Election musings...
Oct. 29, 2004
First I have to express my joy that Arafat is dying. The only thing that is disappointing about it is the fact that he is being allowed to die rather than us dropping a bomb on him or at least letting Israel do it. Justice is being cheated.
Now, on to the real topic of this post.
I’ve had several readers ask me to talk about the presidential election. I’ll start by saying that I really don’t think there will be any difference of substance in the overall long term effect of these candidates and there are many more qualified people than me to talk about this. So, I’ll keep my comments short.
This election comes down to whether or not the war in Iraq and against terrorists is worth fighting anymore. If it is, Bush is the man (out of the 2) for the job. If the war is not important anymore we don't really need Bush. Kerry will do just as much or little as Bush to screw things up on the domestic side of things and will further weaken our position on the international scene.
I am not impressed with either man as presidential material. Bush is going to further entrench religion into our government and Kerry is despicable in all regards I can see. - both as a person and a candidate. His alliance with Jane Fonda post-Viet Nam should tell you all you need to know about him.
I think Bush will at least continue to lurch his way through some positive things in the fight against terrorists - even as he drags us deeper into a more repressive government back home. I don’t think Kerry will be able to prosecute the war let alone fix the situation in Iraq or win anything. I have to say though that the fight against terrorism is primarily an intellectual one. As long as we have someone who will continue to vigorously root out any threats to us in the meantime we will do alright.
The question remains as to which man will do less damage to us in the long term. I've heard arguments on both sides that make sense, but I question anyone who thinks either of these men will be good for the United States. That's just nuts
That’s about all I want to say about the election so feel free to comment but don’t expect any lengthy response from me. The immediate situation over here holds more than enough for me to think about.
Joe Kane
Baghdad
First I have to express my joy that Arafat is dying. The only thing that is disappointing about it is the fact that he is being allowed to die rather than us dropping a bomb on him or at least letting Israel do it. Justice is being cheated.
Now, on to the real topic of this post.
I’ve had several readers ask me to talk about the presidential election. I’ll start by saying that I really don’t think there will be any difference of substance in the overall long term effect of these candidates and there are many more qualified people than me to talk about this. So, I’ll keep my comments short.
This election comes down to whether or not the war in Iraq and against terrorists is worth fighting anymore. If it is, Bush is the man (out of the 2) for the job. If the war is not important anymore we don't really need Bush. Kerry will do just as much or little as Bush to screw things up on the domestic side of things and will further weaken our position on the international scene.
I am not impressed with either man as presidential material. Bush is going to further entrench religion into our government and Kerry is despicable in all regards I can see. - both as a person and a candidate. His alliance with Jane Fonda post-Viet Nam should tell you all you need to know about him.
I think Bush will at least continue to lurch his way through some positive things in the fight against terrorists - even as he drags us deeper into a more repressive government back home. I don’t think Kerry will be able to prosecute the war let alone fix the situation in Iraq or win anything. I have to say though that the fight against terrorism is primarily an intellectual one. As long as we have someone who will continue to vigorously root out any threats to us in the meantime we will do alright.
The question remains as to which man will do less damage to us in the long term. I've heard arguments on both sides that make sense, but I question anyone who thinks either of these men will be good for the United States. That's just nuts
That’s about all I want to say about the election so feel free to comment but don’t expect any lengthy response from me. The immediate situation over here holds more than enough for me to think about.
Joe Kane
Baghdad
posted by Joe at Friday, October 29, 2004
8 Comments:
I think I'm of much the same mind as you. First, completely agree on Arafat. As for Bush vs. Kerry. The more enthusiastic Bush supporters seem to be intent on minimizing his faults, while the the ones who rationally (not Michael Moore types but rather Andrew Sullivan types) argue that Kerry might be better, in many ways disregard Kerry's issues and ignore the rare but actual good things that Bush has said and done. On balance I do believe Bush is the least worst and that's why I voted for him but I'm fairly certain that I'll find much to regret in what he may do. I still think it much more likely that he'll get reelected than not though it should be interesting to watch the results.
I agree with you about Arafat. As far as Bush vs Kerry, I will never, never support Kerry after seeing "Stolen Honor". However, after the election with either, we will still be at war and we will still be running hugh deficits and huge trade deficits. I don't envy either man, the job for the next four years is going to be tough.
Arafat has been a cancer in the region for the past 40 years, he has no other ambition besides entrenching himself in comfort As for our own President, I can't think of a reason to support either of them. The only thing Bush has done that I have found just was invade Afghanistan and destroy a regime that threatened the U.S. by a third party. Otherwise, domestically and abroad, he has not made life easier for anyone except those who make over $200,000 a year, which I do not. Kerry is no better, his record after the war, in the Senate, and on the campaign trail is no more impressive than Mr. Bush's.
Im becoming less and less interested in Israel and the whole Conflict with the Palestinians. I would like to hear an Objective reason to back the Israelis.
As to Arafat? He is going to seem like MR. Rogers next to the mess that will come in the Palestinian rank a file after his death.
And TY for your comments on Bush/Kerry. If it weren't for Iraq I also wouldn't give a damn about either of them.
As to Arafat, the one commentor noting that what might come after him will be worse, is a concern. On the other hand, I think it might be time for a little revolution inside Palestine. The status quo is not good for the Palestinians and they have as yet to successfully adhere to any treaty or put forth an acceptable compromise. It seems the deman has been on israel, not the other way around. In the short term though, I think it will be the worst for the Palestinians for a short time. maybe some of the internal disrupting forces will kill each other off. Like burning the chaffe off your field. Makes it all nice and new for the next planting.
As for the Presidential election, I'll start by saying I voted for Gore in 2000 for two reasons: 1) George Bush was anti-abortion. I'm not for abortion, I just feel strongly we shouldn't have laws that govern our bodies. The worst sort of government intervention. 2) Pre-war and he was looking into additional streamlining the government and saving some money and I was all for that. conservative democrat here.
I will admit that, post 9/11, I started looking around and thinking "what the hell have we been doing all this time" and I meant that as the last 30 years. And Bush offered up a completely different policy and that's what I think we need. I feel it is further evidenced simply by the howling and screaming of all the people around. When you get that kind of reaction, you know you are changing the status quo and it's shaking people up. That's why I agreed with the process.
I personally don't think we are done "shaking it up" yet and that's why I though he needed to be re-elected. For that alone. I'm not overly worried about the extreme right gaining any footage on my rights because the supreme court is still liberal and I am comforted in that fact alone.
all other things are superflous to the conversation.
I am voting for Bush for much the same reasons that have probably been stated and that Joe has said. Primarily because even though he has his faults at least he is not a complete socialist. I have disagreed with how the war has been runned from the get go, but at least he has enough sense to know that the fight of terrorism must be taken to the places and hold accountable states that use it as a means to an end. Even if he chose the wrong state to attack. Yet, i refuse to vote for somebody who is a socialist. Who spots off about "Forcing" Drug companies to lower prescription prices. What's he going to do have tanks positioned out side all pharmecidical companies. Who also says that he will go into Russia and get the Nuclear material. How is he going to do that, as far as i know Russia still has its own soverienty as well. And if you examine everything Kerry says this same rule can be applied. Here goes an interesting article from cap mag .com
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4000
Enjoyed your Blog. Continue your great job. Thanks
I wanted just to mention an interesting site about Religions. With more than 500 pages, Religion News and Articles: Religion Universe: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism (Daoism) and many others
I was surfing around and found another George Bush site.George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People This place has a ton of funny videos and mp3s.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home