This letter is directed at my liberal friends on the need to vote for George Bush.
We must dispense with myths and deal with truth.
George Bush inherited an economy slipping into recession and because of his moves, including the passage of his tax cut plan, the United States suffered the shallowest recession in our history. More people are now working today than ever before! So the myth that we are losing jobs is incorrect. You can make the argument that that manufacturing jobs took a hit but there has been an increase of entrepreneur spirit not picked up on the radar screen.
Let face it, if you are liberal you have to be happy about many things that Bush has done. He has doubled federal spending on education and yes, he actually passed a drug plan for seniors. (If you don’t buy into Bush’s liberal spending spree, then you should actually read what many of my conservative friends complain about. They complain about the increased spending on education and a new entitlement program passed under George Bush.)
The key to this election is simple. It is national security, and which presidential candidate is better prepared to defend our national interest. Kerry's thesis, as incoherent as it is, is based on the fact that we are fighting the wrong war at wrong time and we pissed off our allies. He opposes Bush’s policy of “preventive war” and his “going it alone” approach.
Kerry is wrong on both points. The war in Iraq is connected to the war on terror. There was and is an alliance between certain Middle East nations, including Saddam’s Iraq, and the terrorist network. The evidence is overwhelming, so there should be no debate. Now I am going to ask you one question: is the world better off without Saddam or not? Kerry has all but admitted that the answer is no. Under a President Kerry in 2001, Saddam would still be in power and there is no guarantee that the Taliban would not still be in power either.
Remember during the first month of the Afghanistan war, there were talks of a quagmire in Afghanistan? Now we had seen elections in Afghanistan and the Taliban are on the outside looking in. There is a long way to go in Afghanistan but who can deny that Afghanistan is not a better place today? Today, the terrorist network have two less states to operate from.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Hal Pawluk
In total denial, are you?
Instead of going after the terrorists, Bush invaded Iraq and increased the threat of terrorism worldwide, made the US less safe.
Instead of growing the economy, his inept economic approach has brought this country to the brink of a recession.
His deficits are going to reduce the GDP of the world.
He promised jobs - maybe he shouldn't have, but he did - and hasn't been able to bring back the jobs lost under his watch, much less the additional 7 million jobs required because of population growth during his term.
Any place you look - enerygy, environment, the economy, security - he has been a total failure.
America's failure would be to let him continue.
2 - RJ
A good post that brought up important points, but I just recommend a little better job at editing in the future...
3 - Big Time Patriot
" Bush will not bring back the draft."
Your reasoning is that Bush SAID he wouldn't bring back the draft? Bush also talked about their being a direct threat of WMD's from Iraq.
Please don't base any arguments on what Bush SAYS. Let's stick to what has actually happened. Let's stick to the record. Let's stick to the largest attack on US soil, let's stick to a war brought on false pretense, let's stick to a man who commonly doesn't know what he is talking about or what he has said in the past.
We are talking about a man who is simply not competent to be President.
4 - bob2112
RJ, are the points Hal so articulately displayed worthy of your support? I have a more graphic style of the same exact message, yet all I get from you is discourse & disdain. Please explain? Different styles, different people, same message. What's the difference?
5 - Hal Pawluk
Your question is actually a $200 billion question, and I answered it when Bush asked: "Can You Imagine What Iraq Would Be Like If Saddam Were Still In Power?" (Link opens in new windows)
- Iraq would be less of a threat to Americans than it is today.
- There would be over a thousand more Americans alive today.
- There would be tens of thousands more Iraqis alive than there are today
- More Iraqi children would be in school instead of running around in the streets.
- Iraqis would have better security and better health care, crime would be far lower.
- Iraqis would have more running water, more electricity and better sanitation.
- Iraq would be producing more oil.
- There would still be no WMDs and no terrorists in Iraq, fewer terrorists worldwide.
- We would have spent less yet been able to catch more terrorists where they were and are (Britain, Poland, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Peru, Switzerland, Indonesia, Philippines, Florida, etc.)
- We would have spent far less yet been able to improve homeland security (95% of incoming cargo is still not inspected, chemical plants that can kill millions have no security, etc.)
Anything else?6 - Hal Pawluk
Um, just to connect the dots for others, Tom sent me the following in an email so I responded with comment 5:
7 - Shark
What a deluded load of crap. So much to debunk, so little time.
Tom: "Don't depend upon the mainstream media for your news on Iraq. You will get all the bad news but not the good. You will not hear about the military successes that are occurring, the involvement of Iraqis in their own defense, as well as the rebuilding of a new civil society."
