[TAZ]

(Rant of the day):

Most of you will have read or heard that Bush made a comment about how he felt that America couldn't really "win" the war on terror. This is an intelligent statement; one that shows understanding of who we're dealing with, and the issues at hand. Rush Limbaugh questioned Bush on this on Tuesday, asking for clarification. Bush responded, stating that he should have further explained himself. Bush clarified: that the war on terror is not a "conventional war"; that there's not going to be a treaty, or a surrender, or an otherwise "typical" ending to the "war". It's same reason people used to make fun of the "war on drugs" - because how do you know when it's won? Despite this, it doesn't mean we should sit idly by and do nothing, or wait for the UN to take action. The enemy isn't a country or an army, it's a bunch of loosely organized, misinformed cowards who all want to kill Americans for reasons they don't really understand. Presumably Bush feels he should have expounded on his original statement further so that...

...morons like Kerry wouldn't take the comment out of context! However - and quite predictably - this is EXACTLY what is happening. Kerry and his band of blind, angry and confused are running around telling everyone with a TV camera that "Bush said we can't win the war on terror" - and implying that he (Kerry) could do better. How, John? Are you going to deploy more troops? Are you going to fight the terrorists in a more sensitive way? Perhaps you'll use the planned tax increase(s) you're not telling us about to fund it? How are you going to do any better if you vote against our military efforts?

People may have issues with George Bush. That's their right, and it's one of the things that makes our country great - that lemmings can have "opinions" too. But I challenge anyone to deny that our President has been anything but steady and resolved to protect the citizens of America, or that he has the safety of Americans as his top priority. I'd like to hear the Bush haters deny that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power; without the 3/4 of Al Quaeda leadership that has been captured or killed; without Uday and Qusay breathing our air. And I would also challenge anyone to explain how John Kerry would do a better job of commanding and supporting our armed forces; or stimulating the economy; or standing up to world leaders; or reducing our taxes.

I guess the point is that the number one priority for the US right now MUST be to continue to do as much as possible to protect the US from terrorist attacks. I just fail to see how changing Presidents is going to help that.

While I'm at it, let's take a look at these dumbass protesters. Wearing "My Bush stinks" shirts. (I'm sure it does, honey. You should try taking a shower. And shave those armpits, too. And eat a salad once in a while, your fat belly is hanging out of that too-small hippie tank top you're wearing.) Carrying peace signs. I don't think THESE are the kind of people that I want choosing who will protect me and my family from extremist Islam terrorists sure that they're gonna get some booty if they just wipe out some American infidels.

One thing I'm sure of: No matter WHO was running on the Democratic side, these morons would be doing the same stuff; carrying the same signs; regurgitating the same ininformed "information". No one wants to try and explain why John Kerry would be a better President; they're only tired of George Bush, and most of them can't offer a valid reason why. Yet all of these people will vote for Kerry, despite the fact that he's not illustrated that he's competent enough or prepared to help this country out. And that's skerry.

[ER]

Originally Posted by TAZ

(Rant of the day):...morons like Kerry wouldn't take the comment out of context! However - and quite predictably - this is EXACTLY what is happening. Kerry and his band of blind, angry and confused are running around telling everyone with a TV camera that "Bush said we can't win the war on terror" - and implying that he (Kerry) could do better. How, John? Are you going to deploy more troops? Are you going to fight the terrorists in a more sensitive way? Perhaps you'll use the planned tax increase(s) you're not telling us about to fund it? How are you going to do any better if you vote against our military efforts?

Politics is politics and everyone knew the Kerry camp would run with what Bush said. It's going to be a battle for votes all the way up until election day. The only thing Kerry's promised that is noticeably different from Bush is that he will involve the UN waaaaaay too much.

I guess the point is that the number one priority for the US right now MUST be to continue to do as much as possible to protect the US from terrorist attacks. I just fail to see how changing Presidents is going to help that.

I agree, which is why I'm sometimes left scratching my head at the "anyone but Bush" crowd. Kerry isn't promising anything different, other than what I mentioned above. Along with that, he brings an entire assortment of Liberal issues into the White House that will find their way into our Government.

While I'm at it, let's take a look at these dumbass protesters. Wearing "My Bush stinks" shirts. (I'm sure it does, honey. You should try taking a shower. And shave those armpits, too. And eat a salad once in a while, your fat belly is hanging out of that too-small hippie tank top you're wearing.) Carrying peace signs. I don't think THESE are the kind of people that I want choosing who will protect me and my family from extremist Islam terrorists sure that they're gonna get some booty if they just wipe out some American infidels.

It's important to notice the difference in protesting now as compared to during the DNC. The Republicans have allowed them to exercise their right to do what their doing unimpeded. During the DNC, protestors were hoarded into selected areas and given sparse media coverage. There's certainly not a shortage of coverage now.

No one wants to try and explain why John Kerry would be a better President; they're only tired of George Bush, and most of them can't offer a valid reason why. Yet all of these people will vote for Kerry, despite the fact that he's not illustrated that he's competent enough or prepared to help this country out. And that's skerry.

This has always been my biggest unanswered question from the Kerry supporters. Why are you voting for him - besides the fact that he's not Bush? Hey, 35% of the people are going to yank the Republican handle regardless, and 35% are going to yank the Democratic handle regardless. But I think it would be better (and more truthful) to simply say, "I'm voting for Kerry because I'm a Liberal and I support Liberal issues". Aside from that, there's not a logical reason to support him because he brings nothing else besides his voting record. He promises everything and nothing, he was here and then there, he did this and then that...but nothing is really being said. Behind all that you can rest assured that if elected, he will push a very Liberal agenda into the White House with him.

[Baketech]

It's no different than the Bushite's using (abusing?) Kerry's "More sensitive war on terror" comment....

Both sides parse words and quote out of context....that's the spin and counterspin of politics, but neither side is more or less guilty than the other....

[TAZ]

Originally Posted by ER

This has always been my biggest unanswered question from the Kerry supporters. Why are you voting for him - besides the fact that he's not Bush? Hey, 35% of the people are going to yank the Republican handle regardless, and 35% are going to yank the Democratic handle regardless. But I think it would be better (and more truthful) to simply say, "I'm voting for Kerry because I'm a Liberal and I support Liberal issues". Aside from that, there's not a logical reason to support him because he brings nothing else besides his voting record. He promises everything and nothing, he was here and then there, he did this and then that...but nothing is really being said. Behind all that you can rest assured that if elected, he will push a very Liberal agenda into the White House with him.

ER,
Good work (with the whole post)! Well said, and realistic too.
I think Kerry supporters are being a bit blind...and just plain misled. IMO, we'd be best off with a neutral President with no party affiliation. As our political system guarantees that's not likely, we (as a nation) would be wise to choose the more moderate candiate. Judging Kerry by his Senate record, he's anything but moderate. If the majority of ER's "other" 30% chooses the more moderate candidate, we'll (be lucky and) have Bush for four more years.

And hopefully by the end of W's second term, Kerry will have narrowly avoided getting hit by a bus...before getting flattened by one.

[figment]

war on terror as apposed to war against a nation. There is no treaty signed. Only a reduction in the threat. So there is no point at which you can ever say "we win". That was the perspective Bush was communicating.