Reasons to Vote for Bush

[BRIANC1046]

This post is directed to all you Republicans voting for Bush.. I'd like to know why you are voting for Bush? Why do you want to see him in office for another 4 years? What has he accomplished in the past four years that you want to see continue in the next four?

Bush has to be good for something? I really can't think of any reasons to vote for him? I'm not planning on arguing with any reasons you might list.. but I really am curious why people are PRO Bush?

[obby]

This post is directed to all you Republicans voting for Bush.. I'd like to know why you are voting for Bush? Why do you want to see him in office for another 4 years? What has he accomplished in the past four years that you want to see continue in the next four?

Bush has to be good for something? I really can't think of any reasons to vote for him? I'm not planning on arguing with any reasons you might list.. but I really am curious why people are PRO Bush?

I would be happy to answer that.

To put it simply, no other issue concerns me more than our security. I personally, am still angry about 9/11. Most Demz I speak to just don't seem that angry. They say they are, but it just doesn't seem sincere.

Let me just state some facts, not spin about what I've seen Bush do in these 4 yrs. He inherited a recession which began prior to him winning the presidency (this is not a myth or spin, it's fact and very well documented). As you might already know, Bush's budget was not implemented for another 9 months after he took office (this is normal. every president inherits his predecessors budget and has approx. 9 months to come up w/ a new one and present it to congress). So, Bush's budget and tax cuts helped stop the bleeding and turn our economy around. It has sparked the fastest rebound unmatched in the past 25 yrs. GDP growth under his leadership has record growth. With record growth, come the return of jobs. Jobs lost not due to bad leadership by Bush, but a recession (which he inherited) and of course, 9/11. Which according to all info I've read says lead to approximately 1.7 millions jobs lost. You add that 1.7 million jobs plus recession, plus corporate corruption (all of which occurred during the bubble of the 90's) and you have that 2.5 million jobs lost which Demz love to claim is all Bush's fault.

Next, you have 9/11. This caught the world by surprise. I don't lay any blame on any specific person. Apparently, neither does the 9/11 commission. They actually blame congress, as a whole, more than anything. Congress was asleep at the wheel and not managing their oversight of these agencies efficiently. Regardless, 9/11 happened...now what? Well, Bush took a stand against this enemy. An enemy which has been @ war with us since 1993. 9/11 was obviously the straw that broke the camels back. Bush decided to name 3 countries the axis of evil and vows to fight terrorism abroad, rather than have them attack us at home. He removes the Taliban from Afghanistan, captures/kills approx 2/3 of their leadership. Then the world intel, including U.K., Russia and the UN, all say Iraq remains a threat and continues to violate the 17 resolutions he agreed to, starting in 1991. After 9/11, Bush's goal was clear, TAKE THE FIGHT TO THE ENEMY!!!!! He took a year trying to convince the world and the UN that this threat must not be ignored. Saddam continued to defy the UN and Bush was left w/ a tough decision, take Saddam at his word or remove him from power. Approx. 35 countries stood w/ America in this task and we went after Iraq. Once there, we learn of tons of terrorist ties w/ Iraq (I did not say Iraq and 9/11,,,I said Iraq and terrorism). The 9/11 commission, the UK's Lord Butler report, Our CIA, UK's MI6, Russia's intel all tell Bush of the links between terrorists and Iraq. Bush decides to take him out, but not before presenting it to congress for one last debate. Congress unanimously agrees that regime change must be done and authorized Bush to go ahead. Later the majority of congress also approves the funding for this war(no thanks to Kerry and Edwards who both voted against it). We then take out Saddam and put Iraq on a new course towards democracy. So, by my account, thus far, We've liberated Afghanistan and Iraq (which both just so happen to border Iran (aka,,axis of evil). Call me crazy, but I'm starting to see the Bush's vision of defeating this axis of evil. We've got to crawl before we walk,,right? So, w/ that said, Bush as undoubtedly earned my respect as far as doing all he can to secure our way of life. You add all that plus the record farm bill, education bill, Medicare prescription drug program and tax cuts, and you've got to admit,,,,Bush has done more than enough to get my vote,,AGAIN.

With Bush, you know what he stands for,,there's no gray area w/ him. He stands for strong family values, God, less taxes, strong military and strict accountability for social programs and public education. I could go on, but I'm a little busy......this should suffice,,,,for now........

[alexx]

very well said

[mrmatas2277]

b/c the the Democrats have said that they are going to do the samething Bush is doing...but better ...

[mursa]

oh god !!!!!!!

[BRIANC1046]

eventhough i don't quite agree with everything you listed... good post

I would be happy to answer that.

To put it simply, no other issue concerns me more than our security. I personally, am still angry about 9/11. Most Demz I speak to just don't seem that angry. They say they are, but it just doesn't seem sincere.

