It's wayyy past my bedtime, so I'll make this short. Something that I've noticed over the last few months is how many conservatives are disgusted with Bush and are ready to do the unthinkable: vote for John Kerry. The latest is Robert George, who once worked for Newt Gingrich. He talks about how this President has betrayed the conservative principle of limited government with his curtailment of civil liberties, the expansion in the power of the Executive branch, and the habit in the adminstration of holding no one-even the President in my view-accountable. Here's his view of how a President Kerry could help keep the GOP honest:
"No, a Kerry administration would not be any conservative's ideal. But, on limited government, a Democratic president would, arguably, force a Republican Congress to act like a Republican Congress. The last such combination produced some form of fiscal sanity. And, when it comes to accountability, one could hardly do worse."
It is true that Clinton and the GOP Congress were able to get the nation's fiscal house in order and it forced Clinton rightward in his agenda. A President Kerry would probably do the same.
For those who fear the worst in Kerry, let's remember: it was the President who turned a surplus to a deificit, it was the President who expanded Medicare, and it was the President who got us into a war that was ill-planned with no clear exit strategy. I really don't see how Kerry could do any worse.
Posted by Dennis at October 15, 2004 01:24 AMthanks
Posted by: gay pics at September 7, 2005 09:44 PMa
Posted by: rape pics video at September 1, 2005 02:05 PMthanks
Posted by: incest at August 4, 2005 08:44 PMthanks
Posted by: rape pics at July 27, 2005 02:04 PM"Relative to oil strategy,...”
'the president must deal with our current situation. yes, we should have, would have and could have less dependence of foreign oil, but we dont.'
I am confused how the invasion of Iraq resolves our current energy crisis. We cannot even get the oil to pay for the reconstruction costs (which Bush promised us) without some insurgent attack on the pipeline and stopping the output. The price of crude is higher today than ever before the war, partly due to crisis in Iraq.
response - let me explain it then. our being in Iraq safeguards the worlds oil supply. this isnt because Iraq has such a huge supply of oil, this is because it would take us 4 months deploying through the persian gulf to get troops in place if the "friendly" mid east governments were taken over by radicals. a loss of saudi arabia to those that have no commercial interest in providing oil to the world would put us in a precarious position, possibly even topple our government. we needed a military presence in the mid east to prevent just such a thing from happening. i dont consider the chance remote, but even if it was only remote, we still need to insure our survival as a nation.
'you misunderstood what I was saying. Bush cant say it, not because of politics in the US, but rather that such an admissions would hurt our allies in the mid east, who already face significant issues with a pissed off populace. why give the radical further fuel to stoke fires with?'
This is the exact reason a unilateral approach to the Iraq has been so costly. If a greater coalition of countries were working on the reconstruction of Iraq, the insurgents would have more trouble in recruiting others. While the current coalition includes no Islamic country, the radicals have made Iraq a Christian vs. Muslim war. Our approach to Iraq has strengthened the Qaeda argument.
response - many middle eastern countries are helping us in the war on terror. kuwait is allowing us to stage massive amounts of military in their country. qatar is our central command for air operations. jordan and saudi arabia are providing extensive intelligence. syria is prentending to stop mortar attacks from in their borders. lets not get caught up in the kerry propaganda which implies that the only way to help in iraq is to send troops. to say that would also imply that israel has done the wrong thing by staying out of it, at our request.
"That poll was given to the military troops,.."
'CNN just quotes another one and I believe it purported to be of deployed troops. 69% this time.'
'One thing that none of this really answers is how a person like kerry could do better? his political rhetoric aside, his history leaves much to be desired. frankly, i would love to see a poll of vietnam vets across a large audience. id be amazed if he had much support among them. sharing a stage with jane fonda alone would be enough to lose most of them id wager.'
