Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

I'm a registered democrat, but am going to vote for Bush. Here's why:

1. He created this mess, you might as well let him fix it.

2. Sometimes in life you have to go backwards to go forward. In alot of ways Bush has made this country go backwards, but his ultimate goals are to make it better in the long term. If we don't let him finish through with his plans, then all the negative things that have happened will only bring negative ramifications. The troops in Iraq...all thier efforts will have gone to nothing.

Discuss.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 05:30 pm: Edit

Good. (assuming this post isn't sarcasm)

By Efilsiertaeht (Efilsiertaeht) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 05:38 pm: Edit

How is denying citizens rights (to decide whether to have a child that was born at an awful time, for instance, age 14, to marry whom they choose) making our country better? It's the least patriotic thing anyone can do for our country created to GIVE rights to CHOOSE religion and not be persecuted for it.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 05:58 pm: Edit

what the F are you talking about

By Jer728 (Jer728) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 06:01 pm: Edit

I second that confusion. I can't believe that I am going to miss the chance to vote by only a couple months.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 06:05 pm: Edit

Ya Idiaas, your reasoning isn't that good. If you don't agree with Bush you shouldn't vote for him. I am, but that's because I agree with him. If I didn't agree with him, I wouldn't vote for him.

Efilsiertaeht (wow that was hard to type), I'm guessing your last sentence implies that you think Muslims are being persecuted in America. But what are you talking about with the 14 yr old?

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 06:09 pm: Edit

Oh, nevermind, I think get it now. In that terribly worded post, I think that Efil wanted to say that he disagree's with Bush's positions on gay marriage and the Patriot Act. I don't understand the 14-yr old comment, but whatever.

By Idiias (Idiias) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 06:35 pm: Edit

If you support Bush EJ, then why dont you support reasoning to vote for him? I never said that I agree or disagree with Bush. I just think he should be given the chance to finish what he's started.
P.S. I live RIGHT across the street from the GW admissions office, so please keep that in mind before you critize my reasoning in the future. Thank you.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 06:44 pm: Edit

idias's reasoning is FDR's "dont change horses in the middle of a stream" thing about even if you disagree with him about how he is handling the economy or ww2 (many were opposed to that war), you should stick with him. The last 3 years have been tough, with 9/11, the war on terror, the reccesion which we are out of... and I agree in these very critical times, unless one thinks Bush is horrible, which I do not, I would stick with him instead of the unknown and untested and fickle kerry.

By Masterchris (Masterchris) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 06:49 pm: Edit

Both of my parents are registered dems, and they have decided that they are both voting for Bush. They have not voted for a republican for prez for 20 years, but these times are too critical to put national security into the hands of the questionable kerry. In addition, they feel the dems have moved to far to the left to be considered viable.

By Bacchanalian (Bacchanalian) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 06:53 pm: Edit

1. Wasn't the midstream thing Lincoln?

2. I think he's referring to abortion with the 14 year old comment.

By Alphamom (Alphamom) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 07:06 pm: Edit

I don't care for Bush, but one thing I've learned is that the government doesn't tell the general population the whole reasoning behind its actions. I also know that there are genius advisors who communicate with the President, so no matter how dumb he seems, he knows how to access good advice. I am trusting that the mess he has us in is the best situation of all evils and history will reveal some really interesting dynamics about how we manipulated this terrorist war. So, I will be voting for Bush too.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 07:13 pm: Edit

Idiias, though I'm a Bush supporter, your logic does indeed seem flawed. "I'm voting for the guy who screwed us so that he can fix it" isn't precisely the best reasons for voting for a guy.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Sorry, it was Lincoln. Same idea though. I thought of some more similarities I found when looking at this period:

-Lincoln, the republican, stood for continuation of the war.
Bush's policies are clear with staying the course and finishing up when the job is done.

-The Democrats united with McClellan at their convention but divided on policy. The copperhead wing of the party wanted immediate peace.
The dems united with the anti-bush fever, but are divided on policy between the dean wing and lieberman wing, so kerry is in a box and his position is muddled. Almost half of Democrats favored the Iraq war and about half are against.


