I live in Seattle, the little blue dot in the red lump of Washington state. Therefore I don't know many republicans very well, and the ones I do know are much to considerate to be very aggressive about thier political opinions. So I'm asking Hatrack: If you support Bush, why? I'm not challenging here (I *am* challenging elsewhere, so go there to rant about us stupid liberals), just asking in order to educate myself. Thanks.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I voted for Bush because Kerry had a plan, and he didn't tell us what it was. That's all he said, "I have a plan." Along with that, I know many people in the Military, and I know they hate leaving something unfinished, because it usually is just delaying things. The men who fought in Somalia were outraged when we pulled out completely. They felt that all they had sweat, bleed, and nearly died for was abandoned. I did not want the uncertainty that Kerry promised. Kerry didn't seem like he knew where he was really going to take the country, and Bush did. So I voted Bush. Within every ounce of me there is a desire for peace. I don't want more people to die in Iraq. I want our military to come home to great accolades and shouts of joy. I did not believe Kerry could make that happen. I don't really know if Bush could make it happen. Something inside me makes me doubt it. But I also feel that four years from now, we may end up with a president who will make things right. I feel like at that time, a candidate will arise that will allow our country to trully unite once more. I hope that's the case...
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
i support bush because, for all that people here seem to think, i don't believe he has done a bad job.
i also have family that spent time in iraq. they feel that not everything is peachy, but don't really blame bush for that. they feel that there is a reason the u.s. went to iraq that only god knows, and have a solid belief that the iraqi people are also content. my wife's father and brother both spent many months in saddam's palace in baghdad. there's so much that the media is neglecting to show us. they also support bush.
another reason i have for voting the way i did was that i don't trust kerry. watching him gives me bad vibes. bush i feel i can trust. i don't believe he ever lied to the people. he may have mis-spoken or been wrong, and i'm sure there are many things he can't tell us for reasons of national security. however, i honestly don't believe he ever consciously lied to the people. kerry, on the other hand... i don't believe he said an honest thing to america during his campaign.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
1) I believe that invading Iraq was a good and prudent move 2) I think that the war has been handled as well as could be expected by anybody 3) From listening to Kerry, he didn't intend to do anything different from Bush, except try to get others to help more. Of course, Bush tried to get others to help from the beginning, but they weren't interested. I don't know why Kerry thought that they would change their mind now. 4) My views on social issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) are much closer to Bush's than Kerry's, and I feel more comfortable with SCOTUS justices being nominated by Bush than Kerry 5) All of this is not enough to combat my concerns about a) lowering taxes without lowering spending and b) civil rights concerns with the Patriot Act.
edit: because I don't know whav vivil rights are
[ November 04, 2004, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Cool thread, Leah.
adam, I don't know. Maybe the media filter has something to do with it. (Emotionally charged stuff sells. Maybe there is more going on than is being covered. )
Posted by RackhamsRazor (Member # 5254) on :
hi-Im sorta new here but I'd like to give a few resons why I voted for Bush
1. I dont think Bush has done that bad a job in Iraq. I understand that the reason we originally went in was to get the WMD's but I do believe that taking Saddam out of power was a good move. 2. I kept waiting for Kerry's plan that he always talked about but none ever surfaced. He never specifically said the exact things he was going to do on a lot of issues...it was just teh "I have a plan" plan. Therefore I could never truly side with him because I didnt know where he stood 3. I dont believe Kerry's plan of one-on-one talks with Korea would have been a good idea at all. Which surprised me that he suggested it at all since he was all about involving the UN in everything we do..except with Korea. 4 Not to dabble too much into the moral issues part since that didnt have much effect on why I voted for Bush, however, I did side with him on more of the moral issues.
I sure hope I didnt screw up one of my first few posts Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Princess, you're not the only little blue dot in the Puget Sound area. *waves hello*
I voted for Bush for several reasons. The most important to me is his stance on abortion, though I admit to little hope that his stance will change anything substantially. I also believe that in his first term, he started a number of projects he should be allowed to see to completion, or at least further completion. The war on terror being chief among them. It just seemed to me that this is a bad time to be changing leadership. I believe he knows a great deal more than I do, has advisors who know a great deal more than I do, and am not so convinced of his incompetence to say, "You're fired."
