more that was mentioned at the beginning...
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
OR wait a couple of months for the inspectors to finish, find out there are no weapons, tell the UN that Saddam needs to be removed, have the support of the UN, have more coutries to share the burden, and prevent the alienation of nations.


How are the inspectors going to finish the job? They didn't finished in 12 years. You want to spend another 12 years? Bush will never get the support of UN that is ridiculous. France has said that it doens't matter if Saddam has WMD or not, France will under no condition allow an invasion. Russia and China was very strong in their opposition, although not as strongly phased like the French. How do you get the support of the UN if one of the five permanet members: France , veto. Hasn't the recent discovery of the oil-for-food cooruption shown you that the French was already bought by Saddam? The fact Saddam actually get a kick-back from French.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wow....whats with that pink bold font....ouch! My eyes hurt after drilling thru that article. Anyway, As these points have been hashed and rehashed into the dirt a thousand times, I wont go into the painful details. It boils down to this. A majority of this country (me included) understands that our complacency in the past has brought us to our current situation in the present, and what we do now will undoubtedly have a profound effect on our future. Considering what we now know about the UN's corruption, it would seem foolish to take Kerry's route of leaving critical national security issues to a "global test".

Were I living in a vacuum, your points might seem more credible but...........
1. Granted, thousands of jobs were lost while Bush has been in office but anyone paying attention to the economy 6 months before Clinton left office could see that coming. Econ 101.
2. Exactly how did Bush personally "hurt" education?
3. Bush made healthcare a thing of the past? HUH? Everyone I know still has their healthcare and we're just average joe's. Of course millions don't have healthcare but thats not a change from the previous administration. I'm all for everyone having coverage but don't tax me into the poor house to do it!
4. Did away with the environment??......again, How exactly? Throwing out wild exaggerations to make a point doesn't usually work too well.
5. The "where's Osama" crap is rather simplistic. He has a multi-million dollar bounty on his head and he's hiding in a cave somewhere. Whats he done since 9-11? A few harsh video tapes! He knows the second he comes up for air he'll be pushing up daisys and chatting with allah. No one has forgotten about Osama, least of all, Bush.
6. Wait a couple of months for inspectors to finish?!!! How old are you? Saddam and the inspectors were given 12 YEARS to finish and all that was accomplished was Saddam got 21 BILLION dollars richer from the oil for food SCAM. Yes, thats Billion with a "B". You can thank a few of our "traditional allies" for making that happen.

It gives me great hope that most Americans disagreed with you and Michael Moore on Nov 2. It's the democratic party that needs real change if it expects to be a force in the future, not the rest of America.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
1. Granted, thousands of jobs were lost while Bush has been in office but anyone paying attention to the economy 6 months before Clinton left office could see that coming. Econ 101.


Yes. Anyone who take notice of the stock market should have known the stock purged six month before Bush was in office. The speed the stock price went down is probably the fastest in our history. The economy production usually follows with the stock market and the job market follows that of the production market. Job lost is not as horrible as you think. What is today unemployment rate? 5.4% I believe. What is USA average unemployment rate: 6.5%. Oh yeah, the unemployment rate is so horrible. I wonder how people used to live. Yes, Bush trash the eocnomy so bad that we have a less than average unemployment rate. Yes.

I found the link:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/03/news/economy/jobless_august/

To reiterate the point, Clinton cannot handle Saddam in 12 years using oil sanction and weapon inspectors. Either, you believe Bush is a superman and significantly better than Clinton so that he can use inspectors to get the weapon program rooted out, or you are just out of your mind. Give me one reason, why you think the weapon inspectors can finished the job in less than a year?

Twenty thousands Iraqis died? I believed most of the number I read is Ten thousands. Anyway, that is a minor point. Do you know the oil sanction starves 5000-6000 Iraqi children to death every MONTH? So, if the oil sanction were to continue for one more year: 60 000 Iraqi children (under 5 years old) would have been dead. That is to say if we didn't invade Iraq, that is the price, Iraqis has to paid. Maybe that explains the recent polls that most Iraqis think the invasion is just and that they want Bush to be relected. Thank you for weighting in all the facts. Secretary Albright in her 1996 interview said that the oil sanction is worth it even in the face of a half million children death. I would said, at least in this invasion, the 10 000 Iraqis killed, some of them are terriost and some are soliders in battlefield, they are not kids under 5. More importantly there is better goal in this invasion process: a free-er Iraq. I like you explain to me when Albright said it is worth it to have a half million children starved under sanction. What is she refer to as "it"? What exactly was the goal?

http://home.comcast.net/~dhamre/docAlb.htm
http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=1008414&
http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/iraq.html Thank you for your "No War but Continue Oil Santion" support. You are so much more humane than us. Your absolute truths are baised. They do not weight in all possiblity. It only talked about how many Iraqis got killed because of the war. It does not mention the number of Iraqi children would have been killed if we didn't go to war. That is a very honest move.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Even if it were, are you telling me that we let the guy who orchestrated the attacks get away? Then, six months later, we're done with Osama, and have decided we need to kick Saddam's butt over in Iraq. WHERE IS THE LOGIC?
Yeah. I didn't understand the logic when FDR decided to allocate most of the war resources against German when it was Japan which attacked us in Pearl Harbor. In fact, worse than Bush. Bush at least significantly weaken Al -Qaeda before he went after Saddam. FDR went after German without touching Japan. Yeah, I don't understand the FDR. Seriously, if you even have to ask that question. ....
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you look around JU, you'll find plenty of arguments why George W. Bush was the better choice.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am just sick of people who claimed to care about Iraqis by saying the War on Iraq inflicted heavy causalty on them. As oppose to the oil sanction was more humane? Killing Iraqi people at rate ten times faster and target children instead of terriosts.

Be realisitic. When you say no to war, you are saying yes to the statue quo, which is the oil sanction.
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
I must know: why did America Re-elect a George Bush


Blah Blah Blah... Democrat talking points parroted again. This has all been adressed ad infinitum, read some of the other posts.