So Iraq is hunky-dory?
Averaging 120 insurgent attacks PER DAY? 18 Iraqi civil servants died yesterday + six American GIs wounded.
And a free election in Iraq in January?
Ahahahah. Don't hold your breath, pal.
(We won't even see a 'free' election in the US in November.)
Tom: "...Bush wants to spread our democratic institution worldwide. This is a liberal idea or least it use to be."
1) spreading democracy with a miltary invasion force is NOT a "liberal" idea;
2) Bush HAS been successful in spreading hatred of Americans;
3) Bush HAS been successful at increasing recruitment for Al Queda;
4) What happens when Iraq's "democratic" vote ends with a fundamentalist Muslim theocracy? Do we get to "invade" and try again?
Iraq is very simply: BLOOD FOR OIL.
If you're a millionaire, drive a gas guzzler, and don't have a close relative in the military, then go ahead and VOTE FOR BUSH, the most dangerous leader in American history.
PS: Is the above essay more evidence that your average Bush supporter is barely literate?
8 - Winston Smith
Thanks for the sober, seroius argument. I disagree almost entirely, however. I'll be brief and address just one general point. you write:
"The war in Iraq is connected to the war on terror."
This is the same kind of vague formulation that the administration uses to pull the wool over our eyes. The war in Iraq is related to the Battle of Kursk, the War of 1812, and the Crusades...but any old connection isn't good enough.
"There was and is an alliance between certain Middle East nations including Saddam’s Iraq and the terrorist network."
An alliance between "certain ME countries" and "THE terrorist network"? If this is what it takes to justify invation, then we'll have to take out the whole ME. Again, the formulation is so vague it is useless. As we now know, there was NO OPERATIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QAEDA.
"The evidence is overwhelming, so there should be no debate."
About this you are absolutely right. We know the answer: there was no significant relationship. Bush was wrong. Meaningful debate on this is over.
"Now I am going to ask you one question, is the world better off without Saddam or not?"
Well, that's a completely different question. Another administration sophistry. But even ignoring that: though it's an almost impossible trick to pull off, somehow we made the world WORSE by deposing one of its worst, most brutal dictators. You'd almost have to TRY to do that. It's virtually impossible. But Bush did it.
Bush will go down in history as the worst president since Andrew Jackson.
9 - boomcrashbaby
You forgot to mention that Bush, diverting our might from Osama in Afghanistan to go after a rat in a hidely hole, has given terrorists nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives, that they didn't have before.
The article points out that these weapons are capable of detonating a nuclear weapon.
Don't forget to pass this info along, in your appeal to the liberal voter.
Every day Bush is in office, I cannot help but feel more and more vulnerable. Whether it is from the Religious Right who wants a medieval theocracy, or the terrorists who now have a far greater potential for a nuclear strike than before the invasion of Iraq. The lead lemming is now poised at the precipice and there is such a mob of devoted followers pushing towards him, that some of us cannot get out of the way anymore. It's scary.
10 - RJ
"the Religious Right who wants a medieval theocracy"
Hyperbole, much?
11 - boomcrashbaby
From my perception it is very much a reality. Many people feel that way.
12 - Mac Diva
Really, Tom? You don't get it, do you? Every argument you make in your entry has been refuted time and again by reliable sources. I knew your entry was doomed when you started it with the claim that Bush had aided education. Are you the only person in the country who does not know that No Child Left Behind is intentionally underfunded? That dropout rates are higher, around 50 percent for Hispanic and African-American kids? That Pell Grants are for smaller amounts because so many more people qualify for them? That Bush's education miracle in Texas turned out to be a fraud based on not counting the majority of dropouts as dropouts?
Other posters have ably pierced your fantasy world in regard to other issues.
One more thing. Your assumption that 'this came from the Instapundit' enhances what you have to say doesn't. Not everyone in the blogosphere falls on their knees because a Right Wing mediocrity in Tennessee blew his nose.
I can't speak for other people, but this entry is the kind of nonsense that would drive me away from Bush, if I were undecided. It insults the reader by assuming he or she is uninformed.
13 - RJ
"Not everyone in the blogosphere falls on their knees because a Right Wing mediocrity in Tennessee blew his nose."
Professor Reynolds is not really all that "right-wing," and if you actually read his site, you'd know that.
Oh, and at least he posts under his real name, as opposed to a mediocrity from Oregon...
14 - tom donelson
First, my data has been supported by far more sources than refuted. I take my sources and lessons of history anytime over those of my opponents. I have debated more than my share of so called experts and yet to lose. The reason? Facts on my side.