-Prior presidents to lincoln did not take strong stands against slavery and contempt for federalism. Lincoln finally took charge fully defeated slavery, not just appeasing and side stepping the problems that arrose such as bleeding kansas.
Under Clinton, we had 4 major attacks (wtc bombing, bombing of the cole, bombing of the kenya embsy, and bombing of tanzania embsy), and he did nothing except fire a few missles here and there.
Bush, like Lincoln, changed the fundamental approach by changing the countries terrorists were supported and harbored in. Bush, in his National Security Strategy statement and in his actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, has transformed U.S. foreign policy more than any president since Truman.


Reagan used this idea successfully in 1984. In 1988, when his vp Bush was running for prez, he said, "But when you have to change horses in midstream, doesn't it make sense to switch to the one who's going the same way?"


Now, I dont know if kerry is going the same way or not, we have to speculate on what Kerry would do since he's been very vague, preferring to criticize the Bush policy without arguing a realistic concrete alternative.

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 07:24 pm: Edit

The civil war, the first world war, the second world war, vietnam war, and the culmination of the cold war in 80's never saw an incumbent defeated. That will hold true this election, and I am very happy about that :-)

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 08:18 pm: Edit

it's like this...
let's say you and your friend are driving a truck. now your friend is driving, and he's not very good at it. you're constantly pressing the brake pedal that isn't there and covering your face. your friend, being the crappy driver he is, drives the truck into a ditch. it seems like the last straw. so are you stupid enough to let your buddy try and drive the truck out? hell no you wouldn't be! you'd tell him to get out and you'd do it yourself!

i'm voting for kerry, dammit!

By Peacefulchaos (Peacefulchaos) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 08:32 pm: Edit

most people are voting for kerry just because he's not george bush...

i dont like bush, nor do i like kerry. i'm not gonna be able to vote so it doesnt matter though

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 08:46 pm: Edit

The things is, most people dont think Bush has us in a ditch with the war on terror or the economy, and even more so, we do not even know if kerry has a licence or is skilled, because he flip flops and drives in both lanes. We know which lane Bush is in, and most approve, but kerry changes lanes so often that we do not know where he will take us, or worse, if he'll choose the lane of on coming traffic.

Most of kerry's positions that are known I disagree with, and the for the rest, he is an unknown, and being vague during these times is not a risk the country will take.

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 09:36 pm: Edit

where do you come up with this bun? "most approve"??? how in the hell do you know? "and for the rest, he is an unknown" o that must explain it. i shouldn't vote for john f. kerry because bunmushroom said nobody knows who he is. GIVE ME A BREAK! i honestly don't think you're stupid enough to think that this election won't be close. don't give me some line of crap about a stupid poll either. we all know those are a load of BS. i'm also surprised that someone with your intelligence would stoop so low as to call kerry a flip flopper. what would you call bush? confused? if you don't think bush has done a less than perfect job as president, then you're not living in the same America that i live in.

even republican apologists know bush is a poor leader, and you're right, we don't know how john kerry will do. however, i like many other americans am willing to hedge my bets to oust in my opinion a failed leader this fall.

P.S. LBJ didn't run for a second term. if you ask me, he defeated himself.

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 10:12 pm: Edit

"where do you come up with this bun? "most approve"??? how in the hell do you know?"


Approval ratings, more than 50% approve of the way Bush's job as president. And if you think polls are bs, your thinking is bs. They might not be exactly accurate, but they are scientific. Last election they came very close to predicting it, and there are multiple polls in this election that all have similar numbers.

P.S. He might not of run for a second term, but the one with similar positions (Nixon) on the war won, while the anti-war Humphry lost. So my analysis holds true. People do not change horses in mid stream, even though kerry looks like a horse, and espessially because Bush is supported on almost every issue against his challenger who can't stick to positions to be supported.

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 10:32 pm: Edit

how many times have you been called and asked, "how do you approve of the president today?" better question: how many people do you even know who have been called and asked that question?

