RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Nearly 200 Killed in Madrid Explosions

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

whomod said:
It's amazing to me that Bush is never wrong, never misinformed and anyone who disagrees with his Administration is instantly and always wrong. Entire nations are wrong, millions of voters are wrong or afraid if they don't vote to Bush's satisfaction, countless millions worldwide who protest the war are wrong. Sceientists and beuaracrats who speak out on what they know to be to be lies are wrong (ONLY when they contradict or dispute an Administration assertion of course If they happen to agree with Bush, then their expertise is impeccable). Any reports contradicting Bush's conclusions are wrong of course. After years of this logic, I think people are starting to wise up.
.
Now that Congress has pending legislation (S 89 and HR 163) to prepare for a military draft (after the election), we might think twice about the consequences of continuing to believe what President Bush tells us.
.
Incidentally,when the French resisted our call to invade Iraq, French fries became "freedom fries," etc. So are we to now get "freedom rice" and (my favorite) "the freedom inquisition" ?

---

Do you really believe your own rhetoric, Whomod?

Since this post immediately follows mine, I assume you're sweeping me into this "Neo-cons who blindly support Bush and believe everything he says" category.

Which is certainly far from the truth. Whether it's me, or Rob Kamphausen, or G-man or whoever, I think we've all made clear that we don't believe everything G.W. Bush or his administration says. They're politicians, just as Clinton, Gore, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Nixon and the rest were before them.

I've not said or implied that G.W. Bush has never made a mistake or is eligible for sainthood or anything. I think most of us have made it clear we would have preferred McCain as our Republican presidential candidate, if he'd been offered to us instead of Bush.

But at the same time, I still largely support Bush, especially on his foreign/military policy.

I again say, neither Gore nor Kerry nor Dean would have had the courage to invade Afghanistan or Iraq, and eliminate the building and obvious threats there. And we would have been "9/11-ed" again as a result.

And I'm confident that Al Qaida, the pro-Saddam insurgents in Iraq, and enemies of the United States worldwide would jump for joy if Bush were voted out in November. As well as domestic "useful idiots" such as yourself (and again, that term is one used by anti-American Muslims in Al Qaida and other islamic radical groups worldwide for Western leftist opposition to fighting terror).

I've certainly not been shy about my criticism of Bush, which I've posted on many threads here on the RKMB boards.

Here's one example I recently re-read:

http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=205476&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=&vc=1&PHPSESSID=

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JQ:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JQ:

It's true that the Koran is more extreme than the Bible. I read somewhere that 1 in every 55 versus talks about "killing infidels."
.
Even though the Koran is more violent, more people have been killed in the name of Christianity.

---

That last statement I find particularly hard to swallow.

---

.
What's so hard to swallow? It's true!

---

.
First of all, look at Europe and the rest of the democratized West, and look at the Middle East.
.
The level of violence and repression in the name of Allah certainly far exceeds that of the Christian world.
.
This was already explored in at least one other topic (although as usual, opinions varied) :
.
"islamic ignorance"
http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=206064&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
.

If we fully explore this here, it will hijack this topic into another topic of Christianity vs Islam, and I think I've already taken this page further off-topic than I wanted to (sorry about that, G-man !)
.
~
.
On topic, I think we've established a hatred for Bush among his liberal/Democrat critics.
.
And as it relates to the topic, as well as many other RKMB discussions here, I would be far more open to concede Bush's flaws, if not for the white-hot hatred (and resultant distortion of the facts) of the majority of criticism I see of Bush.
.
Has Bush made mistakes? Absolutely. And I hope everyone here can see that despite my sensibilities leaning toward the Bush perspective, I've voiced considerable criticism of his policies...
.
( a quick review:

• Bush should be more public with disclosure of information, the perceived secretiveness breeds distrust of Bush, whether or not he is guilty of anything;
  
• in hindsight, he should have had a larger occupation force to invade Iraq, to prevent forseeable looting,
  
• Bush should be expanding U.S. military recruitment/enlistment by 400,000 or more, to insure we have the reserves to meet any situation in Iraq, Iran, North Korea or elsewhere.
  
• And although I'm less convinced now there is a military solution possible in Korea, I think Korea should have been invaded first instead of Iraq. Iraq could have waited a year or so, but Korea was clearly more immediate. In the six months of buildup and invasion of Iraq, Korea was known to be building nuclear weapons, and Bush allowed it to happen. (Although negotiations in Korea, though currently fruitless, now include China, Japan, Russia and South Korea, and are no longer just bilateral talks between the U.S. and North Korea. Which now puts more pressure on North Korea, particularly from China, to de-nuclearize.)
  
  ** I hasten to add, I give primary blame to the Clinton administration for enabling Korea to build nukes. THAT was the time to invade Korea, in 1994, instead of Clinton giving huge concessions and requiring no verification, that allowed Korea to go on secretly building nukes. Although again, Bush had his window of opportunity that he allowed to close as well.
  
  
• I'm not wild about the Bush tax cut, even though little of it has been enacted yet. And I think that tax cut should be repealed, to cover the additional homeland security and war expenses.
  
• And although I posted a few months ago I wouldn't re-elect Bush, at this point the Democrats' bitterly partisan opposition makes me far more inclined to re-elect Bush over the forseeable Democrat alterative in 2004. )

.

I consider that constructive criticism of the President. As opposed to the vitriol over the last year from many (but clearly not all) Democrats.
Senators McCain, Biden and Lieberman are examples of constructive criticism.
Howard Dean and John Kerry are examples of pointlessly divisive, Bush-can-do-no-right, scorched earth rhetoric, that selfishly divides the country just so they can exploit liberal anger and get more votes.
.
When Democrats "hate" the President, and produce venomous, deliberately misrepresentative and highly partisan articles and speeches accordingly, they don't convince moderate Republicans. They drive them defensively behind the president.
I'm a personal example of that.

---

So once again your ludicrous, venom-soaked accusations have absolutely no substance.

--------------------

"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."

---