Time for democrats to admit they underestimated President Bush

[mindseye]

However, to the extent I do recall, the overvotes could not be counted legally because they had too many votes for president

The overvotes in question were legal under Florida law because they had two indications for the same candidate, eg. Gore hole was punched, his name was also circled. Yet, although legal, they were not counted. As the study shows, if the under- and over-votes were counted fairly for all counties, Gore won.

Don't know why the link won't work from Apolyton, but I just tested it, it's still there:

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/index.asp

[DinoDoc]

mindseye: Gore didn't want a statewide recount so it's kind of futile to point to what the results of such a thing might have been.

[Ned]

Mindseye, I will check the link tonight. But, if what you say is correct, I stand corrected. However, I still recall the Gore did not ask for a recount of overvotes, or that it was not ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. I recall Bush's people talking about this issue. But as I said, all this is from memory. I will check the facts later.

[-Jrabbit]

The threadjack continues...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Even after his lurch to the left?

I will admit, his new found ability to say what he thinks or feels, and not what the pollsters tell him to say, has raised my opinion of him (somewhat). However, given how low it was, that wasn't much of a feat.

The truth is, despite the fact that he's willing to stand up to this president in a way that risks his reputation doesn't mean that if he became President we could expect a rebuilding of regulation and the welfare state, preservation of public lands, and American stormtroopers to stop marching across the globe (note: that last bit was hyperbole).

Gore is criticizing Bush not so much for his ultra-conservatisim but for his incompetence in leading the nation. Sure, Bush gets what he wants, but that's because he has hardly any opposition (though he did have to cave to France and Russia on the UNSC resolution).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
The threadjack continues...

The whining continues.

[Ming]

The threadjacking will stop... If you want to continue to whine about an old election... create a thread so people can ignore the same old arguments...

Stay on topic... If you know what's good for you

[Kingof the Apes]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Gore is criticizing Bush not so much for his ultra-conservatisim but for his incompetence in leading the nation.

I'm sure Gore would be much more competent.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes
I'm sure Gore would be much more competent.

I don't think I made that argument.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
Bush shows his ineptitude and inexperience by saying one thing and doing another.. he keeps changing his mind over issues such as Iraq (wether to go to war or wait for UN backing) as well as with any other decision.

You clearly haven't picked up on Bush's strategy. Although he will only go into Iraq with the allies, he acted like he was going to attack, allies or no allies for a number of reasons. The UN wants to feel like they have a say in things, so they will fall into line and go along with Bush if they think he's not going to listen to them anyway. Also, he scared Iraq significantly by saying he'd act unilaterally. If he had acted as though he was going to wait for the allies, then France and Russia would have made all sorts of objections, making the West look weak and divided. Saddam would decide that the attack would never get off the ground, and he wouldn't have given up like he did.

Please give an example of "any other decision" in which he says one thing and does another. Bush is a Black and White sort of person. He's not the type to contradict himself.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Also, remember Gore had an artificial advantage due to the media. The media networks all called Florida for Gore while the polls were still open in the Western panhandle, which is in a different timezone and is an area that is heavily pro-Bush. As a result, many voters stayed home. The call turned out to be inaccurate, but it was not until after the polls had closed that the media announced Florida to be in the too close to call column. Had the media not made it's errant call in favor of Gore, Bush probably would have gotten alot more votes.

Yes, but they weren't Black, and "disenfranchiser" doesn't sound as bad as "racist."

[Sava]

It's a shame that an unintelligent man with no compassion can become president.

Bush is a moron. 'nuff said...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Funny.... he seems to be infinetly smarter than you.

Are you thus saying you are an even bigger moron?

[Ned]

JW, In a thinkpiece analysis of US foreign policy published in 1999, the author identified US multilateralism as a significant weakness of US foreign policy. We had to form coalitions and obtain "world approval" in order to act. In order to form the coalition, we would have to moderate our goals to satisfy the most reluctant member. As well, the coalition was subject to being split by wiley strategems of opponents such as Saddam Hussein.

It is my understanding that Bush Sr. acted in the first place after the invasion of Kuwait at the insistence of Saudi Arabia. Ditto not setting Bagdad as an objective. Ditto pulling the plug on post-war support of Kurdish and Shi'ite rebellions.

While many praise Bush Sr. for forming the coalition, in the end Iraq was only a partial success because of the coalition.

Bush Jr.'s willingness to act without a coalition and without Saudi support is a significant difference this time around. The threat of war to the finish is clear. Because of this, Saddam may decide not to play games because he knows he cannot get away with it.

