Why vote for Bush?

If you have the opportunity of voting for Wesley Clark (please see some of his credentials here: http://www.nato.int/cv/saceur/clark.htm ) why would you vote for George Bush?

What can Bush possibly offer that would serve our country better? In what areas does he compare favorably with Clark?

Because Bush is, and will be, a greater President, than Clark could hope to be.


A more-conservative domestic agenda (hardly ideal, but hey…), coupled with moral clarity and depth of vision on international issues.


National defense, for one. Being a retired general does not mean that Clark will be a decent Commander in Chief. Bush has the depth of character to see the war on terrorism through; Judging from Clarks’ blabberings, it sounds like he wants to return to the neutered and ineffectual national defense stance (and lack thereof) of the Clinton years.

The economy, for another. By all rights, our economy is doing fine, especially considering the factors that were/are working against it. (Mostly 9/11, and the collapse of the phoney ‘internet bubble’). Bush has done the right thing by cutting taxes and butting out. Clark supports the redistribution of wealth through increased ‘progressive’ taxation, and has some jacked notion that the Presidency should create jobs. Just the sort of leader you hear about ruining 3rd-world economies.

And of course, Bush doesn’t have an endorsement from Bill and Hilary. The Mark of the Clintons that Wes bears is a big plus…for GW.

Brutus, you kill me :smiley: Really, that’s almost a sig.
Imho, in almost every conceivable sense, he’s Bush’s worst nightmare; Freddie and the other guy, and some.

I’d suggest it’s very simple; Clarke is the antithesis of almost everything George Bush stands for (or is seen to stand for) and no matter how much his supporters try to ascribe qualities to Bush that Clarke undoubtedly has to, his own demeanour and limited abilities demonstrate otherwise. The contrast is startling: educational record (PPE Masters at Oxford – Holy Moley), internationalist, intellectual, proven political abilities (NATO Supreme, Kosovo, etc), without a defined ‘Big Anything’ support base . . the list goes on.

And absolutely crucially, Clarke can utterly capture the mood of the concerned, almost scared middle ground voters if he plays it right; this is (potentially) the moral, traditional values, safe-pair-of-hands they’re looking. Right now. I can almost feel the relief from here.

If he wins the nomination, I can’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be a middle-ground landslide - if I was a campaign professional, I’d be screaming to get on this band wagon.

For one thing, Bush is willing to go after states that sponsor terrorism. Clark has specifically said he will not.

So if a country is harboring terrorists and don’t want to give them up, to bad for us?

Clark also has this “multilateralism” obsession that’s been going around lately. This idea that it’s better to do the wrong thing together than the right thing alone.

Because Bush is decisive, and Clark has barely been in the campaign for a week and has already executed a neat 180-degree about-face on a key issue.


Clark’s position on Israel and Palestine, at least as thus far articulated, suggests he is quite willing to say different things to different people at different times.

Bush has changed the face of the Middle East for the better after eight years of ineffective dithering about it by the Clinton administration. I’m not crazy about Bush’s domestic agenda, but I don’t think any of the stronger Dems have much to offer on that front either.

Bush has taken steps to change the face of the Middle East. Whether or not he has been successful will not be known for some time.

But I do give him credit for trying something new. If a Democrat wants to win my vote on foreign policy grounds, he has to articulate a new policy, not advocate a return to Clinton-era multilateralism, or even worse, Cold War realpolitik. We need to move to the future, not regurgitate the failed policies of the past.

That’s a good point. On October 7, 2002, Bush said:

Abu Nidal, of course, was dead at the time Bush made the speech. He remained dead at the time of the invasion. He was still dead on August 8, 2003, when the White House said this:

Yep. Gotta invade and go after them dead guys.

BTW, gotta love a document from the White House titled “Iraq: Denial and Deception”

Nidal was dead, others were still alive, such as the dude who engineered the Achille Lauro hijacking. And besides, did Nidal’s death signal a change in Iraqi policy via terrorism? I think not. We didn’t attack Iraq to get Nidal, of course. We did it to eliminate a source of support for terrorism, among other reasons. If Nidal was the only one, you might have a point.

Ah yes, Abu Abbas, who was apparently granted amnesty not just by Iraq, but by the United States.

And if Bush ever said anything that wasn’t edged with deceit, you might have a point.

Let me know when Bush actually captures Osama bin Laden in Iraq.

I love people with fantastic notions... you can babble about Bushes morality all to well. (translate as "doesnt get blowjobs by interns")... But "DEPTH OF VISION" on international issues ?!  Depth as in black and white vision ?  Get serious. Its one thing to agree with Bush... its another to attribute false qualities to him.

