Another Democrat Supports Bush

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
[Q]Why have I endorsed George W. Bush when I don't agree with him on a single domestic issue? Because I believe the issue of international terrorism trumps all other issues. I don't believe the Democratic Party has the stomach and commitment to deliver on this issue.

I believe terrorism will be with us for many years to come. So long as Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd are considered major leaders of the Democratic Party, and so long as we have radical candidates like Howard Dean, whose radical-left supporters have been described by the press as "Deaniacs," the Democratic Party will be limited in its ability to serve the country well in times of crisis.
[/Q]




[Q] I support him because of the Bush Doctrine, "we will go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them." He has demonstrated that he means it by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, both threats to their regions and to the U.S. I do not believe that the Democratic Party, which is now dominated by those who preferred Governor Dean for president, but decided he could not win, has the stomach to take on worldwide terrorism. Indeed, a New York Times-CBS poll of the delegates at the Boston Convention demonstrated their opposition to John Kerry's position which is not to get out of Iraq now. It is the party activists who the candidate has to rely on to get elected and whose positions generally prevail.[/Q]

EdKoch.jpg
 
*blinks*


think I will steer clear of this one. Good thread though, it should create some interesting discussion :ohmy:
 
Last edited:
Republicans for Democrats pretending to be Republicans pretending to be Swift Boat veterans for Bush who may or may not have appear in Vietnam on or about the time of the war, would like to bring you the following message:

Democracy is a risky business and we really don't think we can take any risks in the war against libruls.
 
Hey Dread, how about a link so we can read the whole article?

The excerpts piss me off. More fearmongering for Bush. As if anyone could keep us completely safe from terrorism.
 
maybe I'm a bit naive
but if he believes that 'the issue of international terrorism trumps all other issues' and that 'I don't believe the Democratic Party has the stomach and commitment to deliver on this issue'
then why is he still a member of the democratic party?

isn't that a bit hypocritical?
 
I agree with you pax. No one can keep us completely safe from terrorist attacks. I'm as anti-terrorist as anyone on the planet, and I'm voting for Kerry. 'Nuff said. BTW to be perfectly honest I have never liked Ed Koch.
 
Last edited:
I just want to reiterate how much I hate this article, and all others that run along the lines of "only Bush can protect us." What a load of shit. As if Kerry--or anyone else--would really just sit back and do nothing in the position of President at such a tenuous time. He, or anyone else, might have a different approach, but that's not to say it wouldn't actually work.
 
paxetaurora said:
I just want to reiterate how much I hate this article, and all others that run along the lines of "only Bush can protect us." What a load of shit. As if Kerry--or anyone else--would really just sit back and do nothing in the position of President at such a tenuous time. He, or anyone else, might have a different approach, but that's not to say it wouldn't actually work.

No one has said that "only Bush can protect us". Koch is voting for Bush because he believes that Bush is by far the better candidate on Security and Foreign Policy. Millions of other Americans who will be voting for Bush in November feel the same way.

Koch mentions important points that the majority of the delegates at the Democratic convention opposed the Iraq War. You will also find a good percentage of them opposed to the war in Afghanistan because of some naive belief that fighting international terrorism is only a law enforcement problem that does not require the military. There are many democrats who support the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they were not well represented among the delegates and I understand Kock's concern.

Good Article!:up:
 
That's true. I should have worded things a bit more carefully. Even though I still disagree, maybe I got a *bit* too worked up. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom