Why vote for Bush? Because your bread tastes good, your circuses are entertaining, and your puppetmasters in the “fair and balanced” media have you totally convinced that the richest 1% of the country are here to serve the interests of the common man.
One also votes for Bush because of their tiresome, one-note hatred for the Clintons that burns like an eternal flame and corrupts any sense of perspective.
These are blanket statements of course. One could also be an oil baron, or a arms dealer, or a drug lord, or a clubby stockbroker.
Get it? Some notorious pro-war liars “speculated”.
Their speculations on other subjects have been shown to be complete crap. Why should anyone treat this particular speculation any differently? Particularly when it’s labelled up-front as a speculation?
First I visited your NationalReview cite, FoamChomsky, a website I’ve have visited before, hoping that maybe this time it was a well written story. But the article was speculative and with factual errors. What got my attention though was what your cite didn’t mention. No reference to the Third Force, and not one word of about the economy and the reform processes currently being discussed in Iran, and how these things affect the current regime. The cite was rubbish.
nationalreview.com is not a decent cite, not because it’s conservative, but because many their pieces are based on speculations first , facts second.
Your second cite, FrontPageMag, was even worse. It appears by first look to be a ultra-conservative think-tank, and the article contains even more errors than your first cite. In the beginning it says: “In August 2001, leaders of several Kurdish Islamist factions reportedly visited the al-Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan … Soon thereafter, Ansar al-Islam was created …”. Pure rubbish. Ansar al Islam existed at least as early as in 1991. I should know, one of their previous exiled leaders is living in my neighborhood. Overall, the very idea that Saddam would give weapons to a Kurdish group whose goal is to establish an independent state on Saddam’s land is simply stupid.
I know this is turning into a big hijack, but quoting from such obviously flawn articles only degrades the debate and this board.
If I voted for Bush (and the only democrat keeping that from being stated as a certainty is Wes Clark), it would be for one simple reason.
Whatever fault I can find in his domestic policies-- and I disagree with him on abortion rights, stem cell research, the role of religion in the state, and other issues-- I think the foreign stage is far more important to us at the time, and I’d rather have a president willing and able to kick ass overseas instead of a hand-wringer unable and unwilling to prosecute the war on terror in the enemy’s back yard.
That same willingness, which “scares” so many of our allies, reassures me-- I see it as a strength and not a weakness.
Ask it another way-- who do you think the Islamic fundamentalists still itching to take a crack at the Great Satan would rather see in office; Dean or Bush? Kerry or Bush? I’d argue that whatever they DON’T want pretty much tells me what I DO want.
At last someone put something more solid. You have all the right to feel his kick ass policy is good ammo52… but what if I told you that Osama would PREFER Bush ? I know its speculation of course since Osama would neither admit it or be easily available for interview. Why does he prefer Bush ? Bush is creating a world conflict and creating the separation Osama so much wants of the West and Middle East. My opinion of course… Still two conservatives (Christian and Islam) as they are its not surprising. Conflict is viewed as a valid mean to their ends. To think terrorists are scared of Bush is a bit naive in fact… the other muslims might be… some terrorists are rejoicing.
NOT liking Democrat candidates also seems a strong reason to vote Bush… I just wish there were other Republican choice. I prefer democrats always… but having a good candidate is very helpful…
Just checked the link… and I will point out weaknesses…
First is the site its posted in. FreeRepulic “A Conservative News Forum”. Not to be brash about it… but its got “prayers for Bush”:
Isaiah 54: 14
In righteousness you shall be established;
you shall be far from oppression,
for you shall not fear;
and from terror,
for it shall not come near you.
Hardly what you would call an unbiases or lightly biased place to find your articles. Foamy try getting always more balanced views whenever possible. Still the article came from a newspaper. Wall Street Journal (which I dont know enough to say they are biased or not...).
Did you notice how the article gives the numbers and then gives them a nice "comment" or twist ? When you are comparing the choices for future style of govt. and you get 37% (biggest) but the other choices were "Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S." One shouldnt be too surprised in Iraq that they chose Saudi and the US. The article says "the most popular model **BY FAR** was the U.S". 37% vs 28% is not by far for me.
To make a long story short the article downplays the fact that 5 in 10 said democracy WONT work... 4 in 10 say it will. 36% think attacking the US will help more than hurt. Finally that most of the comparisons were between US and Saddam. Its hardly a contest to compare with a hated regime is it ? Example below... it still means 30% lost someone:
Iraqi naturally think the future will be better than their past...now that Saddam is "out". It doesnt change the fact that the US occupation is creating problems and deaths that could otherwise have been avoided with a UN coalition...
One interesting point thou was the lack of preference for an Islamist Government. Iraq was and continues to be more secular than their neighbors. Surprise ? Nope. Unless religious forces get into power due to the US occupation...
The article naturally has some merit... thou overall one wont give it that much weight. The main point being that the moderates are numerous. After all the same way moderates in the World Arena were disregarded when Bush decided to go to war... moderates (which the article points out are a big group) will be disregarded in Iraq too. Those with power or wishing for power are the ones that will decide. US imposed rulers might not have the legitimacy to avoid internal turmoil and the attacks on US troops.