Bush's "unilateralism" is a significant departure from US foreign policy since 1941. By taking this stance, America's foreign policy has become significantly stronger. And, as we have seen, the UN Security Council for the first time in its history is united in taking a stand against tyranny where war is a likely outcome of defiance.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Bush's "unilateralism" is a significant departure from US foreign policy since 1941. By taking this stance, America's foreign policy has become significantly stronger. And, as we have seen, the UN Security Council for the first time in its history is united in taking a stand against tyranny where war is a likely outcome of defiance.

America's foriegn policy is VERY weak at this point in time. Our allies are pissed at us and things don't look good for the future.

As for the UN Security Council united in undertaking war if there is defiance... . You are kidding me. The resolution says the Security Council will look at the issue again if Iraq breached, and you can bet either France or Russia will veto a war. It seems you have no grasp of what the resolution said.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Bush's "unilateralism" is a significant departure from US foreign policy since 1941. By taking this stance, America's foreign policy has become significantly stronger. And, as we have seen, the UN Security Council for the first time in its history is united in taking a stand against tyranny where war is a likely outcome of defiance.

America's foriegn policy is VERY weak at this point in time. Our allies are pissed at us and things don't look good for the future.

As for the UN Security Council united in undertaking war if there is defiance... . You are kidding me. The resolution says the Security Council will look at the issue again if Iraq breached, and you can bet either France or Russia will veto a war. It seems you have no grasp of what the resolution said.

Imran, you are and I will agree to disagree on this point.

[Kepler]

Is Bush a leader? That's a really good (albeit buried on this thread) question.

He seems to inspire some enthusiasm -- more than his dad naturally -- but nowhere near what Reagan or Clinton did.

He leads (usually in the wrong direction) by example. There's no ambiguity that he wants to roll back the division of church and state in millenialist Fundamentalist terms, that he fears and opposes the broadening of real opportunity to types of people he doesn't like, that he believes America is always right and always has the divine edict to enforce its morality, provided that morality is properly orthodox.

He also practices what he preachesa. The first speech to Congress after 9/11 was a bad Western script, but it laid out what we were going to do -- target Ossama, target those who gave him shelter (Taliban), target those who support more general terrorism (Iraq). Also, it divided the world into that comfortingly childish duality that leaders (authoritarians) everywhere thrive on: good vs evil, us vs them, either you're part of the solution or part of the problem.

Yeah, he counts as a leader. He has very, very simple ideas about where to lead, but often that helps relieve ambiguity and leads to constant action. Can you name a truly great leader who was certifiably brilliant, since Napolean? Clinton would clearly have benefitted from a measured reduction in intelligence (and libido). The price of intelligence is often ambivalence, and that's death for a leader.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

America's foriegn policy is VERY weak at this point in time. Our allies are pissed at us and things don't look good for the future.

We only have one ally, Britain. The others are allies of convenience. Despite the previous wishy-washy stances taken by those 'allies', NATO appears to have come out in support of Bush's plan for Iraq. I would say that its a major victory for the president. One of the typical long-standing european stereotypes of american presidents and their foreign policies is that they're "cowboys". I think this new support may be that the european leaders are viewing President Bush in a different light.

[SpencerH]

Kepler,

Wow, someone with an opinion about the subject.

[Dom Pedro II]

I would hardly call the UN resolution a united stance against tyranny... its more like, cutting up the Iraqi oil pig... Russia and France are afraid to lose their oil contracts in the probable event of a regime change, and so the only solution is to make provisions for a new agreement when the American-imposed regime is put into place...

Perhaps I wouldn't find the notion of America taking a stand against tyranny so laughable if it weren't for the fact that we sold weapons of mass destruction to Iraq in the early eighties, which were then used to massacre the Kurds. Not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars in weaponry we gave to slaughter Iranians. We had no problem with Saddam the Butcher when he was our man in the Middle East. Once he started to look out for his own interests rather than ours, we gave him the boot.

Saddam's pretext for invading Kuwait in 1990 was that A) Kuwait had, at one time, been a part of Iraq, but more importantly, just before, Kuwait broke its agreement with OPEC and dramatically increased oil output thus dropping the prices rendering Iraq's oil production 1/3 the value of what it had been! Good for USA, bad for Iraq... that's what precipitated the war... Of course, it is convenient to note that when Saddam started his sabre rattling, the US didn't have much to say about it. After the invasion we acted as if we were all shocked and surprised even though our military had been training for the invasion of Kuwait six months before it actually happened.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We only have one ally, Britain. The others are allies of convenience.

