LK ONE - 10/28/2004 10:20 PM
MikeV - 10/28/2004 1:08 PM
kvining - 10/27/2004 6:06 PM
MikeV - 10/27/2004 7:47 PM
He's the man. Look for him in '08.
He's liberal on certain social issues, stem cell research, etc. and a hawk on terrorism.
Bush will win this election, if he doesn't and Kerry wins I think the next large attack on the US will push the electorate far to the right for years.
What's this obsession for Obama, he gives one speech and you guys are in love?
Let me get this straight - we suffer the largest terrorist attack in history while Republicans are in office, but an attack will only occur if a Democrat is elected? How does that make any sense at all?
I think you oversimplify things. Bush was in office 8 months when 9-11 happen. From the posts I've read of yours you're either unwilling or unable to look at things objectively and without your bias. I'm biased, but I often times can and do put those biases aside for the sake of arguement. Okay, back to my argument, most people realize that Clinton did nothing for 8 years in the face of terrorism, the first WTC, Embassy bombings, Somolia (not terrorism, but against Islamo-crazies) USS Cole, etc. So the fact that 9-11 happen on Bush's watch meant little in the eyes of "most" Americans. Even today in the latest polls, over 60% (and even up to 70% in some polls) of Americans feel that Bush will keep America safer than would John Kerry. Hell, even Putin said last week that "Terrorism will get stronger if Bush is not relected." I know that you don't see this, but this is what "most" people believe, by the numbers I just meanted that even about 20% of Kerry voters believe this to be true as well.
On a slightly related subject, check out this article written by Col. David Hackworth in 2000. Hackworth is a retired, but now a talking head on a number of Cable shows. Aside from the Nostradomus type feel, the response of the nation, after Gore and the first hypothetical would be the response if Kerry were to win and we were to have another large attack during his term.
Here's an interesting little tidbit for you. Funny how you're willing to let a tiny little terrorist attack that happened 8 months into Bush's presidency, and one month after he was specifically warned about an impending attack, slide by YET in your litany of things that Clinton did wrong you list the first WTC bombing which happened 46 DAYS! into Clinton's first term. Guess who was pres. before Clinton? By your rationale Shrub Sr. is at fault for that one at least. Rebuttal?
And the Clinton administration successfully prosecuted the perps, even pursuing them legally around the world. Jailed'em too. A good thing, well done. But that didn't get the Al Queda leadership, just the soldiers.
The Clinton administration also began the much-argued reallignment of the military from ground forces in Europe vs Soviets to increased lethality, smaller footprint, combined arms forces. By the time Clinton left office the military was far more effective and lethal than when he took over.
But there were LOTS of colonels and generals who hated that policy. They saw a huge risk in relying on technology over boots on the ground and they constantly fought against reform. Opportunistic Repos got in bed with them and used it against Clinton with all that 'largest decline in military spending' crap.
When Bush got into office, guess what he and Rumsfeld did? They accelerated the changes conceived under Reagan, planned under Bush I, and implemented under Clinton. The continuity is plain to see, even though partisans on both sides beat each other crazy with half-truths.
So what did the colonels and generals think of Rumsfeld's accelrated change-over? They hated it! And since he had the full backing of the President and Congress, they had to give way. Worse, Rumsfeld being Rumsfeld, consistently outmaneuvered the minority-view senior officers. Rumsfeld encouraged non-players to retire and promoted players. he promoted risk-takers. That is risky, but it paid-off with a tremendously lethal military, nearly eight times more lethal than the Americans in Vietnam. A lethal armed forces saves American and coalition lives. And that's a good thing.