jthorpe

For me, neither. I also don't believe I'm cheerleading. I'm talking about legitmate issues and have been for quite some time but nobody seems to want to respond to that. I am voting for Bush based on the fact that I agree with his foreign policy much more than I do with Kerry, and the fact that I like his domestic policy much more than Kerry. I am not going to go into religious ethics or anything like that because I don't much care about it. It's his policies that make me vote for him.

Is he the greatest president ever? Not by a long shot. I think it'll be quite some time before you see someone take that spot from Reagan.

signature600

Wish I was old enough to remember this Reagan fellow, sounds like a great man. Everyone I've talked to thinks the same of him, I'll have to do some "historical fact-finding."
The first one I remember was HW Bush, then the great Clinton .

Now that I'm old enough to understand, I'm glad I'm also old enough to vote at a time when it will count the most (unless Hilary tries in '08 ).

Thanks Guys, very informing, but I already knew a good bit from past discussions and other readings.

Chris

Lary Ellis (Top)

Chris,
Reagan was a very special kind of leader, and he also made some mistakes. But the thing most of us remember about him, is the way he said something and then followed through on it.

You knew when he said something he meant it!. In that respect GW is very much like Reagan, He says he will protect this country no matter who disagrees with him, because that is HIS job!.

I admire any man who stands tall in his beliefs and will refuse to bend just because a decision is unpopular. As men we have to make unpopular decisions every day, we can't always do the things we like, but rather have to do the RIGHT thing instead, simply because it is.

For a President these types of decisions have to be very trying for them, but thankfully we have one now who will do the right thing. Reagan also had a very wonderful way of communicating with the American public. He could talk to us like an old friend, and leave you knowing he was trying to do the right thing.

Unfortunately GW isn't very good at doing that, but then Reagan had years of acting in front of cameras to help him seem so relaxed. But even knowing he was an actor, he could still make you believe he was speaking from his heart.

Great statesman and we owe a great deal of our security to him. I can not imagine the shape we would now be in if he had not been elected and took the time to build us up militarily. Even after Clinton stripped us of so many troops and weapons, we are still the strongest nation in the world.

I don't think GW will leave the kind of lasting image Reagan did, but I honestly believe he is trying to do his job to the best of his abilities, even when he knows it might not be a popular thing he does.

zulusafari

I refuse to "cheerlead" for anyone. I give my vote based on my experience, information presented, and my education. I tend to vote conservative because of my upbringing, independent nature, and belief in strong morals. I was taught to work for what I want and need. I was nurtured to think everything through for myself before I act or decide on anything. I have a strong reasoning ability, including more than a fair share of Devil's Advocate. Some see me as a cynic, others see me as argumentative, and others think I am snobbish. I am not always a team player, prefering to watch from the sidelines and evaluate both teams, cataloging good and bad plays for future reference.

The above description of myself is background for my response to this thread. I do not ever recall anyone saying we needed to go to war in direct retaliation for 9/11/2001. I have found no factual reference to an absolute, direct link with the hijackers, the terrorist mission, or the overall Al-Queda plot. We went to war based on intelligence gathering, reported activity of Weapons of Mass Destruction programs, failure to comply with UN mandates, and support of Terrorist activity by Saddam Hussein. Clear and simple. Iraq was the perfect country to enter for many reasons:
1) We had what appeared to be concrete evidence for the WMD program.

2) Blatant noncompliance with the UN mandates.

3) Saddam's offers of money to families of terrorists.

4) Support of terrorist camps inside Iraq.

We fully believed that the Iraqi people would support our efforts when Saddam and his sons were removed from power. From what friends of mine returning from service in Iraq have told me, they had good relations with most of the Iraqi citizenry. Our failure has come from the past, where we called for an uprising and then didn't support it. Saddam and his generals killed the participants from helicopters. We failed years ago to give critical support when it was both needed and desperately wanted. Naturally, the Iraqis are apprehensive and having a tough time trusting our commitment now. With the more Liberally slanted and sensationalized Mia coverage depicting the horrors and strife in Iraq but not covering the positive advances; by media coverage of the Democratic candidates calling for troop withdrawal and no desire to support further advances in Iraq, they are doubly nervous. This all plays into the hands of the terrorist insurgents who want us to leave. Remember the motivations of Bin Laden?? He saw our lack of resolve in Mogadishu as the sign we could be attacked and beaten. We had a swift war to topple Saddam, but are now having a tough time with security. Our enemies do not wear uniforms and attack headlong. They know they cannot win that way. Our enemies studied from Ho Chi Min and set up bombs and terror attacks against civilians and military alike, to change public opinion. These aren't some new tactics like the media wants to portray, but are instead old school strategies we ourselves employed to gain our independence.

