Wow Bush has a plan, and that is to go it alone... no wait we then decided to not go it alone. Well he defiantly decided that we didn't need the UN's support in the very beginning... no wait he changed his mind and chose to ask for UN support. Well he did want Iraq to have national elections right after we went in and they did... well they were suppose to but Bush realized that 60% of Iraq are Shia and chose to cancel the election because they feared that there would be a fascist government. At least he planned to prevent looting after we went into Iraq... maybe not... hey he did say that people would be celebrating, they just celebrated by looting... "Boys will be boys..." EXCEPT THAT THEY CHOSE TO KILL OUR TROOPS!!! Well the good thing was that he chose in the very beginning that no former members of Sadam's regime's will every be in charge or have anything to do with this new government... well we did choose to ask one of Sadam's former generals to take control of Fallujah, but remember it was his plan from the beginning to back step on everything he said. Well he did have one definite plan and that was to pay the war from the oil in Iraq, it was just too bad when he didn’t plan on the fact that terrorist will bomb the pipelines and prevent us from using the oil. Well at least he made a plan to stop the terrorist there, oh, wait we still have bombings because it's not that easy to stop terrorism. Well it was our pan to go into Iraq and then the whole world would be safer… wait after we invaded Iraq weren't there more terrorist attacks in the world? So invading Iraq mad us less safe? It was his plan? If you're not bright enough to notice, I was using some tongue and cheek. He has no corrosive plan and has flip-flopped more than Kerry. At least what comes out of Kerry's mouth are along the same themes, Bush just flip-flops and then claim that he wanted to do so. That's just the situations in Iraq, don't forget what happened with the 9/11 commission who he opposed, and then when he couldn't fight it anymore said it was a great idea. And don't forget that fact that he wouldn't let Rice testify until the head of the commission, a Republican faxed him a letter with examples of other members of former presidential cabinet who testified.Zered003 wrote:Bush is the better choice for the simple fact he has a plan of action. Unlike what Kerry is talking about and if he had his way we would only do something if the UN agreed that we could and He would be afraid to step on some toes in the UN. Well, we do not need a follower in the White house. We need a leader. The US seems to be the one putting in 90% of the support (troops and supplies)for the UN anyways.
The USA is the Big boy on the block and if it is going to back off and let people think they can strike it without us returning it 10 fold then the attacks will only increase. I think it is about time that the US accually uses it position in the world to affect the world in a way that it will be a peaceful place to live and sorry to say it but when you go against a stupid people that think the way to retake the world for thier rule is for them to kill themselves then the only choice you have is to fight them and remove them from the face of the Earth.
The president had no plan; it seems as if he is making it up as we go along, just as his plan for the mission to mars. Maybe that's how he got that idea to pay off the expenses for the mission to mars. If you think we need a leader, then maybe our leader should pick a path and lead, instead of flip-flopping. When he also steps back on a policy, maybe he should announce it instead of lying to us and telling us that he planed it all along. He even gets angry when his policies are questioned, I could stand leaders making mistakes, but to have leaders have the righteousness to get offended for us questioning them is just reckless and irresponsible. The founders of this country chose in incorporate checks and balance and we are the politicians' checks. Even TR said that patriotism is not to accept everything our leaders said but to question them.
If you must attack Clinton about not attacking Osama, don't forget that fact that Bush chose to ignore information having to do with 9/11. He even had briefings about this issue for a whopping 19 minutes in a month before 9/11. Even Richard Clark, a deep Republican said that he simply did not listen. Clinton was handed a bunch of memos saying Iraq was involved in many attacks. Even the FBI though that Iraq was involved in the Oklahoma bombing, and was that the truth? The truth about these memos is that they were possible options, and just that the bomber was from the Middle East, the FBI jumped to conclusions. Clinton didn't even retaliate against Osama after the Colt bombing because the FBI and CIA did not officially confirm that it was Osama. Realize that we didn't even know who bombed the WTC officially for a while, even though everyone though that it was Osama.
I wouldn't be surprise if the terrorist attacks by the terrorist groups in Iraq are masterminded by members of the former Iraq intelligence committee, since we are being bombed by Iraqis. It would be an obvious fact.
There were two terrorist attacks of the WTC, so there can't be more than one attack in the last 4 or 5 years because if you look in the timeline the last 4 or give 5 is within 1999-2004, and well the WTC can't come back up, so you are seriously false when it comes to that fact. Unless you are talking about terrorist attacks around the world, and in that case, it would be obvious that the person planning the attacks were related because most of the big attacks around the world in the recent half decade are AlQuida. And who's in charge of AlQuida? Osama. So it is a no brainer for the connection of the people who planned these attacks, because they are bassically the same person.
Also, he is not afraid of stepping on some UN shoes. Was it not he who said we could go it alone? That was a major offensive move to the rest of the world and further secluded us from the rest of the world. Wasn't he also the one who said we don't need to go to the UN, and then was convinced by Powel to go to the UN? We are basically the only nation putting 90% of the troops and that is because he forced us to. If we build up our allies slowly like we did in the Persian Gulf War and slowly talked it through then maybe France and German troops would join us. If we spent more time debating the issue, maybe we could convince nations that has troops instead of small nations who don't have troops and don't want to piss us off. We just rushed into war.
If we are the "Big boy on the block" then maybe we shouldn't act like a bully. Realize that even if you're the big boy on the block the whole neighborhood could attack you and you would die from stupidity. We may be the only super power in the world now, but what if we pissed of every other nation, and they chose to not buy our goods, and buy Japan's goods or German's goods, they're already do it with cars and electronics. By acting chauvinistic and arrogant we are secluding ourselves and further isolating ourselves, and that is dangerous in this day in age. What if we are severally attacked and no nation comes to help?
There's also one thing I have to say, if Bush said we needed to go into Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction, a nuclear development program, ties to terrorist, a dictator, violations of human rights and past invasions of other nations, then why are we not invading more nations other than Iraq. Iraq is not alone in the world when you look at these policies. North Korea, Syria, Iran, Yemen, and Libya are one of those nations. Shouldn’t we be invading those nations? Maybe we just chose no to invade those nations because they were stronger than Iraq.