posted on May 2, 2002 06:19:28 PM new
Can we take the political stuff to another thread? I should have asked for non-political/religious pet peeves as this was intended to be a "lighter" thread. Sometimes people who would like to post get turned-off by such discussions and choose not to post thinking that everything will be related to politics/religion etc. when there are more than enough such threads.
posted on May 2, 2002 06:38:09 PM new
1. the Colin Powell-Rumsfeld rift
AND2. Dems AND Reps questioning Bush's two-faced stand on Israel
=3. WE HAVE NO FOREIGN POLICY!!!!!!!!
posted on May 2, 2002 08:32:41 PM new
umm, about #3. Republican Voters KNEW about this problem but kept shouting that having a President that bald-face lied to them was more important than any trivial "foreign policy nonsense." So, it should come as no surprize to either side that we have the foreign policy that we do; i.e. the Loud-mouthed Big Stick policy!
The funny part about all of this is that Bush thinks that he's going to be able to go after Sadam at some point in his illegitimate Presidency. He's not. The Arab States would much rather see U.S. Dollars than U.S. troops in the region. That Bush is trying so hard to "fix" the humiliation that his father erred with in the Gulf War is obvious to everyone and he is being played for a fool. Both Isreal AND the Palestianins are never going to agree on anything ever again, so Bush may as well stop getting his hopes up.
As far as the rest of the foreign policy is concerned, I guess its up to Republican Voters to explain how this helps America by voting for Bush who had absolutely no foreign policy experience, rather than at least McCain, who has some brains if no experience to speak of either.
Would Gore have made a better choice? Yes! At least as far as foreign policy goes. He's both intelligent and experienced in foreign matters.
posted on May 3, 2002 12:00:19 AM new
Back when Clinton was in office being the charmer that he is he could get the Palestinians and Israelis to agree for a few days but as soon as they went home they were like two young boys without adult supervision - quarreling again in a few days. Now that he is out of office I suggest we send him to permenantly baby sit them so that they experience a prolonged period of agreement. perhaps they could learn to do it on their own if he lived anouther 20 years or so as their referee.
posted on May 3, 2002 12:07:04 PM new
Funny that you should write it that way, gravid. You know, Bush could always call upon either Clinton or Jimmy Carter to go negociate a peace settlement, seeing as how they both have such great experience in doing just that over there. Of course, the GOP hates humiliation on any level: that's why they leave their members out to dry when there is the slightest wiff of a scandal. That Bush to get what he wants: Sadam overthrown and a free republic installed there instead, he is likely to have to end up asking Carter and/or Clinton to do the job. Three guesses to you on what the GOP would say to Bush about that eventuality!
posted on May 6, 2002 07:18:02 AM new
I'd guess that there is a question going around here of late. It seems to amount to wondering if the Republicans who voted for Bush are now sorry that they did or not.
If the Republican Voters are sorry that they voted for Bush, should we here stop reminding them of why they should come to that conclusion?
If the Republican Voters are not remorseful, enjoy Bush as President, and stil foam at the mouht about Clinton, then shouldn't an effort to educate them continue?
posted on May 6, 2002 08:23:12 AM new
There will always be many, who during wartime, will not even hint at abandoning their party's president. Therefore, there is really no way to estimate the number of Reps who would vote against Bush in the next election. If we were to capture Osama bin Laden for example, there are many who in their ignorance would see that as a victory and would support Bush forever.
posted on May 6, 2002 10:27:18 AM new
Yes, and it is a sad commentary when a President has to do that in order to retain loyalty in his own party. That they accused Clinton of having this motive when we went to stop the genocidal massacares in Kosovo against the Serb murders, they then have the nerve to blatantly turn around and use Osama and Al-Queda in a "war" for just that exact purpose. All of this two-faceness in the Republican Party - surely - is giving Voters a bad name. How do they put up with it?
