Well Neocon. Looks like argument may soon become moot if Bush gets elected by end of day. It all boiled down to a choice between two individuals. One was relentlessly portrayed as a liar to the hilt who would be counter productive to the country just because according to them he lies (lies about what, a series of stupid lies that always got him into trouble). The other choice was Bush. A neatly packaged individual who hardly seemed to be out of canned speeches or his mind. Whenever he was out of it, he fumbled. Made glaring mistakes eg. not the name of head of countries, but military regime in a country was doing good things, about social security relationship with federal programs, about not answering questions on issues, taking cues from the handlers, outright lying (you trust him, I don't) about his arrest during alcoholic incident, not knowing bare minimum details on the campaign trail, lack of interest/fire to serve as president, lack of fire to continue on campaign trail, insisting on watching his TV, playing computer games when the campaign gets intense etc. etc. etc. are all that come to my mind right away. All these are not hallmarks of a great leader. According to me he does not lie outright, but does hides his lies.
Assuming Bush becomes the president, let us check back in two years and decide who eats crow. We will measure strictly GWB's performance. How about that? |
