Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (544273)	2/23/2004 3:50:49 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Why George W. Bush will win in 2004 Trevor Bothwell (archive) February 22, 2004 \| Print \| Send Republicans are growing increasingly anxious about the reelection of President Bush this November. Their concerns are entirely valid given the president’s spending history, his leniency toward illegal immigrants, and some recent opinion polls showing John Kerry leading Bush. But while it’s never wise to underestimate the competition, they should bear in mind the president’s primary advantage: Most Americans understand -- or will realize come autumn -- that this election is about national security. Incidentally, Democrats realize this too, which explains their incessant attacks on Bush’s Air National Guard service during Vietnam, where Terry McAuliffe accused the president of going “AWOL” despite the fact he was granted an honorable discharge. Attacking George W. Bush’s military record during the 2000 election didn’t work, so they’re apparently resorting to their favorite strategy: Repeat lies often enough until you can convince people they’re true. We’ve seen this strategy played out repeatedly during the past two years: Bush is “stupid”; he “lied” us into war; “Big Oil!” The problem with this infantile slandering is that President Bush isn’t an idiot -- he has an MBA from Harvard Business School (say what you want about his intellect; many a privileged son have gotten the boot from HBS); Americans know it takes skill and character to be a fighter pilot; and they understand that Congress -- the same Congress that granted Bush permission to declare war on Iraq -- had available the same intelligence data on WMDs that Bush had. So even if Democrats feign patriotism and hawkishness (to wit: as in the 2002 midterm run-up) from now until November, there’s every reason to believe that their relentless maligning of the current commander-in-chief has already begotten their ruin. However, assuming the Democratic Party in general hasn’t already driven away too many moderates to regain the presidency, there are still several reasons their prospective nominee might (my prediction: a Kerry/Edwards ticket). First, John Kerry is almost as exciting as a barium enema. Have you heard his speeches following his primary wins? The guy looks like he’s going after the Walter Mondale Award for Motivational Speaking instead of the highest office in the land. I think this is one big reason we’ve seen John Edwards close the voting gap after the primaries in Virginia and Wisconsin. Aside from that sexy boyish grin, Edwards’ stump speeches at least keep voters awake long enough for them to hear him promise to arrange some slip-and-fall suits should a Republican Congress refuse to increase welfare subsidies during his term. Second, assuming the new JFK gets the nod, Kerry’s insistence upon degrading Bush’s previous military service (during a war, of all times) is not only indicative of his apparent disdain for our military, but it demonstrates an absence of character that I’m not sure we even witnessed in Bill Clinton (seriously). Any “leader” who is so self-absorbed as to not only tout his own military record, but berate those who have served their country in any capacity -- the irony of Kerry’s self-congratulation regarding Vietnam after famously badmouthing his fellow veterans notwithstanding -- does not possess the integrity required to befit the office which he seeks. In short, only a liberal would attempt to imply that Bush’s military service 30 years ago is a greater issue than his current war record -- which in only two years includes the successful overthrow of the Taliban, the capture of Saddam Hussein, and the elimination or capture of two-thirds of al-Qaeda terrorists, not to mention the liberation of the Afghan and Iraqi people. Ironically, the leadership Bush exhibits today likely was fashioned in large part by way of the military service John Kerry et al. are again attempting to disparage. Which leads to my final point. Whereas President Bush possesses clarity of vision, John Kerry shifts positions frequently. Kerry voted against the Gulf War in 1991, but now says he favored it; he voted for the Iraq war, but now says he’s opposed; he says he favors reconstruction in Iraq, but voted against the $87 billion to fund it; he used to think the Patriot Act was the best thing since marrying a gazillionaire, but now condemns it as an assault on civil liberties. Look, it’s one thing to change your mind after history proves you wrong; it’s totally another to be an opportunist willing to talk out both sides of your mouth. America is finally on the offensive in confronting terrorism, led currently by a president who has strayed from his base on occasion, but who nonetheless remains true to his convictions where it counts -- keeping us alive. Whether the Democrats can convince enough Americans to buy into their irrelevant accusations before the November elections is not the issue. The fact that their rhetoric is being used to conceal their complete absence of a better war strategy, or a better overall path for the security of the country, is. The Democrats know this is their problem. I’m betting that most Americans know this, too. And that’s why President Bush will win. Again. Trevor Bothwell is editor of The Right Report and is a Townhall.com book reviewer. He can be contacted at bothwell@therightreport.com. ©2003 Trevor Bothwell

To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (544273)	2/23/2004 3:58:51 PM
From: Srexley	Respond to of 769670

"Getting back to my point with srex we should be at full throttle hunting down Osama" Your LIE is that we are not doing this. "The very fact we could intensify our effort implies quite clearly that we haven't been" Unless your argument is that 100% of our resources should be involved in this one facet (which is ludicrous), your statement above only shows you have no sense of logic. If you do have sound logic, then you are lying.

To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (544273)	2/23/2004 4:05:09 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I don't consider myself a leftists That itself is a character trait of leftists. They are liars, especially to themselves. and have never been called one except on this thread. I NEVER lie. You just did - once again. I do however accept reality from time to time. Getting back to my point with srex we should be at full throttle hunting down Osama. This is a military strategy that you are just unqualified to make, sir. Sometimes it is quite reasonable to back off the enemy, way off, to allow him to emerge, THEN intensify your efforts to whack him once he reveals himself. You are acting just plainly stupid maaan. You hate Bush and that is all. So you disparage our military's efforts merely to try and insult Bush. In the end, you reveal your own incomprehensible stupidity. The very fact we could intensify our effort implies quite clearly that we haven't been. And that is often quite a valid thing to do when an enemy employs stealth as a weapon. Duh, doode! BTW you and many of the other wingnuts on this thread have expressed more than enough hate and revulsion at some of our leaders Those leaders (you mean Clinton) clearly and without any doubt at all, broke our laws and lied about it. They deserved every insult they received. This just cannot be said about Bush. You have no proof of it. You just hate Bush and want to get at him by whining against the military. No one can honestly disagree that leftists are ungodly liars.