If you’re mining the endless supply of comedic ore which churns out of Bush’s administration faster than one of J. Steven Griles’ strip mines on sacred Indian land, you might be tempted to vote to keep the ratings high.
For example, can you imagine anyone–anyone–else who has the ability to piss off environmentalists, freedom of information advocates, and Art Bell freakazoids with a single decree?
Some people used to claim Dan Quayle was Poppy Bush’s insurance policy against assassination. Now that we actually have a Dan Quayle for a President, he’s an insurance policy against writer’s block for Tonight Show staff.
Because a vote for anyone else is a vote for terrorists! You’re either with us or against us! Right or Wrong! You there - yes you! We can see you thinking. Stop it RIGHT NOW!
We don’t vote for the Prime Minister, unless we happen to be in his riding. (And even then, we’re only voting for him in his capacity as the Member of Parliment for our riding).
The Prime minister is the leader of the party that is in power at the end of an election. Or… wait a few months, and we’ll have a brand new Prime Minister! Prime Minister Paul Martin will be in office sometime after the Liberal party holds its leadership convention, and elects him as party leader. He gets to be P.M. without running as P.M. in a general election.
It’s a whacky system, but it seems to work. (now that’s a debate)
Can someone start a thread about Chretien’s intelligence, since we’ve parsed Dubya’s in such detail? Bush has certainly had his language flubs, but Chretien can barely make himself understood in either of Canada’s two official languages.
He pronounces the capital of the country as Auto-wa, which is a very funny way to say “Toronto,” or, as the locals have it, Trawna. Some Canadians continue to insist that Otttawa, “The Town That Fun Forgot” actually IS the capital of Canada. I was there last year and was pleased to see that it had several buildings greater than four stories high.
Perhaps we could also discuss Ralph Klein.
In any event, in this context, it should be noted that Bush got nailed during the 2000 campaign by Newfie comedian Rick Mercer, who advised him that Canadian PM “Jean Poutine” supported him, to which Bush mouthed approval. Bad, bad, bad.
(But then again no other Yank knows anything about Canada, either.)
For every 100 who like the other model, there are 132 who like the US model. I’d say that’s a fairly large gap. It also shows how overplayed their hatred of the US is. Consider also that the younger generation is more likely to favour the US model - this suggests that popularity for it will increase over time as newer generations take over.
The UN decided against the war, remember? You can only blame the UN for their own inaction.
What’s the basis for that? Aside from that, you’re making an assumption that a religious state would be worse. Saddam was worse than Iran and Saudi Arabia, yet Saddam’s Iraq was far more secular. Not that it matters, considering Iraqis don’t want it.
Ah, Talking to Americans. I can’t count how many times I watched those segments in social studies, history, and english classes in highschool. Good times
Why indeed vote for Bush? It isn’t like he’s shot himself in the foot, it’s more like he’s taken a bazooka and blown his foot off. I can’t fault the guy for believing that there were WMDs in Iraq, nearly everyone else did, too. But we had UN inspectors there looking for them, it seems it would have been more prudent and cost-effective to let them do their jobs and slowly build a consensus for invasion like his father so masterfully did in Gulf War I. The post war has been a debacle of the first magnitude, from the daily body bag coming home to ignoring the common sense of our German and French friends and tweaking his nose at the UN. It’s as if he can’t make up his mind whether to be isolationist or interventionist so he wishes to be both at once. As bad as his foreign policy has been, his domestic policy is even worse. The answer to every economic ill is to plunder the treasury and throw money at the wealthy. The result- massive deficits and an economy that just won’t start. So in nearly three years, I’m rather hard pressed to think of one positive thing he has done.
I can. I was just watching a television program last night on the subject, and in between ignoring the dull commentators I watched some interesting clips, first of Colin Powell mentioning that the US was fairly certain that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs, and then Condoleeza Rice commenting that Iraq was thoroughly contained militarily and no threat to the US. The first clip was from February 2001, the second from June of the same year. Hmmm…
The only reason I can think of for voting for Bush is that the other choices are worse. I’m still waiting to see if any of the Democrats running can find their own backsides without the aid of a committee and a Special Investigator before I decide.
Your playing around with numbers and words and giving a good spin the same way. So for every 100 that prefer Saudi there are 132 who prefer the US and 125 that prefer something else. See ? Change around things and interpret it differently. 37% is not **BY FAR** any way you twist it. That was the "comment" added in the original text.
As for the younger generation... they might be more favorable to the US than other generations... but every day that passes do you think that they become more or less favorable to the US ? I agree they should be a bit grateful for Saddams deposition... but still the way its been done and US "control" surely means the few good indicators arent going to stay that way.
The UN decided AGAINST the War and the US decided FOR the war. So the situation is the UN's to blame ? So the UN had to go to action because the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA decided to do so ? UN "inaction" is due to Bush's failed diplomacy and badly made up excuses... if they had made some nice excuses many more countries would have joined in. You write that like attacking Iraq was an inevitable fact of history... but it wasnt.
The decision to invade Iraq was made years ago. If the UN weapons inspectors had been allowed to continue, the flimsy tissue of justification for war would have been torn away. Bush could not afford to let the inspectors sow doubt about his reasons to go to war.
