Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Why Bush Must be Re-elected

  1. Jul 21, 2004 #1

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    By former New York City mayor Ed Koch:

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/21/152331.shtml
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 21, 2004 #2

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    And the way he goes about it means it'll take forever. The US is less safe than it was on 9/11; al Qaeda has metastatized in Iraq into a lot of fresh well organized terrorist groups. Just wait.
     
  4. Jul 21, 2004 #3

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    This could spell a lot of trouble for Kerry if his opposition to Bush's middle east policy means that more prominent Jews, like Koch, turn their support to Bush.
     
  5. Jul 21, 2004 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Unless being in Iraq means Al Queda isn't here. Being former military, I can assure you that the members of our armed forces would rather die in Iraq than have our civilians dying here. I still consider that "safer."

    Also, Iraq wasn't it for the "war on terrorism." It started with Afghanistan and that part definitely left us safer.

    Terrorism is a double-edge sword for Bush. If another 9/11 happened a month before the election, would it help or hurt? Most of my friends who didn't vote for Bush said after 9/11 they were glad he was in office rather than Gore. When times call for war, the vast majority of Americans want a gun-toting-Texan-Republican in office. So would another 9/11 mean we still need him or mean he didn't do his job in preventing it? I honestly don't know.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2004
  6. Jul 21, 2004 #5
    They call this "Truth by Prophecy."

    No one knows if we are safer or not. Although there are possibly more people who want to hurt the US, we have effectively knocked off many opportunities for them to find state sponsorship. And without major bucks they will have a hard time doing significant damage.

    IMO, it is better to take away state sponsorship opportunities at the expense of angering individuals.
     
  7. Jul 21, 2004 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't think the war was wrong in principle so much as in method. Based on many interpretations I hear from Middle East experts, the war in Iraq helped terrorism. I don't know if I buy this, but I doubt the war really helped other than to divert attention from the real issues like securing our harbors, making aircraft truly safe, coordinating intelligence information effectively, tracking down the gazillion aliens in violation of their Visa's in one way or another, fund local law enforcement and FBI operations that surveilled suspected terrorists but who were never paid, and who were forced to cancel the anti-terror activities, for starters. We hunt down this guy or that guy, giving Bush a clear political focal point, but we allow 95% of all cargo to enter the US without inspection. Sure, that makes sense. I think the prioreties were all wrong. First we secure the borders, then we can take on the rest of the world. These guys were chomping at the bit to get Saddam and at the least, they lost perpsective.

    Now Bush wants to blame faulty intelligence for the errors. I guess someone forgot to tell him how it works when you're the CNC: You are responsible President Bush. To claim any less shows a complete lack of character. A true leader would assume responsibility and still expect loyalty. It is beyond him to handle this in a dignified manner. This is exactly the kind of behavior that I expect from a Bush. Clinton was a scoundrel. Bush is transparent. Don’t know about Kerry yet but I’ll take my chances. I consider Bush nearly a worst case scenario.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2004
  8. Jul 21, 2004 #7

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The US (to be fair, this is true of many countries) doesn't really fight the forces of international terrorism, unless these forces try to "mess with the United States of America".

    Until 9/11, the US was writing out paychecks to members of the Taliban - in gratitude to kicking the Soviets out, I guess. In the early 80's the US was a strong "supporter" of Saddam Hussein. Even today, the closest Asian allies of the US are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, two hotbeds of terrorist recruitment and proliferation.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2004
  9. Jul 21, 2004 #8
    Am I the only one who finds the highlighted disturbing? At all costs?!. To think that there is no cost too high is irrational. The fact that he's talking about not caring "how long it takes" just makes me think of 1984. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about resolve, but this sounds like rhetoric to accomplish an erosion to a police state.

    Bush is horrible for national security. It befuddles me how people can think that being a world-class (literally) jerk makes a good leader or will help prevent future terrorism. He is just aggravating the problem. The USA and the world do not need a knee-jerk cowboy. They need an intellectual--someone who will think about the problem and calmly and rationally decide on a wise course of action.

    I'm sure that bin laden will be happy if bush somehow manages to remain in Washington--we'll be that much closer to holy wars.
     
  10. Jul 21, 2004 #9

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I tend to think that Gore would have taken a lot less than 7 minutes (or whatever it was) to realize that he should probably stop reading "My Pet Goat" and start figuring out what needs to be done next.

    I tend to believe that Gore would also have called for the invasion of Afghanistan and the ousting of the Taliban. However, he probably would NOT have decided to go after Iraq before completing the job at home and in Afghanistan.
     
  11. Jul 22, 2004 #10
    I have to admit that Gore didn't put up too much of a fight over Florida, but I am pretty certain that treating the world like a shoot-'em-up doesn't make anyone any safer either. The 'war on terrorism' isn't a 'hot war' as such; it requires a lot more cunning and patience to defeat. Overkill just creates sympathy for the terrorists, if not more terrorists.

    'You pays your money' etc. but please remember: the forthcoming elections are going to effect people all over the world. We can only afford a wise and level-headed choice.
     
  12. Jul 22, 2004 #11

    JD

    User Avatar

    I just wish he would stop grinning (even when he isn't he is) - I doubt whether he could care less but it presents a rather unpleasant aspect. Trust and respect are made harder.
     
  13. Jul 22, 2004 #12
    Then don't alow the Us to have a president.
    All of those presidents have "conflict of interest" written all over their head. :surprise: :yuck:
     
  14. Jul 22, 2004 #13
    Woohoo! Holy war! Righteous wrath! Manifest destiny!
     
  15. Jul 22, 2004 #14

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

  16. Jul 22, 2004 #15

    JD

    User Avatar

    Well it would be about time - the rest of the world has been hollering for ages. Mind you, there's always a lot of that.

    It does - we can only get in by providing personal details

    He once said that he was a follower of American politics
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2004
  17. Jul 22, 2004 #16
    Wow, you English sure do get your feathers ruffled over nothing. :wink:
     
  18. Jul 22, 2004 #17
    I wouldn't imagine you would. Let's be honest - you run with a very far left crowd.



    Anyway around registration?



    Opinon stated as fact without examples. Not a way to debate.
     
  19. Jul 22, 2004 #18

    JD

    User Avatar

    Wouldn't be proper old bean without the old rigmarole. I say, dapper shooting jacket.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2004
  20. Jul 22, 2004 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    For those who didn't want to register, its an op-ed piece - not a news article.
    Like a conservative, I see it exactly the opposite: the US is a free country and to do those things, while making us more secure, they make us lose part of what it means to be an American. Better to go out and meet the threat to eliminate it than perpetually defend our borders against it - while disrupting the lives of our citizens.

    edit: ironically, this is very similar to the argument made by liberals against the Patriot Act, which does not affect the daily lives of law-abiding citizens. This strengthens my opinion that liberals are more concerned with ideals than with realities.
    Its a catchphrase meant to highlight the contrast between Democrats and Republicans on the issue. The Clinton-era mantra was 'any cost is too high (unless spent on social programs).'
    I don't. And regardless, those 7 minutes didn't matter at all. The immediate problem was an inadequate repsponse system in place to handle such a threat.
    Being a liberal, you likely never thought to ask the question that October. Being a conservative, I did.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2004
  21. Jul 22, 2004 #20

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Njorl,

    You're not going to sway the Right by throwing Krugman at them. They all despise Krugman and will not accept any of his arguments...especially not one titled "The Arabian Candidate".
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Why Bush Must be Re-elected
  1. Why Bush? (Replies: 55)

Loading...