help swing a swing voter

[slug420]

I'll answer with a question.

Can you honestly say with certainty that the administration didn't go to war as a last resort and that they did cherry pick their intelligence?

I don't think either of us can... we don't know everything that happens at a governmental level.

the way I see it going to war should be treated like a trial. They have to prove to us, the citizens, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was a valid reason for doing what we did. In a murder case if there is any reason at all that someone in the jury believes that the crime was not commited by the defendant then its a no-go. The president is representing the citizens of the united states and is supposed to be held responsible by those citizens. If the president does something this drastic, that has such an adverse effect on the way our country and thus its people, are percieved by the rest of the world (that includes the UN, potential allies, as well as the new generation of potential terrorists that are being brought up during our occupation) as well as an adverse effect on the country itself both in monetary cost, the division in our country right now over what to do and what to believe, and certainly not least, the lives that this war is costing us.....if the president does something this drastic, i believe they should have to prove to the citizens of this country beyond a reasonable doubt that they were right in doing so or they should accept the responsibility and pay some sort of price. In this case I think such a misjudgement should in the very least mean not being allowed ot remain in a position of power to do it again.

One of the thoughts that runs through my head as I think about this election is a very fundamental one. I dont know that John Kerry will do a better job, but as a country, it seems like it is our responsibility to show the world that we are intelligent/responsible enough to acknowledge our own mistakes and make some effort to correct them.

I cannot imagine how hostile I would feel towards americans if I was living in some other country, probably the worst of which being Britain...knowing that not only has this country behaved completely inappropriatly by probably every standard that has been established for international relations(basically I am referring to the UN), but they did so based on false information, and in the case of my country (britain) they dragged my country down with them and costed us the lives of our soldiers? If they do not show to me that this is as unacceptable in the US as I feel it is here in britain then this sentiment is probably going to stick with me for a looooong time.

 

[slug420]

i think its really unfortunate that we are in this Iraq mess in the first place. Can you imagine if we hadnt invaded Iraq? this election would be completely different. It would be focusing on domestic issues and stances on things. Im sure many voters like myself are disgusted with the fact that we are in Iraq and that is blinding us to even consider any of the candidates' other stances. there is nothing as important to me as getting the hell out of there and making sure we dont do something stupid like that again, so I could disagree with every kerry policy and stance in the world and agree with every non-iraq stance/opinion/policy that bush has but there is no way i could vote for bush...

 

[TurfBurn]

i think its really unfortunate that we are in this Iraq mess in the first place. Can you imagine if we hadnt invaded Iraq? this election would be completely different. It would be focusing on domestic issues and stances on things. Im sure many voters like myself are disgusted with the fact that we are in Iraq and that is blinding us to even consider any of the candidates' other stances. there is nothing as important to me as getting the hell out of there and making sure we dont do something stupid like that again, so I could disagree with every kerry policy and stance in the world and agree with every non-iraq stance/opinion/policy that bush has but there is no way i could vote for bush...

If it wasn't Iraq it would have been afghanistan and Pakistan and a list of other things. It would have been why wasn't 9/11 prevented, it would have been why is Korea and Iran and Syria and India an others... It would have been Chechnya and the genocide in Africa and more...

Getting out of Iraq is not the issue at this point. We are there... the question at this point is how best to do something about finishing it. I was hoping Kerry had something... his response seemed to be however "we'll do it faster, we'll do it better, we'll do the same thing, but we'll get other people to help and we'll do it better." That's a no go for me, that doesn't say anything... that says I'm going to do the same thing and have nothing novel to offer. That was disappointing. Kerry has said nothing about getting out of there any more so than Bush has... They both believe we have to finish it and see it through properly. One says we are doing fine, the other says we need to keep doing it but do it better and build more alliances... but didn't say how, and ignored the current summits and the like. I was disappointed.

