2004 Presidential Election

[piece-it pete]

I received an email the other day entitled "He's done more damage than we thought" (author unknown) which is a list of failures attributed to President George W. Bush. After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes. I will summarize this list and comment where appropriate.

A. Foreign Policy

1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community." While it is true that Congress authorized the President to invade Iraq, the fact that U.S. intelligence was so conflicting brings into question the judgment of Bush. I too was wrong in pushing for the removal of Hussein rather than staying focused on Bin Laden and the other terrorist organizations. Further, it is doubtful that Hussein could have developed WMD under the watchful eye of U.N.weapons inspectors and regular sorties flown by U.S. fighters throughout the no-fly zones (not to mention satellite surveillance). Kerry will need to initiate reconciliation through an international summit of European and Middle Eastern nations to begin the process of cleaning up this mess in Iraq (and worldwide). After the summit, the world will witness the slow withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the quick advancement of U.N. troops into Iraq.

I believe every occupation of a foreign county by the US was preceded by an order to attack.

UN, huh. Will someone point out ONE instance of a UN success militarily?

Why would we agree to be subect to a body made up of largely Dictatorial appointees? THAT isn't hypocritical?

Yes, Congress was given the SAME intellegence used by the Pres and came to the SAME conclusion. This is a dead horse, as the Dem vice chair of the 9-11 committee is in agreement with this assessment. It is pure politics by the Dems.

I seem to remember that Hussein tossed the inspectors out. While they were there, and when they were "allowed" back in, they were given the runaround EVERY DAY. Yeah, we should bank on this.

The WMD report on Iraq made it clear that all Hussein had to do was bide his time and had every intention of rebuilding his capability if possible. And with oil money, he always has the means.

Elect Kerry, and he will magicly get France and Germany to commit to Iraq, the sun will shine, and the world will love us. Russia has ALWAYS been with us behind the scenes, and since the school bombings up front.

Speaking of the school bombings, consider that Kerry will "return things to normal" terrorist-wise, but if these folks will go after their kinda "supporters" (they killed French citizens as well) how is he going to do this?

Judging by his long well documented record he will accomplish this by cutting the militaries' budget repeatedly and documenting abuses, while boosting our soldiers' morale by awarding medals that he does not believe in.

There can be no "schedule" to pull out troops in Iraq without disaster. It took seven years to put Japan back together, and we still have troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere.

Which BTW has not looted, raped, and pillaged those countries, but rather supported our successful efforts to install democratically elected gov'ts.

2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." In doing so, he has compromised the war on terrorism by directing 200 billion dollars for an overt combat operation as opposed to a covert operation. The United States has lost over 1,000 soldiers and thousands more are severely maimed prompting some to ask: hey hey GWB, how many kids will it be? The wiser choice would have been to invest 50 billion dollars in covert operations and 50 billion in homeland security. Besides, using conventional troops to fight terrorists is similar to the British army using regulars to fight French guerrillas during the Revolutionary War. Consequently, volunteerism for U.S. military service has sharply declined for all branches prompting rumors of a draft. Kerry will need to redirect resources to enhance homeland security while getting many more nations to share in troop and money commitments overseas especially in Iraq. He will also need to push Saudi Arabia and China to administer sanctions against Iran and North Korea to prevent further nuclear proliferation. Most importantly, however, he will need to fight terrorists overseas through covert operations.

Those "rumors" of a draft came directly from the Dems. Recruitment in all branches of the military has met targets.

As noted above, Congress agreed with the Presidents' action, until they didn't. Sounds like the Kerry we know and love.

Most leaders, US and foreign, libs and cons knew something had to be done with Saddam. In earlier wars, the isolationists were called "know-nothings". These were usually Republicans. My, how times change!

The overriding problem with Saddam is simply this: he showed the Arab world that the US (and the UN, and the rest of the civilized world) was a sniveling coward of a society that was weak and scared, no backbone, a bunch of wimps.

This goes to the heart of the war on terror, that we are fighting a CULTURE of hate, not one individual. Saddam was playing to that culture, on the world stage, and doing it well.

The global approach is the ONLY one that will be successful in the long run. Want things back to "normal"? Better get used to our boys taking some casualties for a while.

Unless Kerry gets in. Then, he will wave his wonderful wand and all will be ok. He'll give Iraq to the terrorists (the result of a pullout, no matter what the rosy scenario), with a great supply of oil money and who knows what else, France and Germany veto power over our self defense, and all the people in the world, terrorists or otherwise, will throw down their weapons and cheer for the wonderful US of A.

It goes without saying we won't have to worry about any more attacks then.

Saudi Arabia and China. These statements always crack me up, because they are the same thing as saying nothing. Yes, we will make China and the Sauds do our will (or France, or Germany, or the UN). Jeez.

B. Domestic Policy

1. "Bush spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history." Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy along with irresponsible subsidizing of the war in Iraq has taken the U.S. budget from dark black to bright red all in the span of four years. Another four years of this squandering will bankrupt the United States. The remaining 100 billion dollars (from above) could have been invested in domestic programs like health care, education and the infrastructure. Kerry will need to revoke the tax cuts for the rich and reduce the United State's financial/military commitment in Iraq. These two changes (along with others) should result in a balanced budget in four years with the possibility of a return to a budget surplus in eight years.

More true unbiased commentary?

It is well known that the economy was going down when GWB came to power. That "surplus"? Wasn't that the result of record tax income and a GOP house? Nope, it was Clinton.

Plus, there is the elephant in the room, the fact that the "surplus" was bogus, sheer fiction. In the last debate Kerry mentioned he "fixed" Social Security with the massive tax increase that came through our SS withholding, to be saved until the boomers hit 65.

If I was Bush I'd have said, "But what did you do with it? You spent it, didn't you?" Because that's EXACTLY what Kerry (and others) did. There was NEVER a surplus.

And if there was, why spend it?

Tax cuts WORK. Nobel prize-winning economist Edward Prescott recently called them too small: ""Tax rates were not cut enough" . I am for fairness, I don't mind the wealthy getting the same cut as me. "Tax the rich" has a communistic sound to my ears.

BTW, the class list for America: Poor. Lower middle. Mid middle. High middle. Somewhat rich. Very rich. Democrat rich.

Kerry, the liberal Democrat, to the LEFT of both Hillary and Teddy!, is going to balance the budget? lol.

People have VERY short memories, and his proposed massive gov't programs total A LOT.

2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down. His first two years in office resulted in 2 million Americans losing their jobs AND he cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US History." His presidency has been the most "in-your-face" support of the wealthy whether it be tax cuts, the lack of an energy and environmental policy, failure to crack down hard on corporate corruption etc. Kerry will need to bring back former Clinton advisor Robert Ruben to turn the economy around just as was done after the failed administration of Bush Sr. Kerry will need to fast-track the operationalizing of alternative energy sources in order to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil specifically and world oil in general. As a former prosecutor, he will need to push for long-term prison sentences for those committing white-collar crimes and reduce the difficulty of prosecuting the likes of Ken Ley.

Ha! He's done more, put more abusers behind bars, than Clinton (the man in charge while this whole stinkin' corporate mess was cooking) did in 8 years!

"operationalizing of alternative energy sources" - right. Not to say it's not important to work on these things, but real world use is nowhere in the forseeable future. We need oil, like it or not. You think $2.00/gallon is high?

Conclusion

The failures by George W. Bush, the viable alternative of John Kerry, the massive number of newly registered voters, the amount of attention being given by the American people on this election and the mass media trying to spin this race as being close are all clear signs of a Kerry landslide. On the November 2, 2004 the people will speak loud and clear.

I believe this election is too close to call. The latest Washington Post poll (10-19, 3% margin of error) shows Bush holding his consistent lead, right now at 50% to 47%.

Failures of Bush. That sounds like a spin. Do I think Bush is perfect, that he's the be-all and end-all? Hardly. But he's a darnsite closer to the middle than Kerry, and does not skirt around tough calls dealing with the terrorists. Who do you think Osamas' pulling for?

Pete