Differences Between Bush and Kerry

[Evolver]

I haven't read it, can you post a relevant excerpt?

I didn't read it either. Read excerpts in an article in The Boston Globe. I can't find it right now. Google.

How is it less dangerous?

I can't see Kerry starting a war the way Bush did in Iraq. I put Bush beneath most Republicans, as well. Despite their aversion to criticizing one of their own, I really don't believe most of them would have done something like this.

 

[Tony]

I can't see Kerry starting a war the way Bush did in Iraq.

Fair enough, but I contend that Kerry is more dangerous because he favors appeasement with terrorists.

 

[RandFan]

Randy (may I call you that?),
Is Bush a leader then to you?
You said this about him in a different thread:

"I hate to be cynical but you are describing a politician. Not unlike the presidents before him. I don't condone it but I understand it."

Call me what ever pleases you,

Good question, I don't deny that Bush makes many decisions based on polls. I have myself accused him of pandering to hispanics. In other words, he is making decisions based on what he believes will help in win the election.

But there is a difference between sticking your finger in the air on every issue and having a set of core beliefs and a willingness to stick to a course of action once chosen. As I said, a leader must not be so dogmatic that he is unwilling to change course based in part on the will of the people. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with pandering and Bush clearly is willing to pander. But that is quite different from constantly changing ones mind on every major issue.

Bottom line, Bush disapoints in some ways and doesn't in others.

 

[subgenius]

A "leader" as you previously used the term or not?

Edited to add: You may have answered the question by your post in the other thread.

 

[hammegk]

But I feel that Bush has PROVEN to be a liar & manipulator of the worst kind.

As opposed to Kerry who you have faith will be a liar & manipulator of the better kind?

 

[subgenius]

More proof of my psychic abilities: Read this column after I posted about Bush's flip flopping vs. Kerry's alleged flip flopping.

"Kerry, say the Republicans solemnly, is given to flip-flopping. Kerry is?

Let's just start counting off the top of our heads: George W. Bush was opposed to a commission to investigate how and why 9-11 occurred, but then he changed his mind and backed it. (Political pressure.) He was certainly opposed to a commission to investigate the intelligence failures on Iraq, but then he changed his mind and backed it. (Political pressure.) He now brags, "I went to the U.N. (before invading Iraq)"? Who recalls why he changed his mind about doing that? He originally said he not only did not need to consult the United Nations, he said he did not even have to consult the U.S. Congress.

Anyone remember how Bush, the corporate ethicist of Harken Energy, opposed the Sarbanes-Oxley bill? Sarbanes-Oxley was a mildly reformist piece of legislation deemed slightly necessary in the wake of the staggering accounting scandals that caused the collapse of Enron, Tyco and WorldCom. There seemed to be a new record-bankruptcy every week, but our president didn't think we needed any new laws to prevent such things, my no. When did he change his mind and decide to sign it? After it passed the House of Representatives with one vote against it.

Remember when we weren't gong to negotiate with North Korea? Then we weren't gong to negotiate with North Korea again, but we would "talk" to North Korea, but only in multilateral "talking," until Bush changed his mind yet again and now we're in multilateral negotiations.

Remember when the United Nations was "unnecessary" and "irrelevant," and boy was Bush ever ready to tell them to go jump in the lake? We now think the United Nations is so useful and necessary, we call on it not just for Iraq, but Haiti and other trouble spots, as well.

Remember when we didn't need any civilian or international advice about how to pacify and reconstruct Iraq, our military could do it just fine, thank you?

Remember when "nation-building" was a dirty word?

Boy, that John Kerry, he just flip-flops all the time, doesn't he? "

http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=miv

 

[RandFan]

Remember when the United Nations was "unnecessary" and "irrelevant," and boy was Bush ever ready to tell them to go jump in the lake? We now think the United Nations is so useful and necessary, we call on it not just for Iraq, but Haiti and other trouble spots, as well.

Remember when we didn't need any civilian or international advice about how to pacify and reconstruct Iraq, our military could do it just fine, thank you?

Remember when "nation-building" was a dirty word?

Boy, that John Kerry, he just flip-flops all the time, doesn't he? "[/url]

I think you are looking for something that isn't there. Any leader who is so dogmatic that he/she is unwilling to change course when that course is warrented is not a very good leader.

RandFan
But there is a difference between sticking your finger in the air on every issue and having a set of core beliefs and a willingness to stick to a course of action once chosen. As I said, a leader must not be so dogmatic that he is unwilling to change course based in part on the will of the people. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with pandering and Bush clearly is willing to pander. But that is quite different from constantly changing ones mind on every major issue.

The difference is changing for pragmatic reasons or poltical expediency.

 

[subgenius]

I see.