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 02:21 am: Edit

What is the difference how many times I have been called? Polling is a scientific process. Last election the polls said the 2 were tied, and that is pretty much how the election turned out. Now, all the polls show Bush with a lead. It might be different a few points up or down, and that is accounted for in the margin of error, but it is obvious that one candidate is ahead since all the different polls give similar results.
They use phone polling, and that is almost 100%, because even the poverty stricken in this country have phones. The only skewing could be against the amish, who are likly to vote republican.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 09:15 am: Edit

Bunmushroom, that's why you're the one at MIT.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 11:06 am: Edit

I have a theory about what will happen when Kerry wins in the fall. The election will be a squeeker, but win I think he will! He can't fail in whatever policy he impliments in Iraq. If he chooses not to pull out immediately (and he's already said he won't), he can say that we have to stay in order to clean up the mess that Bush created. And no matter how bad the war on terrorism goes against the U.S., he can blame Bush as the one responsible for creating the mess in the first place. The same phenomenon holds true for virtually every other issue of national importance that you could name. Just say, Bush left me with this gigantic, irrepairable mess, and It's not my fault that it can't be fixed. Barring that, he can always fault the Republican congress for his inability to improve matters. He'll have the finest teflon suit ever invented.

But as far as I'm concerned, I think it hardly matters who's elected in the fall. The President of the United States doesn't have nearly as much power has people think he does. He's a strawman in many respects.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 12:18 pm: Edit

Valpal, at one point I thought he'd win too, but I don't anymore. I also have a theory on what would happen if he wins though. I think the anger in the Country would increase. So many people honestly believe he will save the middle class, bring back jobs and turn education around. What happens when he can't fulfill the 2 trillion worth of promises? Even Edward's drawl will cease to be seen as cute.

By 3togo (3togo) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 12:41 pm: Edit

old geezer observation ... when I was 17 I was incredibly excited to be close to being able to vote and to help decide elections, especially presidential elections ... now 8 presidential elections later I expect to reluctantly go to the polls and pick the least worse candidate ... there are so many amazing people in this country and politics have evolved to a place where most of the potentially great presidents will not run for President.

By Melissamelissa (Melissamelissa) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 06:44 pm: Edit

i pity any1 who votes 4 bush

hes screwed up the countrty, lied, got us into war only becuz he likes war, and is just SO fake!
why the hell should he have a 2nd term?

his dad was crap, and so turned out to be his son

dont make his head bigger than it already got!

VOTE 4 KERRY

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 07:13 pm: Edit

Melissa Melissa Melissa.

1.) Stop typing lyke dis. its hard 2 take u seriously.
2.) He didn't get us into war only because he likes war. Even the most flaming liberal wouldn't make that accusation.
3.) He's SO fake. Just like Kerry. And, in fact, just like virtually every weasel in a suit in Washington.
4.) What does it matter whether his father was a good president or not? Just because they have the same name doesn't mean they're exactly alike.

And so on.

I don't want to be mean, but Melissamelissa here is a perfect example of what I run into almost daily here in beautiful California: "I hate Bush because he's stupid and he loves war." Of course. It's indisputable that he is definitely those two things. How silly of me to overlook that.

Here at CC.com, I'm duly impressed by the thoughtfulness of my fellow conservatives, but I'm equally impressed by the clarity and intelligence of the liberal side of the board. More often than not, the arguments are logical and well-written.

So let's keep it mature and reasonable here. And no more crap lyke dis becuz it sux. Word.

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 07:53 pm: Edit

Thank you for your pity melissa. I pity your ignorant and untrue thought process.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 08:07 pm: Edit

Idiias, I guess what I was saying was that I think that most politicians "grand schemes" are all political, with very little truth in them. While I agree Mr. Bush is attacking the roots of terrorism, I don't really believe that his speeches about optimism, etc. are as truthful as they sound. BTW, I don't think Mr. Kerry's are either.

