One mistake Bush should admit...

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Skandelon, Oct 21, 2004.

  1. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Speech for George W. Bush:

    “I have noticed that my opponent has been running ads on the television about my unwillingness to recognize my mistakes. You know, its easy to play the Monday morning armchair quarterback with 20/20 hindsight but it is whole other ball game when you are the one making the calls in the midst of it all. That requires decisive leadership and unwavering resolve. However, knowing what I do know now there certainly are things that I wish I could go back and do differently. For example, I wish that our administration would have known before 9/11 that it wasn’t sufficient to continue with the same old policies of previous administrations in regard to handling treats to our nation.

    My administration, like the Clinton administration, believed that we could handle real threats to our country with ‘sensitive’ and patient diplomacy, ‘sanctions’ and more ‘summits’. Before 9/11 we thought these methods were sufficient in protecting the homeland, but we all learned that we were wrong. Well, most of us did. Apparently, Senator Kerry hasn’t learned anything at all. He thinks we should have handled real threats to our nation with sensitivity, sanctions and summits. Those are the policies that made us vulnerable to 9/11 and I will NOT make that mistake again! Diplomacy has its place, but if there is a threat I will act. I will not rely on the pre-9/11 policies that failed us so miserably as my opponent apparently plans on doing.

    You know, before 9/11 both Saddam and Osama were known to be threats to our country and our allies, that was a given. Think about the way Osama was handled. He was handled the way we always handled foreign threats before 9/11, with summits, sanctions, and patient diplomacy and we see how that turned out, didn’t we? John Kerry thinks we should have handled Saddam, who HE admitted was a very dangerous threat, with these same old weak policies. He hasn’t learned the lesson the rest of us learned on 9/11.

    John Kerry, we don’t need more summits, sanctions, world tests, policies, diplomatic read tape and other ‘sensitive’ weak methods to protect our nation. We need someone who has actually learned from the mistakes of our past and who is willing to act with unwavering leadership and resolve when a threat presents itself. I have proven sense 9/11 that I am willing to do just that. Your 20 year record as the most liberal Senator and even your waffling words during this election leads the rest of us to believe that you are not.”

    --This is what I wish GW would say!
     
  2. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps not, daisy, but diplomacy has its limits, does it not?
     
  4. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    40
    Sure am glad you aren't calling the shots!
     
  7. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    0
    And that competent leader will be John Kerry, if enough people like you vote for Peroutka, Right?
     
  8. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    0
    Stubborn? Give us some examples how Bush is more Stubborn than Strong.
     
  9. Orvie

    Orvie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    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! :eek:
     
  10. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  11. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Listening to you and Kerry make me wonder where you were on 9/11. Both Kerry and Bush saw Osama and Saddam as real threats to our country before 9/11 and we were handling both of them with "diplomacy" before 9/11 and look what that got us. Bush learned the lesson of 9/11 and that was that diplomacy can only go so far and then you must act. We had tried sanctions, summits and diplomacy for over 12 years with Saddam, just how much longer did you want to wait? Oh, I know, the same amount of time we waited for Osama, wait until they hit us at home......... that's smart! :rolleyes:
     
  12. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    It'll be close, I think. Too bad Bush abandoned conservatives and therefore lost many of their votes.
     
  13. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!
     
  14. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe Bush will lose Pennsylvania's electoral votes by the number of votes that Peroutka draws.

    Wouldn't that grinda ya? :D
     
  15. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  16. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  17. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  18. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!
     
  19. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    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. :D
     
  20. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

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

Share This Page

Loading...