 

[TurfBurn]

the way I see it going to war should be treated like a trial. They have to prove to us, the citizens, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was a valid reason for doing what we did. In a murder case if there is any reason at all that someone in the jury believes that the crime was not commited by the defendant then its a no-go. The president is representing the citizens of the united states and is supposed to be held responsible by those citizens. If the president does something this drastic, that has such an adverse effect on the way our country and thus its people, are percieved by the rest of the world (that includes the UN, potential allies, as well as the new generation of potential terrorists that are being brought up during our occupation) as well as an adverse effect on the country itself both in monetary cost, the division in our country right now over what to do and what to believe, and certainly not least, the lives that this war is costing us.....if the president does something this drastic, i believe they should have to prove to the citizens of this country beyond a reasonable doubt that they were right in doing so or they should accept the responsibility and pay some sort of price. In this case I think such a misjudgement should in the very least mean not being allowed ot remain in a position of power to do it again.

Huge problem with that is first of all... a jury requires things to be unanimous... that will NEVER happen.

Second of all, too much of our society is vastly misinformed and too much misinformation is spewed into the media... An educated decision could never be reached.

Third, the US once maintained a policy of non-intervention much like Canada does. That ended with a thing called Pearl Harbor. After that the US refused to stay out of the world and to not try to influence foreign nations and foreign policies. Pre-emptive strikes and unilateral action are not new policy or new standards. Reagan and others did so, Clinton believed in it as well and even attacked Al-Qaeda bases, it's been done for years. It is not new or novel.

Lastly, there is far too much going on in this world, and not enough power in other nations... People were vastly opposed to intervention in Kosovo, but look at that area now, it is more stable and more peaceful than it has ever been thanks to that intervention.

Also, removing the president for doing what he did... Look at it this way... If I managed 5 people at work, who also each manage 5 people. One of the people in that bottom tier tells someone in the second tier that the design is good to go, all their testing has shown it to be so and things should be fine. So they pass that to the second tier, and the second tier passes it to me. I approve it based on that information and we go forward. A year later we find out that the initial testing was misleading, and some of the counter data didn't make it up the line... So it is me who should be fired in that situation? It is my fault when I had nothing to do with the testing? I would assume you would agree that it wouldn't be me that should be reprimanded if anyone.

Now take the same analogy... I get the results, don't know that they might be flawed, am assured it is the best data we have. I talk to other divisions, some of which are competitive to my division, and they aren't so sure about things, and some of them have something to lose if we go forward with our work, and others don't like to comment, and a couple here or there say they will follow our lead. But in the end it is our division that needs to make the decision and it is our jobs and our salaries at stake. Do we defer to what the other divisions think should be done? As far as we know we should go forward, other divisions have been wrong in the past, we've seen good data to go forward, maybe with some doubts, but it is in our best interest even at a risk... so we go should go forward shouldn't we? I'd say yes...

Now work and war and different, but the analogies are the same. The US needs to work with other countries as much as possible, but in the end needs to protect it's interests as it sees fit. Not at the expense of all diplomacy and all relations, but if necessary at the expense of others.

Sorry but if France is violating embargoes, they aren't going to want the invasion. If Germany is aligning with France, they aren't going to want it. If it is a western country the Middle East isn't going to want it. Fact is if a nation perceives a threat and has information from more than just its intelligence services (and yes English intelligence mimicked some of the US intelligence from what I recall) then there is reason. It didn't pan out, it was a mistake to go for the reasons that we did, but it doesn't change that we are there, it doesn't change that removing Saddam is a positive thing at the least, it doesn't change where we are regardless of where we came from.

 

[PhreakV]

And for anyone who says it was a unilateral action needs to double check the definition... it means ONE country. It was more than one country that went in there and agreed that it had to be done. Plain and simple, no iffs ands buts or conditions.

while not unilateral in theory the fact that so little help has come from other places basically makes this a unilateral action... Cheney said last nite that $14B had come from other countries, but in actuality $13B was pledged by other but just over $1B has actually happened. while I don't wish to discount the actions of the soldiers from Britain, Australia or (lest the President have to repeat it... again) Poland but the actions of their governments were far from a whole-hearted agreement. everyone but the hawks at 1600 Washington and some of their 1980s-relic friends over at the Pentagon has believed in this half-assed or not at all from the start. the Coalition of the Willing should've had an addition to the title (i.e. the Coalition of the Willing to Commit Political Suicide in Hopes that Iraqi Rebuilding Contracts and US Favor Would Befall Upon Them...). the coalition was a joke; to get to the number that Bush advertised we had, we needed little ******* island nations with the population size of some US highschools (that in turn provided nothing other than silence on the bulls*** that was going on).