To pull out now is to drive a nail into our security coffen. Our attackers are on the run, but pricking at our flanks as they scatter. Many friends and relatives are deeply in support of our effort, and I pray they make the proper and informed decision in November, keeping Bush in office to finish the job at hand.

One thing that has me bothered, is despite the Military's careful efforts to stay away from them, this has become a "body count" mess. Many news reports are keeping a little body count tally running through the broadcast to show how many of our brave soldiers have been "unnecessarily sacrificed." Hogwash! Many of our National guard are chomping at the bit to get there and finish business. I know because I have asked them. When the local media showed all the tears from wives and family, they followed up with interviews of the family members as fuel that the soldiers are not wanting to serve. So, I asked several about it. They were understandably apprehensive about leaving their families and friends. Many were concerned about the financial burden being placed on their families due to lower military pay than they make in civilian employment. But everyone of them I spoke with was also eager to prove their worth in support of the efforts in Iraq. Many have been training for 15 to 20 years and viewed this as the first chance to really use their training. The Idea that our National Guard is ill prepared and demoralized to serve is absurd. My point here is that while losing our sons and daughters overseas for a war we may or may not support is hard, Our Military and the Media have not given us anything from the otherside. I am very curious how many insurgents have been killed! How many hardline Republican guard were eliminated? The only reports of the otherside were for several thousand Iraqi civilians killed in the war. I only hear of the errant bullet or rocket or 500 pound bomb that killed civilians. All tragedies, to be sure, especially in our PC, hugs and kisses timeperiod, but what of our actual enemies? At least from Afganistan, I have heard estimates of how many insurgents were wounded/killed/captured by Afgan/US forces in the rugged mountain attacks.

Notice how Pakistan came around? There are many more political and social steps to be made there, but they are at least tracking down terrorists there. They have many issues to work out with India, but that is a political arena right now that we aren't hearing about. Enter North Korea? Has anyone read lately how much High Explosives are aimed at Seoul, South Korea? despite the culture, etc., North Korea is crazy enough to wipe off South Korea at a whim. Their own destruction isn't a concern, since they have their own version of how the world is. Their society is very closed, their people starve every year, their daughters do not have a menstral cycle until near 20 years of age due to poor nutrition, and according to their history books, Kim Il Sung single-hanedly defeated the Japanese in World War II. Notice how North Korea backed off their ravings? China stopped the flow of oil into North Korea for a day. China is pretty much the sole life line for the country! North Korea is like China's red-headed stepchild that is given pretty much free run, but needs a spanking once in awhile to bring them back around.

Blood for oil: I want that to disappear so bad. More left-wing propaganda to cloud the issue. If we were after the oil, we could have stayed in Kuwait!! We could have taken over Iraq in 1991!! We stopped that war because of the possible international outcry for exceeding the "UN Mandate" to remove the occupation from Kuwait. We listened to the UN and had to return to finish the UN's job anyway.

Job Outsourcing: We want products cheap. Not necessarily good, but cheap. I went into our local farm store to uy common nails. All nails are imported from South Korea. What is wrong with good old American Nails?? I wanted some black iron pipe nipples and brass 1/4 turn ball valves. Made in China and Taiwan. This is a store that tries to put forth a message of caring toward the family farmer. What a crock. Our Unions want shorter hours, more benefits, more money, and no responsibility. Companies can get better labor, for less money, outside the US. Our work ethic has changed for the worse. If a company wants to compete, they have to cut costs. If the executives want to make less money, then maybe they can keep the companies here. But, when is the last time any of us wanted to make less money?? If the company doesn't make enough of a profit or meet projections, the stock price drops. With all of the 401k plans depending on the stock market, we then complain about the stock market and corporate mismanagement. Catch 22. Kerry want to tax the corporations. Every economics class I ever took proved that you can't tax a corporation, because the tax gets passed down the line as an expense to do business. Who is at the bottom of the line? We consumers. So, our products cost more. With sales tax based on value, we pay again. If we depreciate it wrong, or sell it and get too much for it, we get taxed again. Great deal for the American worker!

I want to go on, but my own work ethic requires me to get some more projects done before the end of the day. This is a long rant, but I wanted to put forth a little substance to support why I feel Bush is a better candidate than Kerry, and wounded up making statements about how America has been changing Some may charge that Bush caused the change, but these changes were well underway during the "perfect President" Clinton's watch. Look at the dates for memos and accounting scandals: Clinton era, not GW. Degraded state of the US Military: Clinton spending cuts, not GW's watch.

