What about Bush?

Remove all ads!

And you can grit your teeth until they fall out, but I'm still going to defend our tradition of "free elections" and the notion that our institutions should be democratic instead of the kind of cronyism that pervades our halls of government currently.

HS - You have a Nixon badge? Now, that takes some courage.

Edit: I'm sure the Founding Brothers would not agree with your notion that the popular vote was "meaningless." But then there was a time when our nation was governed by giants instead of the pygmies we have now.

[ November 17, 2003, 06:08: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

@ Lokken - Texas Gunslinger - that was exactly the term I was looking for. Nice call.

@ Laches - I do read the New York Times, daily. My point wasn't that Bush doesn't want to set up democracy in Iraq, or even that he didn't mention that previous to the invasion. However, that was never the focus of the war in the first place. On the list of all the reasons for going to war, liberating the Iraqi people and setting up a democracy in Iraq was certainly not on the top of the list. Yes, he mentioned it before the war. It only became his primary platform however, after no WMD were found, and the ties to terrorists never materialized.

I find it somewhat ammusing that you take the word of the New York Times as gospel, but for some reason think that someone such as myself who works for the Department of freaking Defense would have no clue as to policy or what was expected to be done/found in Iraq following the war, especially considering I work in the Program for the Elimination of Chemical Weapons.

Read that last paragraph again. Now ask yourself who likely is more privy to U.S. policy in postwar Iraq.

 

Aldeth, I hear what you're saying, believe me, and I have always been pro smash the middle eastern troublemakers, but on the other hand, I'm not even sure Bush knows what his policy is . . .

As for the election, Chandos, you've got to admit that it's not as if it were a great injustice had occurred -- it was a kissing close election, and it's sure that a large number of Americans favored each man -- the system worked as best as any system could, and the Dems lost. Life is full of these disappointments -- for me, it's that a Liberal Government is always elected in my country because of a horribly uneven population distribution.

I'd lay odds that Bush gets re-elected.

As for Nixon, He deserved to be impeached, but I have a nasty feeling thatif the full behaviour of many past presidents were to be revealed, we would see that many of them deserved impeachment as well . . . .

 

Your initial post created a false dichotomy of sorts. My quote was regarding that. Multiple reasons were advanced for the war. Indeed, that was part of why the administration was so roundly criticized prior to the war.

I'm sure you're a good chemist but I do think the words of the president as reported prior to the war laying out the reasons for war should be lent some consideration.

You seemed to present a false dichotomy initially. You have subsequently backed off of that somewhat. Fair enough.

As an aside - don't take it personally when someone responds to your posts.