in reality this was an almost wholly unilateral action that will force the brunt of its results on the next President and the one that follows (because we'll still be there... for proof go ask a British historian how well setting up governments tends to go in that region). Bush, Cheney, Rummy, the CIA and most of Congress ****** us... without lube. (butthump)

 

[PhreakV]

It didn't pan out, it was a mistake to go for the reasons that we did, but it doesn't change that we are there, it doesn't change that removing Saddam is a positive thing at the least, it doesn't change where we are regardless of where we came from.

correct but one might believe that as an ADULT, the President would be able to look at his prior statements and actions and come to the more than reasonable conclusion that he ("Holy s***! hold on...) made a mistake in how things turned out. its not all his fault, Congress and the CIA are majority shareholders in the blame game, but this was his administration's war, there is no mistake about that. they wanted it, they got it and now we've got a real-world scenario of "Pottery Barn" statesmanship. I wouldn't have the cardboard in my perverbial boxers still if he could at least admit that his adminstration has made mistakes along the way. its not a sign of weakness and I can't imagine any soldiers get upset if he were to say that there were things that he would've done differently but that we needed to continue to 'stay the course' in Iraq now that we're there. its like he's 6 years old and just wants to run his head into the same corner, not only that he thinks its a "strength" that he never second-guesses anything he does, that's not how world leaders work that's how my kid brother operates...

 

[TurfBurn]

while not unilateral in theory the fact that so little help has come from other places basically makes this a unilateral action... Cheney said last nite that $14B had come from other countries, but in actuality $13B was pledged by other but just over $1B has actually happened. while I don't wish to discount the actions of the soldiers from Britain, Australia or (lest the President have to repeat it... again) Poland but the actions of their governments were far from a whole-hearted agreement. everyone but the hawks at 1600 Washington and some of their 1980s-relic friends over at the Pentagon has believed in this half-assed or not at all from the start. the Coalition of the Willing should've had an addition to the title (i.e. the Coalition of the Willing to Commit Political Suicide in Hopes that Iraqi Rebuilding Contracts and US Favor Would Befall Upon Them...). the coalition was a joke; to get to the number that Bush advertised we had, we needed little ******* island nations with the population size of some US highschools (that in turn provided nothing other than silence on the bulls*** that was going on).

in reality this was an almost wholly unilateral action that will force the brunt of its results on the next President and the one that follows (because we'll still be there... for proof go ask a British historian how well setting up governments tends to go in that region). Bush, Cheney, Rummy, the CIA and most of Congress ****** us... without lube. (butthump)

I certainly agree that it wasn't a perfect thing by any stretch. But keep in mind as well that Desert Storm was similar, that Kosovo was similar, that many of the wars that are fought are half hearted alliances until vested interests or attacks arise to convince someone to go along. It's just simply that. Also, keep in mind that in WWII the Allies fighting together was not much more than the "Coalition of the Willing" in some ways... Only 4 major players and then another 15 lesser Allies. That's not a massive international movement right there. Currently we have troups from England, spain, portugal, denmark, norway, netherlands, italy, estonia, latvia, lithuania, polan, czech republic, slovakia, hungary, albania, macedonia, romania, bulgaria, Japan, phillipines, Kazakhstan, azerbaijan, Georgia, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Palau, Thailand, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Australia, and New Zealand. Several other countries are counted as part of the coalition. based on information at http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html for however accurate it is or isn't. That's more international support by number of countries than was had in WWII.

Also one thing that continues to be ignored and overlooked I guess is that the money numbers that keep being listed (like how much has NOT been spent) forget to mention that only upon completion of works and projects is the money paid. So of course much of it is unspent as much of it is in process currently!

 

[TurfBurn]

correct but one might believe that as an ADULT, the President would be able to look at his prior statements and actions and come to the more than reasonable conclusion that he ("Holy s***! hold on...) made a mistake in how things turned out. its not all his fault, Congress and the CIA are majority shareholders in the blame game, but this was his administration's war, there is no mistake about that. they wanted it, they got it and now we've got a real-world scenario of "Pottery Barn" statesmanship. I wouldn't have the cardboard in my perverbial boxers still if he could at least admit that his adminstration has made mistakes along the way. its not a sign of weakness and I can't imagine any soldiers get upset if he were to say that there were things that he would've done differently but that we needed to continue to 'stay the course' in Iraq now that we're there. its like he's 6 years old and just wants to run his head into the same corner, not only that he thinks its a "strength" that he never second-guesses anything he does, that's not how world leaders work that's how my kid brother operates...

here are some bush apologies from this year:
From a bush letter/speech:
"In hindsight, it appears that I was premature in declaring an end to major combat operations in Iraq. I thought we had toppled the dictator. But as long as vermin like al-Sadr seek to glorify themselves, using false religion to oppress the people, the dictator lives on. He lives on in the hearts of the radical clerics who killed and then mutilated the bodies of Americans as surely as if their own hands were stained black from the charred flesh. I'm sorry that my statement caused some to believe that the war in Iraq had ended. It has continued for more than a decade and will not end until evil men like al-Sadr are purged and the cowl of fear is lifted from the face of the Iraqi people"

from msnbc.com:
"
President Bush acknowledged for the first time on Thursday that he had miscalculated post-war conditions in Iraq, the New York Times reported.
<TABLE style="PADDING-LEFT: 15px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=textSmallGrey vAlign=top align=middle></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>The paper quoted Bush as saying during a 30-minute interview that he made a miscalculation of what the conditions would be in post-war Iraq.
"

Not apologies for the invasion though... but does he need to apologize for doing what he believed was the case based on information? Maybe.. maybe not... depends on who is answering I'd guess.

But i think in a diplomatic sense it is a sign of weakness to admit it was a mistake... it may be less costly than plowing forward... but both are hurtful for us either way. We are feeling the hurt of going forward right now... but we'd still have that plus the hurt of apologizing as well and lose respect from that as well, it's not going to change the world opinion.

 

[PhreakV]

while we actually have a 'list' of countries now, I can't imagine that any intelligent person can look at the Allies of WWII and even attempt to compare the current bulls*** coalition. (that was in no way designed to be an insult but its how I genuinely feel that any rational, logical person could ever even begin to look at the situation)...

how many troops were not only pledged, but served, and then served and died? that was the world's greatest coalition, possibly ever... the current coalition didn't even compare to the American contingent not to mention the millions of Europeans or the millions of Russians. to even start to compare the two is ludicrous, I can't even begin...

 

[vindication]

And on domestic issues, I forget the exact numbers but if you look at our import to export ratio you'll see that we import tons more stuff than we export. This means we are loosing tons of money and jobs. The only thing we are exporting is our damn jobs. This of course does not help Bush's debt crisis he has given to America. Also, cutting taxes on the rich and raising them on the middle class has a real bad effect on the economy also.

 

[TurfBurn]

while we actually have a 'list' of countries now, I can't imagine that any intelligent person can look at the Allies of WWII and even attempt to compare the current bulls*** coalition. (that was in no way designed to be an insult but its how I genuinely feel that any rational, logical person could ever even begin to look at the situation)...

how many troops were not only pledged, but served, and then served and died? that was the world's greatest coalition, possibly ever... the current coalition didn't even compare to the American contingent not to mention the millions of Europeans or the millions of Russians. to even start to compare the two is ludicrous, I can't even begin...

Yes as far as comittment, without question or argument in any way. My point was unilateralism. The current coalition posts bigger "numbers of supporting nations" in theory than the Allies of WWII. But not comparably in any other way shape or form. You are right... it wouldn't even begin to compare other than for my above point.

I don't disagree that the current coalition is a bit of a hollow alignment of countries but it does voice more international support than most people realize at this point. It's not equivocal support, but it is support and recognition by other countries beyond ours that there is an issue. I highly doubt that the other countries would voice support if the reasons we are there are truly complete BS. There has to be at least some validity for them to be along for the ride, especially if it is unpopular at home.

