[ Outline ] · Standard · Linear+ Election..., ...

First and formost this is what i posted on another forum where im much more involved in political debates. Therefore you may not have seen me as so much antibush...


As EVERYONE has noticed I was an (over)zealous supporter of Mr. Kerry in his persuit to defeat Bush. This article touches on that partly, the election in general, my thoughts on its unfolding, and how im pissed off at the general immaturity of people on BOTH sides.

First and formost, congradulations to the Bush administration on winning a rather tight race... he legitimately won this one.

The voters sent a clear message via the results, and I think that we can accept the message. The voters want Bush's mess cleaned up, and they think that its best he fix his own problems. Denying Bush fucked up at this point is impossible, but the American people have had a tendancy to let people fix their own problems (or be incredibly stupid, but unlike my fellow Left-Supporters i disagree in this case). Bush has claimed he will be in touch with Kerry on trying to win over SOME support from Kerry supporters, and if he legitimately takes the advice the US should be in FAIRLY good hands. The Left/Right arguments dont really matter in this scenario as there were far to many different issues surrounding the election.

And now for my messages to those without a shred of poli-scientific knowledge, common courtesy, or respect.

To Bush supporters - Having your man win by 2% is great. Celebrate. you should. BUT you should never bash your opponents supporters. Its bad form. Leading up to the election they gave you a good fight, but you dont kick someone when their down, you leave them to recover. Dont go saying things like "Take that you fucking liberals" "I told you Kerry sucks.. See!" or anything along those lines. Have respect, as Bush has given Kerry's supporters.

To Kerry supporters - Im as dissappointed in you as the Bush supporters. Firstly, running around yelling "Fucking Bush!" is a dumb idea... he DID win by popular vote this year, if only just. Dont blame Bush on all your problems postelection, dont call yoru fellow voters "stupid" or "blinded by the media" as you NEVER KNOW. Let the dog die... four years isnt enough to destroy the world and Bush is not as much an idiot as we claim him to be. He may not be as smart as Kerry but he DOES have the capability to start cleaning his mess.

Finally, from a Canadian perspective with heavy bias, I pity those who were told to vote without being given a broad view if this was the case. I also in a perverse sence hope Bush's presidency continues to raise the Canadian dollar.

Point One: As Radnoken said, the US is (was?) obliged to follow UN policy they signed for. If you sign that your going to do something, then break it, it is illegal in international law. This even applys if you are the most powerful nation in the world.

Can you support your statement saying everyone believed that Iraq had WMDs? Former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien had gone on the record several times explaining how Canada would not participate against Iraq unless the UN sanctioned it - ie they had discovered nuclear weapons. Most countrys did believe they were there, however, due to evidence planted by British and American officials. (I will post my sources after i am done crosschecking the authenticity of a few in question)


I concede the second statement.


Point Three: “News coverage has pointedly stressed that W.'s month-long stay at his ranch in Crawford is the longest presidential vacation in 32 years. Washington Post supercomputers calculated that if you add up all his weekends at Camp David, layovers at Kennebunkport and assorted to-ing and fro-ing, W. will have spent 42 percent of his presidency ‘at vacation spots or en route.’”
- Charles Krauthammer, “A Vacation Bush Deserves,” The Washington Post, August 10, 2001.


http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html
-Presidential Daily Brief, August 6, 2001
If its a confidential, your-eyes-only document that has examples that the threat could very well be legitimate, it is your responcibility to attempt to take action.

Neglecting to allow himself to be briefed on terrorism was a bad idea...
“[T]hey didn't allow me to brief him on terrorism. You know, they're saying now that when I was afforded the opportunity to talk to him about cybersecurity, it was my choice. I could have talked about terrorism or cybersecurity. That's not true. I asked in January to brief him, the president, on terrorism, to give him the same briefing I had given Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. And I was told, ‘You can't do that briefing, Dick, until after the policy development process.’”
-Richard Clarke interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press, March 28, 2004.

"Clarke asked on several occasions for early Principals Committee meetings on these issues [outlined in his January 25, 2001 memo] and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. He wanted principals to accept that al Qaeda was a ‘first order threat’ and not a routine problem being exaggerated by ‘chicken little’ alarmists. No Principals Committee meetings on al Qaeda were held until September 4, 2001.”
- National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 8, “National Policy Coordination,” pp 9-10;


Saying the rest of the world ignored the terrorist threat is downright ignorant. There are nearly as many Canadian forces in Afghanistan at the moment as there are American ones. How else could an American pilot kill four Canadian soldiers?

Sorrows of the world - You misunderstand me. After September 11, the world felt sorry for the US. The world supported them. Acknowledged the tradgedy they suffered. They have thrown all that away now. As for international aid, the US's altruistic goals are respectable, but most industrialized countries would have other things to focus on if they had a 7 trillion dollar deficit.

Nothing has currently been written into the constitution. Bush is attempting to blacklist homosexual marriages, which is descriminant against a group in a certain mindset, ergo is prejudice.