I guess what I'm saying, Idiias, is that you wait in vain for politician's 'grand schemes' or ideas to come into play.

Idiias, maybe I was a bit harsh in my criticism of your reasoning. Just I don't exactly buy into the 'grand schemes' that politicians come up with (on either side, Republican or Democrat). I'm sorry Idiaas if I was too strong in my criticism, and I guess I should pay attention to who I improperly criticize.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 08:11 pm: Edit

I understand your comment that he should finish what he started though. The Iraq War is a mess, one that with good intelligence we should never have become involved in. I think that having one President during the conflict will help with the continuity and help American stratagy in the Middle East. I think that a Kerry presidency would disrupt our actions in Iraq simply by breaking up the continuity. Idiias, after reflection I see your point, and actually think I agree with you now!

I'm not just saying that because you live across from the GW admission office either. Also, do you like living in DC?

By Escafandrasteve (Escafandrasteve) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 08:56 pm: Edit

Under that logic, you should always vote for the incumbent since almost all policies exceed a 4 year goal of completion...

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 08:57 pm: Edit

bun,
how can someone with your intelligence actually think that 500 people could accurately represent the electorate? if my college level stats course serves me correct, it really doesn't. it could, but the chances are unlikely. on top of that, the polls change every day. how could you look at one right after the RNC and say bush will win in a landslide? as well, you continue to site the 2000 election, yet gore won the popular vote. the electoral college and these magazine polls are gone about differently, how can they always accurately represent the election outcome? the electoral college doesn't care who wins the popular vote, it all comes down to electoral votes. and on top of THAT, phone surveys aren't accurate at all. you have response bias, wording of question bias, and undercoverage. plus, land lines have almost become obsolete; cell phones are becoming much more popular, and i'm sure many don't answer calls for fear of telemarketing. as far as i'm concerned the only way we'll know the outcome... is by waiting till november....

melissa, i agree with what you say for the most part, but you've really gotta back it up for some validity. otherwise our conservative comrades on this board will shread you to pieces as they so candidly do(don't hurt me guys i'll play nice )

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 09:14 pm: Edit

First, it is a sampling of the population and is usually done with about 1000 per poll. Now one poll might not be so helpful, but when you see 5 different polling companies doing weekly polls and relfecting the same thing, it becomes pretty obvious where the candidates stand as a snap shot.
I know the electoral is what counts, and that is why the pollers do it by state. For example, Bush is up between 10-14 in missouri, and 6-8 in Ohio, and 1 in penn, while down 4-8 in washington.

Third, you are being very irrational when you say land lines are almost obsolete. It is a very small fraction who only own cell phones. The only group who dont get represented in the polls is the 60k amish in penn and ohio, who will almost all vote for Bush.

Saying polling isnt at all accurate is like saying the high temperature of Los Angeles is not accurate because it was taken in one place in the city, instead at every point. It is a scientific process that gives an idea of where the candidates are, and when you see multiple polls showing the same thing, it is even more accurate.

By Tlaktan (Tlaktan) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 09:14 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

bun,
how can someone with your intelligence actually think that 500 people could accurately represent the electorate?

---

---

Quote:

if my college level stats course serves me correct, it really doesn't. it could, but the chances are unlikely. on top of that, the polls change every day. how could you look at one right after the RNC and say bush will win in a landslide? as well, you continue to site the 2000 election, yet gore won the popular vote.

---

---

Quote:

the electoral college and these magazine polls are gone about differently, how can they always accurately represent the election outcome? the electoral college doesn't care who wins the popular vote, it all comes down to electoral votes. and on top of THAT, phone surveys aren't accurate at all. you have response bias, wording of question bias, and undercoverage. plus, land lines have almost become obsolete; cell phones are becoming much more popular, and i'm sure many don't answer calls for fear of telemarketing. as far as i'm concerned the only way we'll know the outcome... is by waiting till november....

---

By Tlaktan (Tlaktan) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 09:22 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

i pity any1 who votes 4 bush

---

---

Quote:

hes screwed up the countrty,

---

---

Quote:

lied,

---

---

Quote:

got us into war only becuz he likes war

---

---

Quote:

and is just SO fake!

---

---

Quote:

why the hell should he have a 2nd term?

---

---

Quote:

his dad was crap,

---

---

Quote:

and so turned out to be his son

---

---

Quote:

dont make his head bigger than it already got!

---

---

Quote:

VOTE 4 KERRY

---

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 09:25 pm: Edit

eyesclosedtight, you are being very irrational and dont want to see what you dont want to see, which is a Bush lead and momentum.
And even if the liberal Time and newsweek mags had bias in there questions, they have the same basic questions each time. So if there was a conservative lean to the questions, which is unlikly from these publications, how do you explain the 4-8 point lead kerry held in the same polls in july.

By Idiias (Idiias) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 11:03 pm: Edit

EJ- thank you. I was actually planning on going over to the admission office on my way to chem tomorrow and telling them negative things about you. If that failed to work, and you got in, I would make sure you're time here was miserable. lol jk

no but it is really awesome here. Especially it being an election year, you'd be surprised how much activity of that sort you see you around here. It's really awesome.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 11:51 pm: Edit

W's nephews---The hispanic ones?

By Idiias (Idiias) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 01:00 pm: Edit

no

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 08:18 pm: Edit

"it becomes pretty obvious where the candidates stand as a snap shot."

exactly, so why are you so positive that bush will win the election?

"Third, you are being very irrational when you say land lines are almost obsolete. It is a very small fraction who only own cell phones."

my point is, how often do you take phone surveys? or any surveys? or any calls with caller ID: unknown? or any tele-crap? no one does. it's response bias, the polls only contact those who also wish to be contacted. at the same time you have undercoverage where original subjects from the sample simply can't be contacted at all. polls taken 60 days before an election and especially after a convention can never determine the actual outcome of an election.

Tlaktan,
was that a failed attempt to try and refute what i said? because you did none of that. as well you did a pretty lousy job on melissa too. leave it to the pros.

jlq,
why do you automatically assume my stance was politically charged? nowhere in my original post about polls did i say that kerry was ahead in the polls or even that bush wasn't. all i'm saying is it will not accurately depict the election. you automatically assume that i think the pollsters are conservatives and are performing the wording of question bias. i'm not stupid, it can come from both or neither side. and why was kerry ahead back in july? because it was right after the DNC. would i say that he's gonna win the election because he was ahead then? no. i'd be a fool to do that. just like you or anyone else would be a fool to assume that bush would win because of a poll taken last week.

By Tlaktan (Tlaktan) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 08:33 pm: Edit

Eyesclozedtight: Your argument, I partially agreed with; melissa's argument was so laughable I didn't even bother writing a serious retort. Some are too thick-headed to even try to change, so I didn't even bother.

And in a way, I do agree with what you say.. The only poll that counts is on Election Day, and even that one is inaccurate. As Stalin once said, "The country's decision is not in the hands of the voters, but rather those who count the votes." Okay, so that was a paraphrased version, but you get the point.

I could write a politically charged or a neutral, observational counterargument against what you and Melissa have presented. Yours, because I don't wholly disagree with what you're saying (I think I was a bit playful at the time and was just fooling around), and Melissa's because argument between two stern supporters of two polar opposites would be pointless, it's impossible for the other side to switch.

In fact, this entire campaign is geared towards the moderates, those precious few in the middle who can swing the election either way. It's about that and solidifying their current base, not to try and remove the solid power base of the other side.