I would agree that the military troops would rather have Bush than Kerry. However, the troops on the ground have a myopic worldview and the folks at the Pentagon have a more macro view. They are at least conflicted about this war and its effects on our country.
response - i have friends in Iraq. i think they have the undistorted view. i wont tell you the media purposely distorts because i couldnt prove a conspiracy but i can say that our media has done a terrible job. if i did my job as poorly as they have done id be fired.
where is this poll of pentagon-based military that you seem to imply exists?
and the question still remains - how does kerry do anything better?
i really try not to repeat republican propaganda but in many ways he is always on the wrong side of the issue throughout his career. ill say this (and i cant believe i am typing it) - i would probably vote for hillary if she was available as a replacement for kerry right now. i dont consider her to be a traitor, as i do him.
"Relative to oil strategy,...”
'the president must deal with our current situation. yes, we should have, would have and could have less dependence of foreign oil, but we dont.'
I am confused how the invasion of Iraq resolves our current energy crisis. We cannot even get the oil to pay for the reconstruction costs (which Bush promised us) without some insurgent attack on the pipeline and stopping the output. The price of crude is higher today than ever before the war, partly due to crisis in Iraq.
'you misunderstood what I was saying. Bush cant say it, not because of politics in the US, but rather that such an admissions would hurt our allies in the mid east, who already face significant issues with a pissed off populace. why give the radical further fuel to stoke fires with?'
This is the exact reason a unilateral approach to the Iraq has been so costly. If a greater coalition of countries were working on the reconstruction of Iraq, the insurgents would have more trouble in recruiting others. While the current coalition includes no Islamic country, the radicals have made Iraq a Christian vs. Muslim war. Our approach to Iraq has strengthened the Qaeda argument.
"That poll was given to the military troops,.."
'CNN just quotes another one and I believe it purported to be of deployed troops. 69% this time.'
'One thing that none of this really answers is how a person like kerry could do better? his political rhetoric aside, his history leaves much to be desired. frankly, i would love to see a poll of vietnam vets across a large audience. id be amazed if he had much support among them. sharing a stage with jane fonda alone would be enough to lose most of them id wager.'
I would agree that the military troops would rather have Bush than Kerry. However, the troops on the ground have a myopic worldview and the folks at the Pentagon have a more macro view. They are at least conflicted about this war and its effects on our country.
Posted by: EG at October 17, 2004 08:23 AM"Relative to oil strategy, we could spend much more of the time investing in other forms of energy (e.g., nuclear) and achieve the same effect. This would not endanger our position in the world as this Iraq invasion has cost us."
the president must deal with our current situation. yes, we should have, would have and could have less dependence of foreign oil, but we dont.
"Why can't Bush say it? Because of politics. Bush's silence is possibly more demoralizing than that anything Kerry has said. With no post-war policy from Bush, our troops are left to believe that they are fighting and dying for nothing. Since the reconstruction has been put on hold so the Iraqis are left to believe our invasion was for nothing more than oil."
you misunderstood what I was saying. Bush cant say it, not because of politics in the US, but rather that such an admissions would hurt our allies in the mid east, who already face significant issues with a pissed off populace. why give the radical further fuel to stoke fires with?
"That poll was given to the military troops, not the reservists stationed there. I would be curious about how they and the ex-military called back into service see this election."
CNN just quotes another one and I believe it purported to be of deployed troops. 69% this time.
One thing that none of this really answers is how a person like kerry could do better? his political rhetoric aside, his history leaves much to be desired. frankly, i would love to see a poll of vietnam vets across a large audience. id be amazed if he had much support among them. sharing a stage with jane fonda alone would be enough to lose most of them id wager.
i do thank you for a reply that was considered, rather than some bs about being a neo con if you support the war.
Posted by: mike at October 17, 2004 05:16 AMMike:
I would like to respond to your post in a less personal fashion. Let's look at your post:
"I think you are very wrong on both counts. The war is proving to be more brilliant as time goes by. We have achieved a presence for military operations, intelligence operations and will be able to curtail the ability of middle eastern countries to hold us hostage over oil."
The war was done masterfully. It's the post-war issues are ill planned. Time does not permit me to state the overwhelming problems we have faced after we toppled Hussein. Even the President's advisers will admit to that. The problem now is that this administration cannot seem to correct the mistakes. The latest U.S. bombing during Ramadan will not be seen positively by the rest of the Middle Eastern countries, no matter what the U.S. believes.
Relative to oil strategy, we could spend much more of the time investing in other forms of energy (e.g., nuclear) and achieve the same effect. This would not endanger our position in the world as this Iraq invasion has cost us.
"As for the exit strategy - I simply dont understand why anyone would talk about an exit strategy. We are never going to exit from the region. This is a 40 year plan, not a 4 year plan."
Agreed. This is our new Germany and Japan but without a Marshall Plan. However, several factors need to be considered. Iraq is not a monolithic society as our previous foes and this will become a balancing act between the Islamic factions for power and resources. Second, Germany and Japan were strong countries prior to the war and the U.S. needed only to change their Government’s intent from war to peace. Iraq's infrastructure was crumbling under Hussein's regime so the U.S. will need to spend much more resources in building up the infrastructure and to change the minds of the citizens that only through corruption will you prosper. These will take more than four years to accomplish.
"Kerry knows this and he also knows the president cant say it. His rhetoric hurts our troops."
Why can't Bush say it? Because of politics. Bush's silence is possibly more demoralizing than that anything Kerry has said. With no post-war policy from Bush, our troops are left to believe that they are fighting and dying for nothing. Since the reconstruction has been put on hold so the Iraqis are left to believe our invasion was for nothing more than oil.
"A recent poll which got little press was that 73% of those deployed to Iraq are voting for Bush."
That poll was given to the military troops, not the reservists stationed there. I would be curious about how they and the ex-military called back into service see this election.
Posted by: EG at October 16, 2004 10:59 AMalthough i support the war, the strategy and the goals i am not a social conservative.
It sounds like you fit right in Mike. Check out this site http://www.newamericancentury.org/ and see if that's not the case. The "Statement of Principles" is a good place to start.
Posted by: dorsano at October 16, 2004 10:25 AMyou are simply wrong about my politics
although i support the war, the strategy and the goals i am not a social conservative. i support abortion rights, legalization of marijuana and recreational drugs, oppose faith based anything, etc.
so far all i have had in response to my 3 major benefits to the war is name calling and emotional crap about us being imperialists (paraphrasing).
my vote wont be based on party, but on individuals. there were 2 democrats in the field that could never get my vote, dean and kerry. the democrats picked the nominee, i didnt.
i could find reasons to vote for ALMOST anyone except bush. i consider Kerry a traitor that endangered our troops during the vietnam war with his rhetoric and i consider him a traitor now. i find his comparison of the US and North Korea as being somehow morally equal to be disgusting.
if your best argument is to call me a neo con, how well have you considered your position?
Don't Mess With the Mother of U.S. Marine
I am writing this in hope that it will open some eyes, enrage, and disgust everyone that reads it. I am a PROUD mother of a U.S. Marine. My eyes have been opened and I am now enraged and disgusted with OUR GOVERNMENT.
http://yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_14114.shtml
Posted by: dorsano at October 15, 2004 06:35 PMprofessional neo-con
Our "neo-conservative" should adjust his plan for Middle East domination to 30 years rather than 40.
God's holding us hostage over oil. Oil production will peak this decade and oil reserves will run out before his forty year plan is up.
Dennis, you need to pull in a better class of professional neo-con trolls, if possible.
This one is pathetic
"war was ill-planned with no exit strategy"
I think you are very wrong on both counts. The war is proving to be more brilliant as time goes by. We have achieved a presence for military operations, intelligence operations and will be able to curtail the ability of middle eastern countries to hold us hostage over oil.
As for the exit strategy - I simply dont understand why anyone would talk about an exit strategy. We are never going to exit from the region. This is a 40 year plan, not a 4 year plan.
Kerry knows this and he also knows the president cant say it. His rhetoric hurts our troops.
A recent poll which got little press was that 73% of those deployed to Iraq are voting for Bush.
Posted by: mike at October 15, 2004 06:17 AM