I don't like his stances on education, medicare, or national fiscal responsibility. But Kerry didn't offer anything to me to overcome the reasons above.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I voted for Bush because:
1. We are at war and Kerry has "0" positive historical experiences when it comes to "winning" wars.
2. The majority of our military want Bush as their commander in chief. They are on the front lines of this war making greater sacrifices than me and I believe their opinion carries alot of weight.
3. Bush's plans have succeeded in Afghanistan and are moving forward in Iraq as well. Are they perfect? No, we are at war and there is no such thing as a "perfect" war. I look at Kerry's reactions in Vietnam, compare them to Iraq and don't like the outcome.
4. Economy. Bush was handed a tanking economy. We had the Sept. 11th attacks right after he took office. We should be completely in the middle of another great depression, but we are not.
5. Bush and Internationalism: America is different than the rest of the world. I don't long to make America Canada, France, Germany, etc. I hope America continues to be separate from those countries.
6. He's firm. He's a man of action not a man of "wait and see".
7. He's a hell of alot more optomistic than Kerry. Kerry was a whiner, and I don't want a whiner in the White House.
8. Kerry is completely out of touch with the "heartland" of America and American Core Values.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
<off topic> Was this really the biggest victory in history?
Posted by RackhamsRazor (Member # 5254) on :
thanks adam Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
More people voted for Bush than have voted for anybody else in history. He beat out the previous record holder, Regan.
But then again, Kerry beat out Regan also. He just didn't beat Bush.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I was more impressed with Bush than I was with Kerry. I didn't vote a straight Republican ticket by any means, but in this case I just wasn't impressed with Kerry. I may have voted for the democratic candidate if I'd really liked him/her. I liked Kerry at the outset, but the campaign kind of wore that out of me.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
It's Reagan, mph.
A few of my reasons:
1). I can follow a man who stands firm and makes decisions, and respect him, even if I don't agree with all his decisions, more than I can follow a guy who I'm not sure of his decision-making ability, or who hasn't clearly explained his decisions or stand to me.
2) I think Bush made some unpopular choices at times regarding the war, which made me realize he is willing to do what he thinks is the best choice regardless of political pressure.
3) I like Bush. He has made us feel like we know him - as a person and a man - over the last four years and the crisis of 9/11. I didn't feel like I knew Kerry, or that he was trying to help me "know" him on a more than superficial level -- what kind of man he is.
4) Morality/faith issues.
Actually, I think it was either Hannity or O'Reilly I listened to on the way home last night that outlined most of these exact points.
But I am reminded of what I learned from the book "Everything I needed to know I learned on Star Trek" -- the question was: "Why does the Captain get all the women?"
The answer is: "because he's the Captain!"
(we admire and respect a strong leader, even when we don't agree on every point)
Farmgirl
[ November 04, 2004, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I've outlined my reasons in other threads, but I'll mention a few here I haven't seen.
1. I'm a business owner. My husband and I own and operate a small business with five employees besides ourselves. I believe Kerry would have raised corporate and business taxes - and it's already hard to survive with the abundance of taxes we already pay as a business.
2. I think a partial privatization of social security will give me a better return on the money I'm paying in to that system.
3. Some polls suggest as high a number as 87% of active duty military voted for Bush. these men and women are putting themselves on the line for me and my family - I think I owe it to them to give them they leader they want.
None of the above would have been enough to make me vote for Bush by themselves, but when you couple those with the moral issues, it's certainly enough to cause me to not even hesitate in voting for Bush.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I voted for Bush because there's a war on; a very important war that we simply cannot afford to lose. I already know, through watching his actions throughout, that Bush is determined to win this war. I am not convinced that Kerry is.
I believe that Kerry was determined, not literally to "lose" the war, but at least to withdraw troops too soon. That would have shown the terrorists that they really can beat us if they just wait long enough. That would have the result of losing the war, whether that's what Kerry wanted or not. That would make America far more vulnerable than it has ever been. It also would have been a betrayal to Iraq, to pull out our troops and leave them to suffer the resulting power vacuum on their own.
I also believe that having unilateral talks with the North Koreans is a terrible idea, and for the life of me I can't figure out why Kerry wanted that.
And it's possible that I'm wrong on this. Kerry never really told us what his "plan" was, so I can't know for sure that it wouldn't have been brilliant and effective. But I didn't want to take that chance. I already know and trust President Bush, and I just don't think this is the right time to change leadership.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It appears that declaring a war is indeed the best way to ensure re-election. I always felt Goebbels was a bit cynical on that point, but apparently not.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: It appears that declaring a war is indeed the best way to ensure re-election. I always felt Goebbels was a bit cynical on that point, but apparently not
Wow, thanks for bringing the argument into this thread, where it was not supposed to be (See first post).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
edit: sorry. I remove my rebuttal, since this is not the thread for it.
