STING2 said:
Could you please show me where this post is, the title and how far back in the list it is?
I'm searching for it, but cannot find it. As such, for lack of evidence, I'll concede and issue an apology. I usually construct my arguments better than that.
Curiously, though, that is quite different from how you react from being proven wrong; you just disappear from the thread. That's often how I know when I've won an argument against you. This is besides my point, though.
When the Bush administration got into office, they started to craft a plan to "destroy" Al Quada, not simply "roll back" Al Quada which was the Clinton plan.
In addition, you can see the differences in the two administration by what they actually did? Although Clinton had the opportunity to take decisive action in both Iraq and Afghanistan, he did not. The Bush administration has. Clinton left the Presidency with the Taliban still in power and the worlds largest terrorist organization based in Afghanistan. Under the Bush administration, the Taliban are out of power and Al Quada's largest base of operation in Afghanistan has been destroyed.
Yes, but that's only *after* 9/11 happened. Pretty much all of the legwork and architecture for the "War on Terror" was written during the end of the Clinton Administration, it appears, including Afghanistan. But, prior to 9/11, Bush clearly did not have a problem with the Taliban. Not only did he not take them out, but he also gave them $45 million to reward them for their help on the "war on drugs" in April 2001. Do the math: that's only five months prior to 9/11, so it is pretty damn clear that the Bush Administration was sleeping at the helm, worried more about building a missile shield than combatting terrorism. I'd be curious to see how much of that $45 million went to Al Qaeda. Thanks George!
On Iraq, Clinton kicked the problem of Saddam and his failure to verifiably disarm down the road to the Bush administration. Where Clinton failed to achieve the disarmament of Saddam and compliance with UN resolutions, the Bush administration has succeeded.
Iraq has *nothing* to do with terrorism. Repeat after me: "Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism." It has already been established that Al Qaeda and Saddam hated each other. There is *no evidence* to link the two together. I'm willing to move past Iraq as some contentious historical issue, and, frankly, I did err towards wanting Saddam removed, as a human rights issue for the people of Iraq. After all, the whole situation had been bungled since Gulf War I, and here we had this nation crumbling as a result of not knowing what to do with the man. But, see, this was not the reason why we went to Iraq. It was for "weapons of mass destruction" and, if we want to listen to Paul Wolfowitz, the real reason was that we wanted to build a military base in Iraq to take pressure off of Saudi Arabia. But WMDs was just something "we could all agree upon." Faith-based wars...that's sort of troublesome, eh?
Missile Defense is not simply a Cold War Era issue. It is a necessity for the armed forces and the country in order to protect from today's threats. Patriot Missile systems in Kuwait destroyed several incoming missiles from Iraq during the war preventing heavy losses of life. One missile that was intercepted would have destroyed the US Command Center in Kuwait along with several of CENTCOM's top generals.
I remind you that John Kerry was against the deployment of the Patriot Missile System.
Tell me what these threats are to require an expensive defense shield, in an era of increasing tax cuts and national debt. Osama bin Laden won't be hurling missiles at us, and if the Patriot missiles are working, then what's the point of a shield?
(I say that partially pedantically; the Patriot missiles were more of a hype in Gulf War I, as they did not destroy Iraq's scud missiles, but, in fact, only really bumped them from the skies, only to explode onto the ground. But still...we are the sole superpower now. What nations even remotely pose a threat involving missiles? The Soviet Union is dead.)
"Free trade...Clinton did a better job. He could have killed NAFTA, which was started under the Bush I Administration, but continued forward with it. He also signed onto GATT, which later turned into the WTO. But what is the Bush Administration response to free trade? Protective tariffs that have since been deemed as "illegal" by the WTO, and the EU has been able to levy tariffs and penalties against certain American goods. I would hardly say that Bush II has a great record on free trade, even if I am not the greatest proponent of it either."
Bush has made some mistakes in this area, but he is more committed than John Kerry to supporting and strengthening Free Trade while John Kerry is in bed with every liberal group that is opposed to Free Trade. George Bush is working hard to expand the Free Trade zone of the America's to include all of South and Central America, so the United States and other countries can better compete with the European Union and its large Free Trade zone.
I'm torn on the issue of "free trade," admittedly. I believe that the ultimate goals of free trade are honorable, but that, with the way the playing field is currently, it can only hurt Americans. We must ultimately be prepared for a lower quality of life, and, to a degree, we would already have experienced that, had it not been for banks making up for our loss of income through expanded credit.
The solution to these problems is to set ground rules. A global minimum wage, working standards, etc. so that American labor won't have to compete against near slave labor--which we cannot. Lowering our wages to their levels not only would destroy our economy, but no Americans would even be able to buy these goods. After all, lest American corporations forget, if Americans can't afford their products, then all the cheap foreign factories in the world won't matter.
Bush's tax cuts have helped revive the economy and get it out from under the recession that it went into that was started at the end of the Clinton administration. Unemployment has fallen from 6.4% last summer to 5.6% as of April of this year. Economist project unemployment to fall to 5.2% by election time. The current unemployment rate is one of the lowest rates of unemployment over the last 30 years.
The Bush tax cuts have also helped the economy rebound and keep a growth rate of 5% GDP each quarter while Europe muddles along at a 1% rate of growth comparitively. The economy has one of the largest impacts on deficits. By rebuilding the economy, one swells the amount of money the government takes in there by reducing the deficit. As the economy grows and makes more money, the government gets its cut.
The sluggish pace of this "growth," which I'm still not incredibly convinced exists, outside of media hype, makes me think that we could have grown regardless. Where I'm concerned is over the fact that taxes are successively lowered with each President, almost as if to play a game of chicken with future presidents. It is not as if taxes are then raised during "prosperous times" and relowered with each recession. Who's going to be forced to give in and raise taxes? It certainly looks as if Dubya raised the stakes; I'm unsure, at this rate, if we'll ever be able to afford lower taxes, let alone be able to afford these current tax rates. While no one likes to pay taxes, and it has almost become a religion in itself to lower taxes recklessly, there comes a point where it just cannot happen further.
I'm not an unwavering Republican, I'm unwavering supporter of the right policies on National Security, the Military, and the Economy/Trade. If the 2000 Primary had come to my state, I would have worked hard to get McCain a victory here. Unfortunately, the primary was over before that happened. The country was far better served by having Bush as president rather than Gore and it will be far better served by having Bush as President for another four years than a liberal like Kerry.
It's too bad that McCain didn't become the GOP candidate in 2000. A shame.
Melon