Hope that makes more sense

 

[TurfBurn]

And on domestic issues, I forget the exact numbers but if you look at our import to export ratio you'll see that we import tons more stuff than we export. This means we are loosing tons of money and jobs. The only thing we are exporting is our damn jobs. This of course does not help Bush's debt crisis he has given to America. Also, cutting taxes on the rich and raising them on the middle class has a real bad effect on the economy also.

i don't believe he raised the taxes on the middle class... but I could be wrong there.

Keep in mind that more money for the rich to spend and invest is not necessarily a bad thing since large amounts of that typically go into investment banking and venture opportunities which helps fuel high end business and development which is critical to our economy.

Exporting of jobs is not necessarily Bush's fault. Keep in mind he is the first president in years to institute a protectionist tariff (which he did for the steel workers until the world trade court ruled it illegal and it was later rpealed) to protect the economy at home. Again you have to keep in mind that corporate corruption scandals, the tech bubble bursting, Y2K employment dropoffs, 9/11's financial impact, economic restructuring as a whole, and other factors have all hit at the same time. There are massive industrial alignment changes taking place as well. The paper industry and it's manufacturing are getting pulled over to Europe by the companies over there doing things better and cheaper, yet the plastics industry in certain sectors is growing rapidly. Additionally, many companies are trying to cut overhead, and union workers making 20-30 an hour is an easy cut to make when you can have the product made overseas for 8 dollars an hour.

Is it necessarily good that we are sending jobs overseas? Not really, in some cases it is beneficial but as a general overall trend, no it is not. Does George Bush advocate sending jobs overseas? No, he distanced himself from that statement made by his economic advisor the moment it was made. As a philosophy he doesn't support it. Neither does John Kerry. So they agree there at least.

Point out specific laws or actions that are Bush's fault that result in these job losses... or show how Clinton who is so often credited for the "good" (but I say very fake) economy of the late 90's did things to specifically help the nation. Point is... The President doesn't have all that much swing on the economy, a bit here and there with advisors, laws and the like, but overall fractional in comparison to the performance that massive business creates and the policies and choices they make that dictate the flow of the economy.

 

[yashooa]

Damn Turf, you are right on the money.(nana)

 

[TurfBurn]

I think it is cool that it is possible to have a decently educated and very civil discussion. That's definitely the most impressive thing about the threads on this forum regarding these topics. Very cool! And I think it makes us all better voters, I know it has helped me and I've learned a lot from everybody else and the different opinions.

 

[PhreakV]

Turf - I understand what you were trying to say better. point taken.

while I don't think that he raised taxes on the middle class he definitely shifted a greater part of the burden down the economic scale. by cutting taxes for the higher brackets there are two major effects that I can see (logically and historically):
1. the burden of the cost of running the government/starting wars/fixing the roads, whatever is put more on the lower income brackets. that includes both middle class and lower class. as to whether or not you believe that to be acceptable is something else entirely.
2. since the lower classes cannot entirely shoulder the increased burden, the deficit inherently goes higher because we still need s*** to function. there are a number of positive effects to having increased financial ties across the globe (i.e. owing money to foreign nations makes them want us to do better so we can pay them back) but in the end we are going to have to pay these people. they are charging interest rates that make our payments to them look like food stamps. all of this is going to come back on us and our children.

outsourcing of jobs can be a positive for many companies for it allows them money to reinvest back in America, but in today's economic climate it seems that most companies are more worried about their stock porfolios and quarterly reports than training their employees to complete a new task. that's what gets me most about giving money back to the most wealthy and giving corporate handouts in the form of taxbreaks; there is no assurance that the money will ever make it back into our economy. many times it does go into venture companies but most of those are starting to head overseas for cheaper labor, but what happens when American workers don't have jobs? they can afford to buy the crap that they used to make at their jobs. I'm not encouraging isolationist, protectionist ideals but this doesn't seem to be the way (I wish I could add more but economics and economic theory tend to be beyond my intellectual grasp)...