[ November 04, 2004, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
It sure helped Bush Sr.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
another solid reason i voted for bush, is because i could find a dozen threads that outlined reasons for voting for him.
i never have seen a thread like this that explains why one would want to vote kerry.
[edit to change: vote for kerry, because there are plenty of vicious vote against bush threads.]
[ November 04, 2004, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: gnixing ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:i never have seen a thread like this that explains why one would want to vote kerry.
[ November 04, 2004, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It sure helped Bush Sr."
I didn't say winning a war would ensure election. I think it's the constant and ongoing waging of one that oils the gears of modern polemic.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Tom -- wrong place. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
There is no right and wrong thread for debate... That's not something you control.
But I would say the war itself wasn't the main factor that got Bush reelected. It was more the campaign against Kerry, and of course the gay marriage issue.
[ November 04, 2004, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why, exactly? You've all already weighed in, and Leah never asked anyone not to discuss opinions. If you'd like to make that request of me, go ahead -- but don't waggle your finger at me like it's self-evident. Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
tres, i'm afraid that i believe that your reasons for voting kerry are kerry lies. i don't believe a word that he says in those regards. i also don't believe your reasons for not supporting bush. i think you have a left wing view of the circumstances.
i say this as an independent. i don't vote straight party, nor consider myself republican. but i trust bush to do what he says, or at least to try. i don't trust kerry any further than i can throw him.
how could i support a candidate that i don't trust? well... i can't. and that, as they say, is that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tom and Tres, Do you seriously not see how out of line you are here? Knock it off.
[ November 04, 2004, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
gnixing, Yes, but I give my reasons as an independent too - who doesn't vote party lines in any way. I'm no Democrat, or Republican.
Why would you trust Bush and not Kerry? More importantly, why would you trust the reasons given to support Bush but not my own reasons to support Kerry? I did back them each up with examples and reasons.
And even so, in that case, your reason for voting Bush was not that you couldn't find anyone giving reasons to vote Kerry - instead it was because you didn't believe those reasons.
Squicky, Come on... this is a discussion forum. What reason is there not to discuss the reasons people voted for Bush on a thread about the reasons people voted for Bush?
[ November 04, 2004, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I guess in the end I didn't agree with Kerry more than I didn't agree with Bush.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
quote: Why would you trust Bush and not Kerry? More importantly, why would you trust the reasons given to support Bush but not my own? I did back them each up with examples and reasons.
a lot of it is gut reactions and small things they each said during the debates. (yes, i watched all the debates.) another is i believe bush has been sincere with all that he has done, and will continue to be sincere. i don't agree that his administration is misleading. and i've never seen any evidence that it is the case. only assumptions that are lopsided.
quote:And even so, in that case, you reason for voting Bush was not that you couldn't find anyone giving reasons to vote Kerry - instead it was because you didn't believe those reasons.
i suppose you are part correct. i do not believe the reasons that you believe in for voting kerry. but then, your reasons, and explanations for voting kerry come across to me as more reasons why you don't support bush than a reason to vote for kerry.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
oh, and i don't trust the u.n., and want a president who can enforce the u.n. rather then permit u.n. corruption to rule the world. i believe bush understands this, and i believe this is the reason we went to war against saddam. i do not believe it was solely about wmds, but the fact that saddam wouldn't just come clean and the u.n. wasn't doing anything about it.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
My reasons for voting for Bush are similar to the ones stated by others above, so I won't get into them. I would like to point out something, though.
Those of you who are democrats or simply left-leaning, you should read these posts and learn what we're asking for. If the democrats had put forward a decent candidate, rather than "NotBush," I really believe that the democratic candidate could have won. I've heard so many on the left proclaim that they just want anybody but Bush, but most of us don't want that. We want somebody BETTER than Bush, someone who is firm about where he stands and offers us more of what we need. And I think that was the problem--Kerry basically ran on the platform of simply not being Bush. At least, that's how I see it.
I don't want to call myself a republican, I really don't. I don't want to be partisan at all, but I can relate to the right far more than to the left.
I read this article this morning that I think demonstrates this issue fairly well--at least at the beginning of the article. The middle to bottom part is essentially Michael Moore-bashing. And while I don't like Moore, I think the author took what was starting out as a good article and derailed it into something else. I am linking to it for the beginning.