As for Bush you said it well... WILL be ... cause he aint no great president right now.

Someone said: 

For the better ? Are you sure ?

Oslo is a dead deal in case you didn’t notice. The US has every right to disregard it, since it was broken almost as soon as it was signed.

So if Iraq had a policy of helping out terrorists... where are the terrorists ? Saddam wasnt exactly popular with the muslim extremists that tend to be the most common among terrorists... with a bit of word play your implying that Iraq had a policy for supporting terrorists. 

At best you can complain that he gave money to the families of suicide bombers... a marketing strategy more than supporting terrorism itself. Those families would rather have their kids than the money. Saddam was full of shit... not terrorists.

Finally when was the Achille Lauro hijacking ? Do you really think that by getting old time terrorists the USA is helping fight CURRENT terrorism ? Al Qaeda is the target... not some old timer.

Nothing is sure except death and taxes. But I think I’m on pretty strong ground.

Assad, next door to Iraq, is shaking in his boots. He took a bit of time in doing so, but he did close down terrorist offices in Damascus when Powell leaned on him. The strongest anti-Khamenei riots yet ensued in Iran after the fall of Baghdad. I won’t paint the Shah as sweetness and light, but the Persians remember what it was like to live under an at least somewhat pluralistic and Westernized state, and have long since come to realize that rule by mullah was and is a recipe for disaster. The West can’t yank Khamenei as they did with Mossadegh, but they can certainly undermine him by planting a liberal constitutional state next door-- with Shi’a having a voice in the government, as they now do after so many years of despotic Baathist Sunni rule.

The fall of Saddam serves in part to defund Palestinian terrorists. It also removes a nearby threat to Israel and by many ways of thinking enabled Sharon to take more decisive steps toward an actual two-state solution than he ever had, though Hamas blew the efforts up with their ongoing homicide bombings.

Finally, with unelected Alawite Assad sitting on an even shakier throne what with the possibility of constitutional government surviving next door to him, there exists at least theoretical hope that Syria may get its boot off the neck of poor Lebanon.

Not bad.

So who were the actual, currently active terrorists being harbored in Iraq, adaher? Rumsfeld had to recently admit that there was only one.

Saddam allowed Ansar al-Islam, an Al Qaeda proxy, to operate from bases within his own borders. And operate they did.


Your thinking is spotless… IF there ever is a liberal democracy in Iraq. Democracy is way easier to “achieve”… liberal democracy is nigh impossible in the middle east. Still a democracy IMPOSED by another country is really a democracy ?

Bush doesnt want to much Shi’a power either since that would mean a religious bent that is fine in the US… but not good for US geopolitics in the Middle East.

Saddam was no great funder of terrorists either… Saudi Arabia is. Dont see Bush touching them. So I would say your on pretty shaky ground that wont be strong unless a thousand things go right… which doesnt seem to be the case. Fantasy rarely works in world affairs.

From you link, FoamChomsky:

It’s pre-invasion speculative bullshit.

To Rashak:

Note that I did not say “democracy”, re Iraq-- I said “liberal constitutional state”, which is something different altogether. An interesting fellow named Fareed Zakaria has just written a book about the difference, which I recommend but will not attempt to capsulize. (The title is .The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy At Home and Abroad )

Yes, Saudia Arabia does fund the terrorists, no doubt about it. But Saddam was no slouch. 35 million --and that seems to be the accepted figure – is not exactly a piddling sum.

A) Democracy was ‘imposed’ on Japan, Italy, and Germany. And it didn’t exactly happen overnight, as you may know. The Almight and Infallible UN is still overseeing what passes for a democracy in Bosnia. As a Brazillian, you must know that democracy doesn’t happen overnight, it is often a long and painful process.

B) We will be better able to excert power on Saudi Arabia from Iraq. Hence, Saudi nervousness as of late.

I will grant you this, though: If the allegations of GW allowing Saudi nationals to haul ass during 9/11 are true, I will be the first (or second) call that he be tried for treason.

To Demo:

Postwar confirmation re Ansar al-Islam in Iraq, and al-Qaeda link:



Further evidence for that view came yesterday, with Iraqi police revealing that terrorist training videos featuring al-Qaeda instructors have been found in the hands of militants suspected of attempting to commit atrocities in Iraq. A cache of 13 videos was found at the house of a Palestinian man arrested over a failed car bombing. The films contained advice on terrorist tactics and also detailed instructions on how to use a wide variety of weapons and bombs, including rocket-propelled grenades, Iraqi policemen told The Scotsman.

They appear to have been shot in Afghanistan and Iraq, and include references to both Osama bin Laden and Ansar al- Islam, the home-grown Iraqi version of al-Qaeda.