Let me just state some facts, not spin about what I've seen Bush do in these 4 yrs. He inherited a recession which began prior to him winning the presidency (this is not a myth or spin, it's fact and very well documented). As you might already know, Bush's budget was not implemented for another 9 months after he took office (this is normal. every president inherits his predecessors budget and has approx. 9 months to come up w/ a new one and present it to congress). So, Bush's budget and tax cuts helped stop the bleeding and turn our economy around. It has sparked the fastest rebound unmatched in the past 25 yrs. GDP growth under his leadership has record growth. With record growth, come the return of jobs. Jobs lost not due to bad leadership by Bush, but a recession (which he inherited) and of course, 9/11. Which according to all info I've read says lead to approximately 1.7 millions jobs lost. You add that 1.7 million jobs plus recession, plus corporate corruption (all of which occurred during the bubble of the 90's) and you have that 2.5 million jobs lost which Demz love to claim is all Bush's fault.

Next, you have 9/11. This caught the world by surprise. I don't lay any blame on any specific person. Apparently, neither does the 9/11 commission. They actually blame congress, as a whole, more than anything. Congress was asleep at the wheel and not managing their oversight of these agencies efficiently. Regardless, 9/11 happened...now what? Well, Bush took a stand against this enemy. An enemy which has been @ war with us since 1993. 9/11 was obviously the straw that broke the camels back. Bush decided to name 3 countries the axis of evil and vows to fight terrorism abroad, rather than have them attack us at home. He removes the Taliban from Afghanistan, captures/kills approx 2/3 of their leadership. Then the world intel, including U.K., Russia and the UN, all say Iraq remains a threat and continues to violate the 17 resolutions he agreed to, starting in 1991. After 9/11, Bush's goal was clear, TAKE THE FIGHT TO THE ENEMY!!!!! He took a year trying to convince the world and the UN that this threat must not be ignored. Saddam continued to defy the UN and Bush was left w/ a tough decision, take Saddam at his word or remove him from power. Approx. 35 countries stood w/ America in this task and we went after Iraq. Once there, we learn of tons of terrorist ties w/ Iraq (I did not say Iraq and 9/11,,,I said Iraq and terrorism). The 9/11 commission, the UK's Lord Butler report, Our CIA, UK's MI6, Russia's intel all tell Bush of the links between terrorists and Iraq. Bush decides to take him out, but not before presenting it to congress for one last debate. Congress unanimously agrees that regime change must be done and authorized Bush to go ahead. Later the majority of congress also approves the funding for this war(no thanks to Kerry and Edwards who both voted against it). We then take out Saddam and put Iraq on a new course towards democracy. So, by my account, thus far, We've liberated Afghanistan and Iraq (which both just so happen to border Iran (aka,,axis of evil). Call me crazy, but I'm starting to see the Bush's vision of defeating this axis of evil. We've got to crawl before we walk,,right? So, w/ that said, Bush as undoubtedly earned my respect as far as doing all he can to secure our way of life. You add all that plus the record farm bill, education bill, Medicare prescription drug program and tax cuts, and you've got to admit,,,,Bush has done more than enough to get my vote,,AGAIN.

With Bush, you know what he stands for,,there's no gray area w/ him. He stands for strong family values, God, less taxes, strong military and strict accountability for social programs and public education. I could go on, but I'm a little busy......this should suffice,,,,for now........

[chris817]

Later the majority of congress also approves the funding for this war(no thanks to Kerry and Edwards who both voted against it). We then take out Saddam and put Iraq on a new course towards democracy. So, by my account, thus far, We've liberated Afghanistan and Iraq (which both just so happen to border Iran (aka,,axis of evil). Call me crazy, but I'm starting to see the Bush's vision of defeating this axis of evil. We've got to crawl before we walk,,right? So, w/ that said, Bush as undoubtedly earned my respect as far as doing all he can to secure our way of life. You add all that plus the record farm bill, education bill, Medicare prescription drug program and tax cuts, and you've got to admit,,,,Bush has done more than enough to get my vote,,AGAIN.

With Bush, you know what he stands for,,there's no gray area w/ him. He stands for strong family values, God, less taxes, strong military and strict accountability for social programs and public education. I could go on, but I'm a little busy......this should suffice,,,,for now........

[koky]

[obby]

Why is the fact that a majority of troops do not have protective body armor to fight with? so he has done so much for our military.

I'll give you a couple of days to try and read up on the fact regarding your comment. Once you find out the facts then I am sure you will regret asking that question.

You know what? Fuck giving you time. The facts are that Kerry and Edwards both voted against the body armor of our troops but the bill was still passed thanks to the majority votes of our senate.

PS: Ask our troops who they support !!!!!!!

[chris817]

I'll give you a couple of days to try and read up on the fact regarding your comment. Once you find out the facts then I am sure you will regret asking that question.

You know what? Fuck giving you time. The facts are that Kerry and Edwards both voted against the body armor of our troops but the bill was still passed thanks to the majority votes of our senate.

PS: Ask our troops who they support !!!!!!!

listen numnut i have friends over there who tell me they are spread too thin and do not have enough body armor. So don't tell me what i need to read i know first hand. What troops are going to come out now against the president? i did not see the latest poll of our service men.

Do you really think Kerry a vet would vote just against body armor, this song and dance you republicans keep saying its so old. The fact why they did not vote for it was b/c they did not want the blunt of the cost to fall on the middle class. If your such a great american why can't the top earners in this country roll back their tax credits and use it for the war??