Instead of attacking our reasons, maybe the left could learn from them. (Notice how many people said that other more left-leaning reasons were important to them, but Kerry didn't offer enough to outweigh the other issues.)
-Katarain
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, gnixing, perhaps you completely ignored the NYT's investigative report into the aluminum rod situation? Higher ups in the Bush administration, including Cheney, Powell, and Rice, stated unequivocally that the aluminum rods were most likely for use in nuclear centrifuges (Rice and Cheney didn't even say most likely, they said they were certain), despite that the opinion of the entire energy department (you know, the only nuclear scientists examining the situation) considered the idea ludicrous, and was pointing out that the aluminum tubes exactly matched the specification of a known Iraqi rocket.
It has been well documented that Cheney, Powell, and Rice knew about the energy department's opinion when they made those statements.
The aluminum rods were presented as the primary evidence for nuclear weaponry being developed in Iraq in the national intelligence assessment that was made (in months shorter time than normal) in order to justify the case on the war. No other hard evidence was presented for such a program.
That a good enough example of the bush administration misleading the public for you?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I voted for Bush for the following reasons: 1. I lean to the left on most gay rights issues but neither feel that Bush will get his amendment nor that Kerry would make significant progress. 2. With USSC appointments we might see progress to ridding this nation of abortion. 3. With USSC appointments we might see progress to ridding this nation of affirmative action. 4. From what people who know tell me, Bush helps my personal pocketbook and I can't really tell who will be better for the rest of America although I think regardless the economy will improve significantly in the next four years. 5. Bush will do a better job in fighting the war on terror overseas. 6. Bush will do a better job in keeping the "homeland" secure. 7. If Kerry got elected Europe and the US would be ripped even farther apart when France & Co. still didn't join the Iraq coalition. 8. The servicemen still support Bush by a 3-1 margin. 9. I still support the Iraq war for a variety of reasons. 10. Bush will do a better job of supporting Israel which I believe to be important with Arafat's health failing and the Gaza withdrawal coming up. 11. I know what Bush is going to do, I can't even begin to predict Kerry anymore than I can predict which way public opinion polls are going to go. 12. Finally, it's a lot more fun to listen to liberals whining than to listen to conservatives whine.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
1. The war on terror. The Middle East is the breeding ground for terrorism, and unless it is transformed, it will continue to be for the foreseeable future. That transformation can either begin now, with creating a democracy in Iraq, or it can begin later, when we nuke Mecca, Damascus and/or Tehran in response to a terrorist nuke in the U.S. I prefer the former path. So does Bush. Kerry could not be trusted to follow through in Iraq.
2. Supreme Court nominations. Thomas and Scalia are my favorite justices. Bush is more likely to nominate such justices. Kerry would not.
3. Taxes. Bush is unlikely to raise taxes. Kerry promised he would, and even if he claimed he would not raise them on people who make what I make, I understand the dynamics of the economy enough to know that raising taxes on those earning over $200K is not going to raise the kind of revenue he claims, and it will not help the economy.
4. Abortion. Bush is generally pro-life. As far as I can tell, Kerry never voted for even the slightest restriction on abortion.
5. Same-sex marriage. Bush opposes SSM. Kerry may have claimed to oppose it as well, but he was one of a minority of Democrats to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act. (A majority of Democrats supported DOMA, and it was signed into law by Clinton, so that put Kerry in the radical fringe of the Democratic Party on this issue.)
6. Bush was the Republican nominee. I generally agree with Republican Party positions, and generally disagree with Democratic Party positions. I should not that this does not mean I will vote for whoever the Republicans nominate. Back in 1996, when Pat Buchanan was running for the GOP nomination, for some very complicated reasons I decided that if he were the Republican nominee, I would probably vote for Clinton.
7. Re-electing Bush would annoy the right people.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
That comment right there was the kind of comment I was trying to prevent, adam and nfl. Discuss rationally all you want, but I was trying to keep the purely partisan slurs away.