zulusafari

As a PS: Overtime exemptions: The liberal rhetoric was complaining that companies were laying off personnel, distributing the extra work to remaining employees, and requiring mandatory overtime. This hurt family relations, caused worker fatigue and malcontent, and disproportionate amounts of taxes payed from overtime wages. The first idea to increase the exemption for OT was to make it more profitable for companies to hire more employees, since the lack of overtime would cause compensatory time off instead. Therefore, companies would need more people to fill vacancies anyway. By forcing OT, the were able to do the same work for less money, even when paying time and a half, due to the reduced costs of distributed benefits. Instead of paying Social Security, Medicare, 401k, Health/Dental/Life/Vision Insurance for 50 employees, the company could pay for 40. Bottom lines speak for themselves. The Unions got all upset when a proposal was put forth that would do what they wanted. While all was being debated, India developed enough communications and technology capability, so programming and customer service jobs left the US.. Making $7000/year in India is a good wage, and is much cheaper then paying someone $47,000/year here. The Liberals cannot complain, since it was their diversity and scholarship programs that allowed the Indian Students to come to this country under Student Visas, attend a Public or Private University for free or reduced in-state tuition, free or reduced rate housing, and then leave after getting an American degree!! I had to work for most of everything I have, and still paying for my student loans! No one stepped up to give me a free ride or housing to get my degree. I have taken advantage of scholarship and government loan programs, and wouldn't have been able to attend school without them, but I am actively paying them back, as well as my share of taxes now as a result.

Some more of my $.02!

crobtex

zulusafari, well stated.

Our liberal education policies for foreigners has definitely added to our woes. The company I retired form was one of the biggest culprits, especially with the Viet Nam refugees. Although, it is a well know fact, that under liberal rules, if you want government contracts, you have to pander to the, let's call it, "the less fortunate".

signature600

Larry,

Thanks, I've never had anyone explain that to me, and now I can begin to see why he is regarded so highly. We desperatly need another leader with his high morals, and give him the authority to do what is RIGHT, not what every "oppressed" or "politically correct" organization feels they are entiltled to next.

This is why I'm glad I was raised right, in the old beat the kid if he screwed up (no timeouts for me, just plenty of KO's). I'm amazed at how differnt kids are today, and many have no respect for anything, even in this part of the world. I'm smart enough to think for myself, and come up with rational ideals of my own.

Thanks Again Guys,
Chris

Ray Roton

BOTTOM LINE

We must fight the terrorist. Everyone agrees with that.

To fight them, we must have a location for the fight. (a battleground)

I believe Iraq is a MUCH better location than the streets of hometown USA.

My opinion for what it's worth.

Nevada

I will take a crack at that one.

I am not a Bush "cheerleader" by any means but I am a Bush supporter, so I may not be best person to answer. End of disclaimer.

He is not the best president ever. Not even close. That title would have gone to Goldwater in my book but he lost the election.

He is also not the lesser of two evils. He happens to support a philosophy that I agree with. Domestic issues aside this election will boil down to two issues for most Americans, the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.

I don't think that a rational person could claim today that there is any significant link between Iraq and al-Quida or Iraq and Osama bin Laden. (Sorry for the spelling) To be honest, I never thought that there was and I thought that the Bush administration was being lazy by suggesting a link. I felt that a good case could be made without a link, and I suspected that this inference would blow up in his face eventually. This perception certianly would have (and did) generate some measure of initial public support.

Terrorisim is essentially a stateless group of idealogues. Terrorists receive support from some states and from a lot of individuals within states whose support of terrorism is in question.

What made Iraq unique was their demonstrated ABILITY and WILLINGNESS to both manufacture and use WMD's. If you still doubt that Iraq ever had WMD's just ask the Kurds or the Iranians. Saddam used WMDs on both of these groups. Saddam's sympathy to terrorists and the objectives of Osamma and company made Iraq a likely source of WMD's to a group that had the ABILITY and WILLINGNESS to use them on us. Taking the fight to Iraq promptly moved the fight to thier soil rather than ours and further demonstrated our resolve to address what I consider to be obvious risks to the United States.

Would it have been better to have the support of the world via the UN? Certainly. But any suggestion that negotiation is possible with people whose stated objective is to subjugate the entire world under Islamic law and kill the uncooperative is insane. I'm glad Bush moved fast. I'm also glad that despite the UN's initial lack of support, the Bush administration has continued to keep those options open and has subsequently gained the support of other nations.

Where does it end? Probably nowhere in my lifetime. Looks to me like Iran and North Korea could be next. When the terrorists want to strike out at the "West" and "Western culture" they have a lot of potential targets, but they seem to like us best. What happened to the WMDs and were there ever any to be worried about? I would say probably, but probably a lot fewer than we initally thought. What few there were are probably in Syria for the time being. Other countries of this same ilk have aspirations to create these types of weapons as well.

This is world war three. The enemy fades into the background very well. They have localized support. We are an open society that provides safe haven for people who have divergent ideas from our own. Anything that can be done to keep these people focused on fighting us on the soil of countries that aid and abet them will have my support.

I believe that Bush's perception of the problem and soultion is closer to mine than Kerry's. Has Bush missed the mark on some issues? Absolutely, the biggest lie that has been pushed on the American people from Washington that I have ever seen is that perscription drugs from Canada are not safe. He has fumbled the ball from time to time but he is right on the two biggest issues on my mind.