Bullshit. The others are just as important as Britain is. Reagan realized this, Bush I realized this, and Clinton realized this. Bush II doesn't realize this and thus is hopeless on his idiotic foriegn policy.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

We only have one ally, Britain. The others are allies of convenience.

Bullshit. The others are just as important as Britain is. Reagan realized this, Bush I realized this, and Clinton realized this. Bush II doesn't realize this and thus is hopeless on his idiotic foriegn policy.

The other countries are important only in that they may provide some money and that their 'support' helps to calm the sheep who feel we have to have a group-hug before we take action against an enemy. Even without anything else, the importance of the intelligence co-operation between UK-US far outweighs the importance of the meagre support from our other 'allies'. I'd be happy to see some evidence of our 'allies' support, maybe you can provide some. How many French or German or Japanese divisions will be on the ground in Iraq if it comes to that? How many planes or special forces?

Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of the word ally.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Funny.... he seems to be infinetly smarter than you.

Are you thus saying you are an even bigger moron?

I don't want to get restricted again so I'll ignore you.

But again, I don't consider you to be a credible source on anything.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
I would hardly call the UN resolution a united stance against tyranny... its more like, cutting up the Iraqi oil pig... Russia and France are afraid to lose their oil contracts in the probable event of a regime change, and so the only solution is to make provisions for a new agreement when the American-imposed regime is put into place...

Perhaps I wouldn't find the notion of America taking a stand against tyranny so laughable if it weren't for the fact that we sold weapons of mass destruction to Iraq in the early eighties, which were then used to massacre the Kurds. Not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars in weaponry we gave to slaughter Iranians. We had no problem with Saddam the Butcher when he was our man in the Middle East. Once he started to look out for his own interests rather than ours, we gave him the boot.

Saddam's pretext for invading Kuwait in 1990 was that A) Kuwait had, at one time, been a part of Iraq, but more importantly, just before, Kuwait broke its agreement with OPEC and dramatically increased oil output thus dropping the prices rendering Iraq's oil production 1/3 the value of what it had been! Good for USA, bad for Iraq... that's what precipitated the war... Of course, it is convenient to note that when Saddam started his sabre rattling, the US didn't have much to say about it. After the invasion we acted as if we were all shocked and surprised even though our military had been training for the invasion of Kuwait six months before it actually happened.

Dom Pedro, when I read something like this all I can think of is that you Brazilians also believe the Americans did not land on the moon but fillmed the events in Hollywood.

We supported Saddam because of Iran just like we at one time supported Stalin because of Hitler. We changed our position on Saddam after he invaded Kuwait - but only when he massed 11 divisions on the Saudi border and the Saudi's gave us a call and called in their chips. The current concern about Saddam is because we are truly concerned about his WoMD programs. We have allies in the region. Secondly, we cannot have our planes flying over Iraq 'til Kingdom come. We need a way out.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by SpencerH
We only have one ally, Britain. The others are allies of convenience.

All allies are allies of convenience. No permanent enemies, no permanent friends and all that.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kepler

He leads (usually in the wrong direction) by example. There's no ambiguity that he wants to roll back the division of church and state in millenialist Fundamentalist terms, that he fears and opposes the broadening of real opportunity to types of people he doesn't like, that he believes America is always right and always has the divine edict to enforce its morality, provided that morality is properly orthodox.

When I read this, I was trying to think of what you are talking about. But, I must confess, I do not have a clue.

"America has a divine edict to enforce its morality?"

What in the world?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
All allies are allies of convenience. No permanent enemies, no permanent friends and all that.

Thats true, of course, but the UK-US alliance/friendship has lasted for more than 50 years. I cant think of any other two modern countries with such a relationship.

[chequita guevara]

Ned, according to King Hussein of Jordan, it was not Saudi Arabia who called in th Americans, but the US who told Saudi Arabia that 'we are coming, so you better ask us.'

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by SpencerH
We only have one ally, Britain. The others are allies of convenience.

I think Israel is a real ally too. But we don't want them in any ME related coalitions because it would cause more terrorism. (Muslims angry that their land is being conquered by Jews.)

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Sava
I don't want to get restricted again so I'll ignore you.

But again, I don't consider you to be a credible source on anything.

This from someone who posted

I'll bet most of those 11% vote Republicann

in the "11% of Americans can't find America on a map" thread? Someone who uses "I'll bet" as their only argument?

Credible source.