 

[Kodiak]

Kerry is most liberal of the liberals , while Bush is not.

Bush isn't anywhere near my ideal candidate for President (I think Kemp/Powell or Powell/Kemp would make a great ticket), but he is preferable to the alternatives (Kerry or Nader).

 

[Luke T.]

Kerry is most liberal of the liberals , while Bush is not.

Bush isn't anywhere near my ideal candidate for President (I think Kemp/Powell or Powell/Kemp would make a great ticket), but he is preferable to the alternatives (Kerry or Nader).

Hey, hey, hey! Another Jack Kemp fan! I knew there was a reason I liked you so much.

I've also thought about Powell as a VP, but under Bush. Never occurred to me to think of Kemp and Powell together.

 

[subgenius]

I think you are looking for something that isn't there. Any leader who is so dogmatic that he/she is unwilling to change course when that course is warrented is not a very good leader.

The difference is changing for pragmatic reasons or poltical expediency.

Like the nomination of Raimondo, delayed because of criticism by the Kerry campaign.

 

[RandFan]

Like the nomination of Raimondo, delayed because of criticism by the Kerry campaign.

You missed my point. Changing core beliefs is quite different from changing tactics or decisions about who to apoint as Manufacturing Czar for political expediency.

Nice try though. To prevail on this one you need to find a core issue. Abortion, the war on terrorism, religion, rights of hispanics. Hell even his pandering to hispanics has been consistent for years. And no body wants his suggestions. Republicans say it is too much and Liberals say it is too little.

I'll bet you can find an example. I have one but I'm not going to give it to you. Your going to have to earn it on your own. The point being that Bush has done it much less than Kerry. He stands for something besides expediency.

RandFan

 

[subgenius]

How about the issues raised in the article I cited? You are invited to explain how those weren't political reversals. I know you can do it.
For your convenience:
http://www.creators.com/opinion_sho...columnsName=miv

 

[Globert]

How about the issues raised in the article I cited? You are invited to explain how those weren't political reversals. I know you can do it.
For your convenience:
http://www.creators.com/opinion_sho...columnsName=miv

She is so unbiased. If Bush committed sepku she would carp that he unfairly left Democrats out of the partisan proccess, and co-opted their core ideals.

 

[jj]

Feelings are irrelevant, if Bush has proven to be a liar, you should be able to document it. As it is, I have posted irrefutable evidence of Kerry's lies, hypocrisy and general inconsistency.

W

M

D


Bzzzt. Thank you for playing, and please try again.

 

[RandFan]

W

M

D


Bzzzt. Thank you for playing, and please try again.

jj,

I know we haven't gotten along in the past but I hope can put that asside and answer a question. Has it been proven that Bush lied?

To be honest, I believe that there was no intention to misslead or lie. The administration it seems to me, sincerely believed that there was WMD. I think that they wanted to believe. I think the mindset of the administration led them to discount evidence that could have or should have led them to a different conclusion but I have yet to see and evidence of lying on the part of Bush.

Perhaps the most daming is the Niger claim. Many in the administration seemed unwilling to accept that the claim had been discredited. However, there is some data to support a belief in the Niger claim even if that data was week.

March 8, 2003—Toronto Globe and Mail
Jeff Shallot of the Toronto Globe and Mail cites U.N. sources in reporting IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei's conclusion that "Secret documents detailing attempts by Iraq to buy uranium for nuclear warheads from Niger are forgeries. …" Shallot hypothesizes a con man, who sold them to an Italian intelligence agent, and then "passed [them] on to French authorities."

Without attacking you and in a spirit of non-partisanship I would ask if you can document and demonstrate the lies of Bush and his administration as they relate to WMD?

 

[fishbob]

I know we haven't gotten along in the past but I hope can put that asside and answer a question. Has it been proven that Bush lied?

Those who believe Bush did not intend to deceive will never see enough evidence to prove lying. To those who believe Bush lied, any evidence is enough to prove lying.

To be honest, I believe that there was no intention to misslead or lie. The administration it seems to me, sincerely believed that there was WMD. I think that they wanted to believe. I think the mindset of the administration led them to discount evidence that could have or should have led them to a different conclusion but I have yet to see and evidence of lying on the part of Bush.

Take a close look at the now disbanded special intelligence advisory group that CIA head George Tenet says he just learned about. A reasonable conclusion is that this advisory group was set up to cherry pick WMD support data for the Bush administration to use to sell the Iraq invasion to the US populace. Plausible deniability strikes again.

 

[epepke]

Has it been proven that Bush lied?

To be honest, I believe that there was no intention to misslead or lie. The administration it seems to me, sincerely believed that there was WMD.

And this matters, exactly how?

If you want a President who is always sincere in his beliefs, elect a schizophrenic.