On another note, thank you everyone who has posted. It's very informing, even if I disagree with a lot of opinions.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I was completely serious. I decided that if for nothing else I prefered to listen to Republican victory speeches over Democratic gloating.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
quote: That a good enough example of the bush administration misleading the public for you?
um, no. as NYT is blatently partisan, i don't trust much of their anti-republican bs. the news rarely reports news properly.
i really like what i hear coming from cheney, and also feel i can trust him. if powell were up for president, i'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
i don't state my position thusly because i want to paint a glowing picture of the administration. they aren't perfect, however... this isn't a thread to discuss where those of us that vote for bush are disappointed with him, but where we offer an explanation of our reasons for voting this way.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*sigh*
This wasn't an opinion piece, this was an investigative news report, many pages long, with reams and reams of documentary evidence.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
i'm sure it was... and i'm also sure that if it was al gore in office doing the same thing, they would have come up with very different facts. it's all in how you look at it. i deal with statistics all the time.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
So how do you look at it?
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
i'm not a war analyst, and don't spend my time looking at it. i just know that when the media has a slant in their politics... you take everything they say with a grain of salt.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So you take what the media says with a grain of salt because you suspect them to possess a political slant -- but do not take what politicians say with a grain of salt of similar size, presumably on the grounds that, despite the fact that they're politicans, they have less of a political slant?
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
it's interesting you would say that tom.. but as i mentioned, i'm not going to offer reasons why i'd vote for a better candidate if there was one. in regards to bush, however.. i believe he is sincere in what he does. he has an aura about him (and no.. i'm not a psychic psycho that can see purple auras..) of honest and goodwill. he may not always be right, but i believe he is sincere. the media has proven many times that it is not.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
1) I trust Bush more than I trust Kerry. Bush is clear about his opinions, and what he believes. The democrats tried to say he lied about WMD...but he did not lie he had faulty intelligence (the same intelligence that Kerry used when he voted for the war). Kerry will not tell people what he really believes. He goes back and forth on the issues depending on what the polls say.
2) Abortion. I think killing an innocent child is what of the most terrible things a person can do. I don't understand why a child does not have rights until they are completely out of the mother. In a partial birth abortion (which Kerry voted not to ban) part of the baby is actually outside of the mother when it is killed. I just don't see how a rational society can allow such a thing. It is not a matter of religion, it is a matter of life. I think Kerry's stance on abortion is worse than most democrats. I saw him say in an interview that he actually does believe that life begins at conception, but does not think that the government can stop abortion. To actually say that you can accept the fact that your government allows the killing of what you profess to believe is an innocent life just seems to be insanely barbaric.
3) The war on terror. I believe that Bush is better able to keep us safe from terrorism. I think the best way to get rid of terrorists is to prevent countries from supporting them and giving them safe haven. Are the deaths that come from war terrible? YES! However, the goal is to save more lives. Yes both Iraqi's and Americans died in the war. But, now the Iraqis will have the ability to set up a system of government that does not allow for the murdering of innocents, which they had to live under in the past.
4) The economy. The economy was on the down turn as Bush took office. We then suffered a huge terrorist attack on our financial center which cost thousands of lives. I think the fact that we are now on an upturn shows that Bush's policies are working. I do wish that he would curtail spending in addition to cutting taxes...but we will have to see how he does in the next term now that we are in an upswing.
5) He does not put the interests of the world above our safety. He is the president of the USA, he does not need to get permission from France to do what he thinks is needed to protect us. Sure, he should try to work through the UN first, but if that does not work he should do what is needed. People said that the inspectors did not have enough time, they had 12 years! Why were they not doing their jobs and forcing Saddam to show them everything over the last decade? If 12 years was not enough time, why would another year be any different? They said repeatedly that Saddam was not being honest with them, or showing them everything that he was supposed to show them. They clearly could not get him to open up everything, so Bush had to do it.
6) North Korea. After all Kerry's talk about how we went into Iraq alone (which is of course not true...but Kerry thought it was) and we should have gottent he support of the world, WHY does Kerry want to go into Korea alone? Clinton tried that, and they went ahead and told him they would not build any nukes...but did it anyway. Bush has brought together several countries for multilateral talks (which is what Kerry said we should do for Iraq) yet Kerry would rather talk to Korea alone. This is simply not logical.
Overall, I simply agree with Bush on many issues...and Kerry refuses to stay consistent on many issues, so it is tough to agree with him for more than a week on any given issue. On those things that he stays somewhat consistent on, I find myself in disagreement with him.