[siceone]

all though bush will clearly be better on security and not sacrafice american lives to be part of the world community which there is no such thing. clearly he is better on the economy by giving the investing public more reasons to invest thier money. Kerry Will Cripple the economy, not to mention that if his wife paid her fair share we might be a couple million better off in the treasury. the big thing for me how ever is Gov't sponsored health and retirement accounts. giving more control to the tax payer on how this money is saved for them so they have an incentive to save knowing that the more they save the more they get and stoping the flow of funds into the black hole of social security. then there's family values issues moral values issues and the constant vaccillatiing of Kerry. I think bush is the clear choice.

[chris817]

not to mention that if his wife paid her fair share we might be a couple million better off in the treasury.

Umm she pays the same percentage as cheney

So your argument goes both ways

[sobeton]

More Bush Distortions of Kerry Defense Record

Latest barrage of ads repeats misleading claims that Kerry "repeatedly opposed" mainstream weapons.

April 26, 2004

Modified:April 30, 2004

Summary

Bush ads released April 26 recycle some distortions of Kerry's voting record on military hardware. We've de-bunked these half-truths before but the Bush campaign persists.

The ads -- many targeted to specific states -- repeat the claim that Kerry opposed a list of mainstream weapons including Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Apache helicopters, and also repeat the claim that he voted against body armor for frontline troops in Iraq. In fact, Kerry voted against a few large Pentagon money bills, of which Bradleys, Apaches and body armor were small parts, but not against those items specifically.

Analysis

On April 26 the Bush campaign released a total of 10 ads, all repeating claims that Kerry opposed a list of mainstream military hardware "vital to winning the war on terror."

Bush Ad: National Version

"Weapons"

Bush: I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message.

Announcer: As our troops defend America in the War on Terror, they must have what it takes to win. Yet, John Kerry has repeatedly opposed weapons vital to winning the War on Terror: Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Patriot Missiles, B-2 Stealth Bombers, F-18 Fighter Jets and more.

Kerry even voted against body armor for our troops on the front line of the War on Terror. John Kerry’s record on national security: Troubling.

Misleading Claims

The claims are misleading, as we've pointed out before in articles we posted on Feb. 26 and March 16. The Bush campaign bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. So even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should -- on balance -- be called a supporter of the "vital" weapons, more so than an opponent.

The claim that Kerry voted against body armor is based similarly on Kerry's vote last year against an $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriation bill to finance military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It included $300 million for the latest, ceramic-plate type of body armor for troops who had been sent to war without it. The body-armor funds amounted to about 1/3 of one percent of the total.

Missing Context

It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter, but once elected he opposed mainly such strategic weapons as Trident nuclear missiles and space-based anti-ballistic systems. And Richard Cheney himself, who is now Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, also proposed canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did. As Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee on Aug. 13, 1989:

Cheney: The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . . . I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.

Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.

Does that make Cheney an opponent of "weapons vital to winning the war on terror?" Of course not. But by the Bush campaign's logic, Cheney himself would be vulnerable to just such a charge, and so would Bush's father, who was president at the time.

McCain Defends Kerry, Criticizes "Bitter" Rhetoric

Kerry's voting record on military spending was defended March 18 by Republican Sen. John McCain. He said on CBS's "The Early Show:"

McCain: No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense.

McCain also criticized "bitter and partisan" attacks by both sides, saying, " This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice."

Bush Ad: State Version

"Arizona Weapons"

Bush: I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message.

Announcer: As our troops defend

America in the War on Terror, they must have what it takes to win. Yet, John Kerry has repeatedly opposed weapons vital to winning the War on Terror: Apache Helicopters, Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, and components of F-18 Fighter Jets all built here in Arizona.

Kerry even voted against body armor for our troops on the front line of the War on Terror. John Kerry’s record on national security: Troubling.

McCain is heading Bush's re-election efforts in Arizona. And speaking of Arizona, it was among nine states targeted by different versions of the same Bush ad.

Targeting Arizona

The state ads made mention of specific weapons -- supposedly opposed by Kerry -- manufactured in those states. The Arizona version mentioned Apache helicopters, Tomahawk cruise missiles and F-18 aircraft "all built here in Arizona."

The other ads were aimed at Arkansas, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania. All added a similar pork-barrel appeal to the basic attack on Kerry for undermining the "war on terror." And all gave an equally false impression of Kerry's actual voting record.

Sources

Richard Cheney "Hearings of the House Armed Services Committee, Fiscal 1990 Defense Budget" 13 July 1989

Fred Kaplan "Bush's 1992 Budget: Plan includes a $ 3.7b military cut" Boston Globe, 5 Feb 1991.

Nancy Benac, "McCain Says Kerry Not Weak on Defense," The Associated Press 18 March 2004.

National Journal's Congress Daily, "McCain, Differing From GOP Leaders, Defends Kerry On Defense," 18 March 2004.

[siceone]

Umm she pays the same percentage as cheney

So your argument goes both ways

read....

http://bbs.clubplanet.com/showthread.php?t=225834