By Melissamelissa (Melissamelissa) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 08:54 pm: Edit

Well, i think i can type any way i choose to...whether u take me seriously or not is up 2 u.

ank frankly, i already knew that anyone on the board who was a conservative or just pro-bush would criticize my opinion.

well, nothing has changed dearies....
i dont like bush, i think he is only in for his reputation. kerry might not be great either, but hey, hes a step up from bush! maybe a couple steps......
as for finishing what he started........
he started making this country hated by almost the rest of the world, so lets give him another chance to make the WHOLE world hate us! that makes sense! (end sarcasm)...

just face the facts, we are better off without him. Presidency is not a chance, its a REALLY REALLY big responsibility, and id say lets put a man who hasnt previously screwed up the country and who has decent views on politics in charge..

if you dont agree, well, bashing me wont do anything, you can just post your own comment and be civilized about it

By Sepi11 (Sepi11) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:17 pm: Edit

Idias-
is it not obvious to you how rediculous your arguement is?! You even said yourself that Bush screwed up! Why keep him around? You think all of a sudden he's gonna "fix things" during Term 2?

By Melissamelissa (Melissamelissa) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 11:46 am: Edit

my point too sepi!!!

By Dwerbowy (Dwerbowy) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 12:00 pm: Edit

well sometimes rapists or muderers don't always finish what they started, would you also let them finish thru with what they were doing too?

By Songman (Songman) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 12:22 pm: Edit

Actually Should the AMish be allowed to vote if they don't pay taxes or use the services of society?

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 02:14 pm: Edit

I think they do pay taxes. I dont know too much about them, but anyway, there is a good number of people who legally do not pay any taxes because of income levels.

By Hayden (Hayden) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 06:45 pm: Edit

The Amish pay taxes, and do use the services of society. Although I have no idea why the extent to which they use the services of society has anything to do with voting. They use public roads, healthcare, etc. They also use the telephone system. Most Amish, even the strictest, typically have a telephone somewhere on their premises, usually an outbuilding near the road. They use it for medical emergencies, and for communication with non-Amish. They just have an aversion to having electrical and phone lines connecting their houses to the modern conveniences. And so ends my lecture on the Amish! I am not Amish, but sometimes I sure wish I could get disconnected from the outside world for a while.

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 12:08 am: Edit

1. He created this mess, you might as well let him fix it.

2. Sometimes in life you have to go backwards to go forward. In alot of ways Bush has made this country go backwards, but his ultimate goals are to make it better in the long term. If we don't let him finish through with his plans, then all the negative things that have happened will only bring negative ramifications. The troops in Iraq...all thier efforts will have gone to nothing.

I agree and disagree with your post. I agree with your reasoning, but I don't think Bush has created an utter mess or screwed everything up by going into Iraq...i'm not gonna go and be all detailed with why. But i'll just say this: aside from all the WMD stuff etc... I'd rather take the war against terrorists and have it be fought on the streets of Fallujah, then in the streets of New York City.

simple as that.

"but his ultimate goals are to make it better in the long term" ~ Exactly..and most of us might not see the retrospect until later.

By Alphamom (Alphamom) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 02:44 pm: Edit

I thought it was an interesting strategy that Bush quickly diverted the terrorist war to Afghanistan and Iraq. The WMD theory I think was an excuse to focus terrorists on trained military vs. attacks on innocent civilians here.

By Hayden (Hayden) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 06:54 pm: Edit

Yes, alphamom. It was a very cagey strategy on Bush's part. Why fight 1,000 terrorists when we can go out and create 10,000 more. Quite a coup of an idea.

By Alphamom (Alphamom) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 07:56 pm: Edit

Perhaps I gave Bush too much credit, as all the other wartime presidents have chosen to fight on foreign soil as well. I cannot begin to understand the real reasons motivating Bush, as the general population is not enlightened until the history books are written, so I can only guess, like everyone else.

By Hayden (Hayden) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 09:20 pm: Edit

Alphamom, I absolutely agree with you there !

By Idiias (Idiias) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 10:30 pm: Edit

OKAY, the truth is, I had an urge to vote for Bush last week after becoming facebook friends with one of W's nephews, a freshman at ********* University. I said those things to try and justify a sudden change of who I was voting for, simply to myself. I was excited and reacted on impulse, but will be rethinking my decision, prior to the date in November. Thank you.

By Tlaktan (Tlaktan) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 02:12 am: Edit

**** = Georgetown? Pierce Bush?