First, education spending has doubled. Period, no debate. Notice I never said that education was improved by more federal spending but that Bush spent more. It could easily be argued that federal involvement has been counterproductive. Bottom line, Bush has insisted on standards and his opponents have been trying to dilute those very standards set. Bottom line, federal money has increased faster under Bush than Clinton. Case closed.
Do you believe that my "fantasy has been pierced." The problem is that too many of you on the left read the NY Times and read talking points from moveon.org.
For example, one of my critics admitted that Saddam would be better for the Iraqis and the world. Who is living in a fantasy now? The facts are simple and easy to see if you choose. Iraq will only be lost if we lose the will. If you actually read what Iraqis say for the most part and read solid report on what is going on, then you will know two things. We have the advantage on the ground and the political situation could go south, if we abandon our effort. The best source for both the political and military is Strategy page.com. They have proven to be more accurate than the mainstream media or the leftist journals that you obviously depend upon. Let just say, that I read volume of materials from both the left and the right, so I can better informed. So I will ask you the same question the others. Do you believe that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power? And I will ask one more question, Do you believe that Arabs are capable of developing Democratic government or not?
As for Instapundit, you obviously don't read the guy often for it you did, you will know that he is not right wing crack pot. Mr. Reynolds is liberal on many social issues including gay rights, stem cell research and abortion. While Mr. Reynolds is hawkish on foreign affairs, he also links to many different sources on his website. If you read Instapundit on a daily basis, you will find more variety and different opinions than what you will ever see on the pages of the New York Times. Reynolds will direct readers to opinion that disagrees with him. What Instapundit provides is variety of views and interesting debates on the big issue. I don't always agree with him but he does engage in honest debate. The problem with you on the left is that anyone who disagrees with you are ignorant and full of fantasy. I will add that every one of my critics have basically depended upon talking points provided either by the Democratic Party or various left wing organization such as ACT and Moveon.org.
I have always made the point in my post to respect the opinions of those I oppose and I never belittle their opinions. My writing is design to engage in serious debates. I have many friends on the left who I debate all the time. So I do take your ideas seriously. Obviously more seriously than you take mine.
My case for Bush is simple:
He understands the world better than Kerry. Kerry still thinks it is 1969 and not 2004. Do you truly believe that this present war on terror is a law enforcement problem that Kerry has claimed on many occasion? Study History and you will find that we have been here before. Here is a thought, in 1936, the French had the best opportunity to end Hitler's regime when Hitler marched in the Rhineland. Had the French taken military action then, World War II would have been prevented and millions of lives saved. Bush found himself asking the same question. Do I act now or wait? Hussein was killing thousands of his own people and everyday and his misuse of the oil for food program abetted by the French and other members of the UN aided the effort. With the intelligence available at the time, we had no idea what was available to Saddam. We now know that Saddam was angling to be rid of the sanctions thus his use of oil for food money to bribe many of the UN and that he would have aggressively started a new weapon program.
I take this a step further. Military action in Iraq allowed us to persuade Libya to give up their WMD's and much of the intelligence world underestimated Libya progress. If you seriously study intelligence estimate of other countries WMD's, they have consistently underestimated other nations capacity. It was only in Iraq that we may have overestimated. As I mention, Libya progress was virtually under the radar screen and I might add that North Korea and Iran progressed faster than what intelligence stated would happen. So Bush erred on the side of caution and history will prove him.
So was 1000 American lives worth liberating an Arab nation? I say yes, and you obviously don't think that liberating Muslim from Islamic fascists are worth American sacrifices.
I will also tell you that I have disagreed with Bush on various issues. When he slapped tariffs on foreign steel, I dissented publicly. I have disagreed with his increase in spending. On the other hand, he has had the courage to deal with the problems of social security and health care by taking the debate to other directions. Whether you agree or disagree with his plans for partial privatization of social security or his emphasis on expanding Health savings Account you have to admit that man has put his principle on the line.
Finally, let's talk history. During most of the cold war, those who supported the more hawkish stances proved correct. When Reagan build up military defenses and walked away from SALT II early in the 80's, he was oppose by many on your side of the table. His strategy proved the correct one and the Cold War ended. When many on your side oppose the first Gulf War, Bush senior analysis and strategy proved correct.
I could go back to Vietnam when the Hawks talked of the domino theory, and the potential bloodbath if the Communist won proved correct. The killing fields of Cambodia produced 1-2 million Cambodians and South Vietnam saw concentration camps. Let just say the political left in this country has been wrong for nearly 60 years on the big issues of national security. Not a good track record and I live in a fantasy world?
