One mistake Bush should admit...

I believe it was Clinton who said, "In anxious times, we prefer a leader who is strong and wrong over one who is weak and right."

But I don't think Bush is strong as much as stubborn. Nor do I think that employing diplomacy is weak.

 

Perhaps not, daisy, but diplomacy has its limits, does it not?

 

My first thought was, "Of course".

But, what is that limit? During war and after, isn't diplomacy essential for negotiating treaties, coalitions and such?

At any rate, I don't believe Bush came close to the limit.

 

War is a failure of diplomacy. The only existing superpower should be able to enforce its will without ever firing a shot.

Assuming a competent leader, of course.

 

Sure am glad you aren't calling the shots!

 

And that competent leader will be John Kerry, if enough people like you vote for Peroutka, Right?

 

Stubborn? Give us some examples how Bush is more Stubborn than Strong.

 

In the case of Saddam, I'm failing to see how his constant flaunting of the UN resolutions, etc would constue diplomatic failure on our part. Please enlighten me. I don't think "containment" worked w/ him. I'm glad we and our albiet limited coaltion removed the cancer of Saddam.
Regarding Iran, they have the potential to harm us more than Iraq did (IMHO). However, in their case, diplomacy can and should work.
North Korea?
Give war a chance. Just Kidding!

 

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Barbarian observes:
War is a failure of diplomacy. The only existing superpower should be able to enforce its will without ever firing a shot.

Assuming a competent leader, of course.

Not me, anyway. I live in Texas, and my vote won't do anything but let me live with myself. The problem is we know that Kerry is a competent leader in combat. What we don't know is how well he can use our strength to leverage our way without resorting to combat.

That was Bush's great failure as a leader. I don't honestly know if Kerry would be better. But given the way Bush has botched Iraq, I don't see how he could do worse.

 

It'll be close, I think. Too bad Bush abandoned conservatives and therefore lost many of their votes.

 

It'll be close, I think. Too bad Bush abandoned conservatives and therefore lost many of their votes. </font>[/QUOTE]We'll see just how many in a few days! Maybe all of you can get together for a pity party. Rent a phone booth for a convention or something!

 

Maybe Bush will lose Pennsylvania's electoral votes by the number of votes that Peroutka draws.

Wouldn't that grinda ya?

 

After 9/11, it became very clear that Al Qaeda was the primary threat. Because Bush decided that terrorism was not a priority, we lost focus on that earlier. Then he either confused Saddam and Osama, or just wanted us to do that, and ended up letting Osama get away, so he could have his war with Saddam.

And now, he's messed that up, too.

If the FBI testimony is correct, we weren't handling Osama at all. The FBI in charge of terrorism quit in disgust because the administration didn't want him investigating Saudis. And Bush had taken terrorism off the list of priorities.

The republicans, as you recall, were outraged when Clinton attacked Osama. Osama's family, as you many know, has close ties to the Bushes.

Too bad he couldn't have learned from Clinton. If Bush had been putting military pressure on Osama earlier (as Clinton did), would 9/11 have been prevented? We can't say. But it wouldn't have hurt, would it?

I don't remember Saddam taking part in the attack on 9/11.

Saddam didn't hit us at home. He didn't hit us at all. You've confused Saddam and Osama again.

Which is what Bush intended.

 

Was Roosevelt a competent leader? I think your premise is incorrect. We should never negotiate with terrorists who attacked us. The war in Afganistan was not a failure of diplomacy. It was a victory for freedom and democracy. I believe they just had the first ever free elections. Schools are open again. Iraq is the same thing. The problem with Democrats and liberals is that they think the war on terror should be limited to solely Afganistan and OBL. The truth is that the war on terror is much bigger than that. If all we do is stop the Taliban in Afganistan and OBL, that will not win the war on terror.

Joseph Botwinick

 

That would certainly make you happy though to put a communist like Kerry in charge of our country who says he would subject our country to a global test before we use a military option. Let's see. Who do you think will be calling the shots for America then? France, Germany, Russia, and the UN? Good job, Jim. Put a war criminal who betrayed his own service men and country by branding them as war criminals while they were being tortured in Hanoi. Aren't you proud of yourself?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Now he's a "communist". Someone's getting a little desperate.

If you want to trace communists, why not ask Bush's advisors from whom they took their philosophy?\

Surprise!

 

I believe in the 70's, he was a member of the Communist party of America. He can run, even wear camo, but he cannot hide from his record and his past.

 

And being a school teacher and librarian is not a real job... Plus, his wife is too young at only 57.