Do I agree with Bush on every issue? NO. I wish he would shrink the size of the government. I don't like having provisions of the patriot act apply to American citizens. I don't care if they spy on non citizens inside or outside the country, but I think you have to be more careful of the rights of American citizens. I also disagree with Bush on the death penalty. While I don't think the death penalty is as bad as abortion (it is taking the life of someone who was convicted of killing others rather than taking the life of an innocent) I still think it is wrong to take the life of someone who is not a threat. As long as a person is kept behind bars for life without parole, they are no longer a threat to society, so it feels a bit to much like government sanctioned cold blooded killing for my taste.
Of all the people who were running, I agreed with Bush the most (that includes 3rd party candidates). He is not perfect, but I approve of his job for the most part, so I voted to keep him in office.
[ November 04, 2004, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"i believe he is sincere in what he does. he has an aura about him (and no.. i'm not a psychic psycho that can see purple auras..) of honest and goodwill."
You know, a lot of Bush supporters say this about him, and I have genuine difficulty understanding it; I've always picked up the exact opposite vibe from the man, who routinely seems smug and insincere to me in all his public discourse. I wonder if different types of people key on different physical and semiotic cues.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
quote: I wonder if different types of people key on different physical and semiotic cues.
i often wonder the same thing. the vibes you get from bush are very much like the ones i get watching kerry.
i'm thinking part of it is that, on a subconscious level, bush just seems to me to be too dimwitted to lie. though, on a conscious level, i don't believe he is at all dense.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
These aren't statistics. These are documented opinions of energy department specialists in nuclear engineering who considered the idea of aluminum tubes Iraq was acquiring being used for weaponry ludicrous (one suggested giving them to Iraq if Iraq wanted to use them for that purpose, as Iraq already had better nuclear centrifuges), the strongest proponent of the aluminum tubes being nuclear in nature (the CIA) phrasing everything as "possibility", and documented instances of high administration officials being told of the severe doubts of the energy department and the milder doubts of the CIA and still going out and saying that the aluminum tubes were definitely going to be used for nuclear centrifuges.
There is nothing in doubt about these facts. The only question is what they mean. Do you have an interpretation that makes the administration not deceptive?
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
until i have a direct communication path with the administration, of course not.
as to the claims the media has presented in the NYT article, i'm sure the right wing extremists such as limbaugh, o'reilly, and hannity have offered explanations. personally, i couldn't care less about this particular argument. i consider it a non-issue, and don't believe your citing of details you read in the NYT will sway that belief.
[edit to add (not that it's important) that there's no guarantee that the "specialists" are not partisan in their own statements. you can always find a specialist to agree with your point of view. regardless the topic being addressed.]
[ November 05, 2004, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: gnixing ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, no, not that I'm aware of. As far as I can tell, they've ignored it.
Second, it certainly is an issue for whether or not the administration had mislead the public, and that is something you cited as important to you.
However, its pretty clear to me that you trust them regardless of any evidence presented to the contrary. As you've effectively just said, unless a person in the administration were to tell you they'd lied, you wouldn't believe it.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
quote: As you've effectively just said, unless a person in the administration were to tell you they'd lied, you wouldn't believe it.
this particular administration very well could lie about many things. personally, i believe if there are lies, they are lying to the president. i honestly don't believe he has it in him to lie to or mislead the country. i don't know if he trusts his administration or not, we'll see if he makes any cabinet changes, i suppose.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
And why the guy that says "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time" while he's over there....doesn't deserve to be his commander in chief.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I have seen all my reasons listed but this one.
I am going to Iraq.
I read Unfit For Command, and here is the funny thing, not a single lawsuit has been leveled claiming that these fine soldiers were liars.
They did not Kerry bash, they played Kerry's words back too him, and too us all.
That he came so close to being my Commander in Cheif makes me shudder.
I voted for Gore because before 9-11 my biggest issue was space travel.
Now it is knowing that the man in charge has a noble goal, a solid plan, and the courage of his convictions.
Bush is perhaps the best at recognizing talent that he lacks in other people and giving it resposibility and direction, that take a humble genius.
BC
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There is (unfortunately or fortunately) very little one can do with a lawsuit against people making accusations against a politician except make the politician's opponents go "see, he needs to shut them up so bad he's suing them!"
There's nothing inherently illegal about lying, only about certain types of lies, and even those have very stringent degrees of proof required as to things which are very hard to prove, like intent.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and to make more obvious why your reason that what they say is true is obvious bunk:
There have been lots of lies about Bush told (which ones, who knows, but certainly lots of lies). He has filed no lawsuits against people saying them. Therefore they aren't lies, but truth.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)