Thank you for taking the time to post and write. Have a good day and I have a feeling that you will be responding soon.
15 - Hal Pawluk
That's a lie, Tom, or an extreme lack of comprehension on your part if you're talking about my post:
Give it another try, maybe turn the iPod off and concentrate as you read it this time.
16 - Tom Donelson
Actually that is exactly what your post stated that IRAQ would be better off with Saddam and so would the world. You gave several reason for this. I asked the question Imagine what the world would be like and you gave numerous reason why the world would be better with him in power.
So are we better off with Saddam power and you answered in the positive. So please don't tell me that I misquoted or misunderstood you.I will give you another chance to clarify your own quotes. Is the world better off with Saddam in power or not? Yes or No
17 - Hal Pawluk
You're wrong, Tom, in saying: "He understands the world better than Kerry. For instance, by invading Iraq, Bush proved that he had no understanding whatsoever of the terrorist threat.
Contrast the approach to fighting terrorists of the 9/11 Commission with that taken by Bush:
The bottom line is that thanks to Bush we see Worldwide terrorism-related deaths on the rise, and Bush is reckless and a danger to America. It's time to boot him out and start working on the security of this nation and the world.
18 - andy marsh
I'll say this, at least all those new terrorists that bush is creating aren't making it over here. They're to busy ducking in Fallujah! How do you know that Bush's policies are creating more terrorists?
Unilateral! How many countries does it take to get rid of this overused bullshit word?
The cargo that you speak of is tracked and suspicious containers are actually checked at points of origin. So, although the ports are still somewhat unprotected...it's nowhere near as bad as it's made out to be.
19 - tom donelson
Andy, you nailed on the head. First, let dispense with this creating new terrorist. Hey, these guys have been fighting us for over a decade, from world trade center bombing to USS Cole. So we are not creating new enemies, there were already there.
As Andy mention, how many allies do you need for an alliance. We have at least 30, so will 40 do it for you? As I mention, the alliance is similar to the Gulf war both in scope. US contributed nearly 90 percent of the manpower in first Gulf war and they are contributing 90 percent this one.
What is this neo conservative plot to aid Israel comment all about? I know when Pat Buchanan uses it, he is referring to the Jewish member of the Bush administration. I am not accusing anyone of anti-semitism just understand exactly what some of those who this phrase are referring to.
Now let dispense with this notion that Bush administration deposed of Iraq to please Israel. Iraq was not dispose to please Israel, but it was in our interest.
P.s. historical note on the crusades. The Crusades were in fact a counter attack after nearly 500 years of Islamic pressure upon Europe for control of the Mediterrain Sea. Read Bernard Lewis for more on this.
20 - Hal Pawluk
That's not what the question was before Bush's unilateralist invasion.
The question at that time was: will the world and the US be better off if America invades Iraq?
Bush and his neocon clicque came up with the wrong answer, so the world now has many more terrrorists, everyone is less safe.
21 - RJ
Hey, we're less safe!
No terrorist attacks since 9/11...
But we're less safe!
Numerous al qaeda leaders dead or in jail...
But we are less safe!
Yea! We're less safe than in 2000, when Afghanistan was run by Muslim extremists, and Osama had endless terrorist camps there. And Iraq was run by a pro-terror dictator...
But WE ARE LESS SAFE! And only John Fonda Kerry can save us!
22 - RJ
"That's not what the question was before Bush's unilateralist invasion.
"The question at that time was: will the world and the US be better off if America invades Iraq?
"Bush and his neocon clicque came up with the wrong answer, so the world now has many more terrrorists, everyone is less safe."
In other words, you wish Saddam was still in power, and Afghanistan was the first and only American reaction to 9/11.
Nice...
23 - curt
rj -
you speak very bravely.
if you're so gung-ho for this invasion and subsequent occupation, why haven't you enlisted and volunteered for combat?
or would that be too dangerous? it's much safer playing the cyber-patriot role, while someone else sacrifices life and limb in your place over there...isn't it?
24 - Hal Pawluk
No, RJ, your words are yours, not mine.
I've told you the same thing more than once; I wish you'd learn.
25 - Shark
Curt to RJ: "...if you're so gung-ho for this invasion and subsequent occupation, why haven't you enlisted and volunteered for combat?"
We've asked him many times. His example of integrity of character is apparently modeled on his heroes Dick Cheney and George aWol Bush.
ie. CHICKENHAWKS.
Tough War Talk is cheap when you're "fighting terrorism" from some Junior College in Florida.
feh.