 

[SpicyMchaggis]

chris, vote for me..I'll steer the U.S.S Slaveship in a bold new direction.

 

[TurfBurn]

chris, vote for me..I'll steer the U.S.S Slaveship in a bold new direction.

Sweet! Got my vote!

Spicy '04!!

 

[TurfBurn]

Turf - I understand what you were trying to say better. point taken.

while I don't think that he raised taxes on the middle class he definitely shifted a greater part of the burden down the economic scale. by cutting taxes for the higher brackets there are two major effects that I can see (logically and historically):

The burden didn't really change though. The middle class got a tax cut as well out of the deal, just not as much as the upper class. So we all actually have less of a tax burden... but also keep in mind that for our 20+ percent of income tax the rich are/were paying in the neighborhood of 50% plus in some cases. So if they now pay 10% less they still pay twice as much (percentage wise) than we do.

1. the burden of the cost of running the government/starting wars/fixing the roads, whatever is put more on the lower income brackets. that includes both middle class and lower class. as to whether or not you believe that to be acceptable is something else entirely.

I see what you are saying, and I agree that the statement is true, but it ignores the fact that a larger part of the amount of money still comes from upper class. But in a strict sense, more of it now comes from middle and lower than did previously. But it didn't actually burden the lower and middle anymore. It only affects the government and its budgets.

2. since the lower classes cannot entirely shoulder the increased burden, the deficit inherently goes higher because we still need s*** to function. there are a number of positive effects to having increased financial ties across the globe (i.e. owing money to foreign nations makes them want us to do better so we can pay them back) but in the end we are going to have to pay these people. they are charging interest rates that make our payments to them look like food stamps. all of this is going to come back on us and our children.

The sluggish pull of the economy, as well as the war and many other factors have done a lot to increase the deficit. I argued this one before, but occasional deficit spending is good for the economy, but as a general overall trend it is not. As long as the dollar stays strong, which it has for years of deficits of epic proportions, we will generally be ok on things. But yes there is a lot of debt, and it needs to get paid off or paid down sometime!

outsourcing of jobs can be a positive for many companies for it allows them money to reinvest back in America, but in today's economic climate it seems that most companies are more worried about their stock porfolios and quarterly reports than training their employees to complete a new task. that's what gets me most about giving money back to the most wealthy and giving corporate handouts in the form of taxbreaks; there is no assurance that the money will ever make it back into our economy. many times it does go into venture companies but most of those are starting to head overseas for cheaper labor, but what happens when American workers don't have jobs?

The government can't control what they do necessarily, but allowing an economic environment where the right choices will benefit both the big companies and the economy is the ideal. They simply need to seize and move forward with that. As the economy gets stronger, and consumers and investors become more confident that trend will establish itself more,b ut I certainly understand and agree with your points and why there is a negative issue that can arise.

The American workers will need to compete, become more educated, accept lower wages if necessary. There are opportunities, but there are hurdles that have to be made. I certainly don't think it is a 1 to 1 thing... for every 2 or 3 or 4 un-skilled jobs lost it probably only makes 1 or 2 more skilled jobs, so there is a discrepancy, but it does raise the overall standard of living assuming everyone finds re-employment. But again, positives and negatives.

A lot of things have to be considered for the overall future progress of the nation and the economy. Some things may hurt now, but will benefit later.

they can afford to buy the crap that they used to make at their jobs. I'm not encouraging isolationist, protectionist ideals but this doesn't seem to be the way (I wish I could add more but economics and economic theory tend to be beyond my intellectual grasp)...

I certainly agree there is a lot to it. Some things are good, and some things are bad. There are also a lot of things way outside of the knowledge and understanding of more or less all of us, and there are also a lot of things far outside of the control and influence of the President that he is blamed for. I think we can all admit this fact as well... if Bush is in office and the economy tanks we'll blame him, if it starts to go well, he won't get credit. If Kerry is in office and the economy tanks, we'll blame Bush, if it goes well, we'll credit Kerry. It won't matter who does what or when, but any president who ever presides during a rough economy automatically gets charged with it no matter what, and any president who only presides over a good economy is the only president who is ever credited with things going well. While in all reality it probably is a completely different relation entirely as to who did what!

Have a good one!

 

[slug420]

good points turf.

as i mentioned earlier I dont think I can get over the fact that we are in iraq, and i think that my disapproval of this war is going to dictate my vote. But if that wasnt the case, I still might vote for kerry since I dont see or hear the bush administration defending democrat claims as you are here.

You defend the bush administration in this thread and support their actions over the past 4 years, as well as it seems to me kerry describes their faults and points out shortcomings. The bush administration however in my opinion has done a terrible job as far as campaigning goes, and certainly with regards to the first presidential debate in defending themselves. It seems like every time there is an accusation or a question about something that the bush administration did they change the subject....I dont know what the reason for that is, but it is a logical conclusion that one could draw that the reason they dont defend themselves well - like you have done here - is that they cant. Maybe all the facts or actions you have pointed out here are in fact some way related to negatives about the bush administration, or maybe some of them are secretly not true. I dont mean to say that they are not true, but it certainly makes a swing voter in the general public suspect when the kind of defense you have put together throughout this thread isnt being mounted by the bush administration, yet they do resort to silly smear tactics like the whole swift boat thing.

As a swing voter I can honestly say over the past several months that has made a significant impact on my decision........what you are doing here is exactly what I expect(ed) of the bush administration, but never saw.

 

[TurfBurn]

good points turf.

as i mentioned earlier I dont think I can get over the fact that we are in iraq, and i think that my disapproval of this war is going to dictate my vote. But if that wasnt the case, I still might vote for kerry since I dont see or hear the bush administration defending democrat claims as you are here.

I think the disapproval of the war is a thing independent of the adminsitration in some ways. I personally believe that it would likely have happened with another president in office. Probably at a different time,and with different alliances, but likely regardless. There would be a slim chance that it wouldn't have happened, but I do understand where you are coming from and it's certainly a valid reason!

You defend the bush administration in this thread and support their actions over the past 4 years, as well as it seems to me kerry describes their faults and points out shortcomings. The bush administration however in my opinion has done a terrible job as far as campaigning goes, and certainly with regards to the first presidential debate in defending themselves. It seems like every time there is an accusation or a question about something that the bush administration did they change the subject....I dont know what the reason for that is, but it is a logical conclusion that one could draw that the reason they dont defend themselves well - like you have done here - is that they cant. Maybe all the facts or actions you have pointed out here are in fact some way related to negatives about the bush administration, or maybe some of them are secretly not true. I dont mean to say that they are not true, but it certainly makes a swing voter in the general public suspect when the kind of defense you have put together throughout this thread isnt being mounted by the bush administration, yet they do resort to silly smear tactics like the whole swift boat thing.

Well the 557 group that did the swift boat thing wasn't the Bush administration, and they commented very little toward it at all. I found it humorous when after that big stink only a few weeks later the infamous "documents" about Bush's guard records appeared and some democrats went after them with that and never thought twice when they were just complaining a couple weeks earlier about the swift boat smearing. But yes, this campaign has been very sadly dirty and smearing. If we had been talking issues instead of war records for the last several months it would be helpful to us all.

I also have been disappointed and dismayed by the campaign's lack of articulation in it's own defense. They seem to go with avoid and smear rather than explain. But for what it is worth they have been on the defensive the entire time and have been trying to fight back with an offense which I think is wrong and poorly done on their part. The debate was particularily disappointing to me as well. There were a good number of opportunities for Bush to have explianed and defended but instead he stuck with the campaign rhetoric. There was opportunity after opportunity in that debate for him to say things they've said previously, but use defensively for once. I think a lot of it is bush is simply not that articulate no matter what, and I think they are so worried about getting mired in controversy on their end that they'd rather ignore it and try to shift focus over rather than clear things up. It may be the demise of them in this election.

As a swing voter I can honestly say over the past several months that has made a significant impact on my decision........what you are doing here is exactly what I expect(ed) of the bush administration, but never saw.

I for one simply can't wait until this election is over regardless of who wins!