I'll go with W in November.

Did you notice Lybia's response? Imagine that Kerry was president the last four years, do you see Lybia doing the same thing in that scenario?

westcoaster

Lybia in my mind was a far bigger player in the world of terrorism than Iraq ever was. pan-am 103 comes to mind.
"cheerleader" was probably the wrong word to use but for some reason it was the only one I could come up with at that moment.....
It would appear iraq and the war on terror are the issues that seam to be on most minds, things like economics and employment appear to be trailing somewhere back along with what color underwear to put on in the morning

localnet

We are in a cultural/religious/race war. Iraq was weak, easy place to get a foothold in the ME. Unfortunatly America is PURPOUSLY divided, I smell a set-up.

Don't look good for whitey.

Yea, I'm a racist, but so is the enemy.

Voting for Bush. Wish Pat Buchanan was running.

Mike

jthorpe

At least you admit to your shortcomings.

George&cheryl

INSPECTOR'S JUDGMENT
U.S. Report Finds Iraqis Eliminated Illicit Arms in 90's
By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: October 7, 2004


ASHINGTON, Oct. 6 - Iraq had destroyed its illicit weapons stockpiles within months after the Persian Gulf war of 1991, and its ability to produce such weapons had significantly eroded by the time of the American invasion in 2003, the top American inspector for Iraq said in a report made public Wednesday.

Advertisement


The report by the inspector, Charles A. Duelfer, intended to offer a near-final judgment about Iraq and its weapons, said Iraq, while under pressure from the United Nations, had "essentially destroyed'' its illicit weapons ability by the end of 1991, with its last secret factory, a biological weapons plant, eliminated in 1996.

Mr. Duelfer said that even during those years, Saddam Hussein had aimed at "preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted.'' But he said he had found no evidence of any concerted effort by Iraq to restart the programs.

The findings uphold Iraq's prewar insistence that it did not possess chemical or biological weapons. They also show the enormous distance between the Bush administration's own prewar assertions, based on reports by American intelligence agencies, and what a 15-month inquiry by American investigators found since the war.

Mr. Duelfer said he had concluded that between 1991 and 2003, Mr. Hussein had in effect sacrificed Iraq's illicit weapons to the larger goal of winning an end to United Nations sanctions. But he also argued that Mr. Hussein had used the period to try to exploit avenues opened by the sanctions, especially the oil-for-food program, to lay the groundwork for a plan to resume weapons production if sanctions were lifted.

In addition, the report concluded that Mr. Hussein had deliberately sought to maintain ambiguity about whether it had illicit weapons, mainly as a deterrent to Iran, its rival.

The American inspector presented his conclusions to Congress on Wednesday, including highly charged public testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

With Iraq figuring prominently in the last dash toward the presidential election, Democrats argued that the report had undermined the administration's case for war, while the White House and its Republican allies called attention to elements in the report that highlighted potential dangers posed by Mr. Hussein's government.

"There is no doubt that Saddam was a threat to our nation, and there is no doubt that he had W.M.D. capability, and the Duelfer report is very clear on these points,'' said James Wilkinson, a White House deputy national security adviser, using the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction.

The three-volume report, totaling 918 pages, represented the most authoritative attempt so far to unravel the mystery posed by Iraq between 1991 and 2003, beginning with the point after the Persian Gulf war when Iraq still possessed chemical and biological weapons and an active nuclear-weapons program. The conclusions suggest that the main war aim cited by the White House in March 2003 - to disarm Iraq, which American intelligence agencies said possessed chemical and biological weapons and was reconstituting its nuclear program - was based on an outdated view of Iraq's weapons stockpiles.

At the time of the American invasion, Mr. Duelfer said in the report, Iraq did not possess chemical and biological weapons, was not seeking to reconstitute its nuclear program, and was not making any active effort to gain those abilities. Even if Iraq had sought to restart its weapons programs in 2003, the report said, it could not have produced militarily significant quantities of chemical weapons for at least a year, and it would have required years to produce a nuclear weapon.

"Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the gulf war,'' Mr. Duelfer said in the report. It said American inspectors in Iraq had "found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program

crobtex

"Even if Iraq had sought to restart its weapons programs in 2003, the report said, it could not have produced militarily significant quantities of chemical weapons for at least a year, and it would have required years to produce a nuclear weapon."

Let's see now, when would that year have been up.................? And you don't think he would have restarted his weapons program as soon as the inspectors cleared out? LOOK AT THIS MANS HISTORY! HE HAD TO GO! BETTER NOW THEN LATER!

George&cheryl

And you don't think he would have restarted his weapons program as soon as the inspectors cleared out?

Great Idea, lets start a war based on what he may do when he gets a chance.