http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/archives/001564.html

this is a rather long but rather interesting defense of Bush, at least as he compares to Kerry.

It is not without its critiques of the Bush administration ... yet it comes to the conclusion mentioned in the title.

enjoy. or don't.

I'm voting for Dubya because Kerry's plans are all nonsense. I like Kerry's positions more, but his plans are not well thought out at all. He didn't have any position on S.S. for Pete's sake.

Here is an important passage for me. Bear in mind, if you haven't read the whole story, that the article does not paint Bush as perfect ... far from it:


"Kerry also suffers from something of a Vietnam syndrome. I, like Robert Kagan has written, believe that Kerry has a deep distrust and suspicion regarding exerting American power overseas.

"He voted against Gulf War I, for Pete's sake (Saudi oil supplies likely to be controlled by Iraq!?! Hey, who cares!). His disregard for such a vital strategic interest has been replicated when confronted by humanitarian tragedies too. See his vote against 'lift and strike' in Bosnia (Laura Rozen would like you to forget it).

"Kerry says he would never send our boys into war unless it is absoutely necessary. Well, what is absolutely necessary Senator? Really, what? Too little, in Kerry's worldview, I'm afraid.

I can't say I disagree with any of that. Kerry experienced combat first hand, I think he knows when enough is enough.

Well, it's not in my vital strategic interest to defend John Kerry, but his position on the first Gulf War is not as simple as you think. Kerry said, in 1992, "The debate in the Senate was not about whether we should or should not have used force, but when force should be used." Basically, Kerry had the same argument he had in 2002, that diplomacy should be given more time before we send in the troops. Apparently, he had less trust in Bush I's diplomacy skills than he did in that of Bush II's, which seems stupid to me, but that was his position.

Anyway, you can argue about whether or not Kerry was right to urge more time for diplomacy, but you can't say he said "Hey, who cares about Kuwait and Saudi Arabia!" By the way, its interesting that you are making the argument that war for oil is necessary. A vital strategic interest, eh? I dunno, I think blood is more vital than oil, but I'm just an egotistic do-gooder.

I suggest all of these people who consider going to war for oil or not wanting to give diplomacy another chance spend some time in a combat situation themselves or send their children. It's far too fucking easy to sit back and wax philosophic about exerting American power around the world when you are in a fucking air conditioned office with lunch hour 20 minutes away. It makes me sick to hear people talk about "vital overseas interests." It's a bullshit way of saying "shit that's going to make someone else tons of money"

Yeah, I have to agree on this one. Whenever I bring this point up to friends or on other message boards, people seem to dodge the question or change the subject.

Consider this: Are you willing to give up your daily life to serve in the military? Disrupting the comfortable situation of your 9-5 to serve this country? I don't see a lot of folks running down to their local Army Recruitment office to sign up.

yup, 3 bullets in the back of little kids is more than enough as say, 4 or 5

you know , when I bring up the fact that John Kerry shot a man in combat ,the supporters of the coward bring up that he shot him in the back to which I say, "even better"

George W. Bush is a 5'10" pussy. We need a strong intellegent man this election. George Bush is 0 for 3 by that standard.

Imagine a world in which that prick dosen't have to worry about being reelected. Scary is a modest word for that dilemma.

My God, I had to. I'm sorry.

Just to clear it up, Kerry shot a guy in the back who had been shooting at his troops with either a machine gun or a rocket launcher of some sort. Bush doesn't have this experience though, cause he never went to war.

how can people be so against wars and stuff, and yet give a handjob to a guy who was in one, and relished it, and then hated it, then relished it again, then hated it (you see a pattern?), and yet you keep bringing up bushes lack of "war expierence"?

so its not ok to go to war if youve never been in one, and it is ok to have been in one and shoot men in the back and children, but then to criticize going to war?

Apparently it is.

Wouldn't you want to listen to someone who has experienced war and come out against it after the fact.

In everything I've read, John Kerry has always advocated diplomacy over military action.

Actually I always applauded John Kerry's anti-war protests after Vietnam, it really pissed off the establishment, and he had every right to do so

no i wouldnt, cuz then hes just using the, i was following orders excuse, and you see how well that worked for the nazis


if you believe in something, then stand up for it, dont be a pussy then cry about it afterwards

well that goes against about half of everything you've said around here hasn't it?

example please

Its just a little hypocritical considering you were going around saying basically using that "law is the law" argument to justify how the state treats criminals.