Ten Reasons To Vote For Bush

I can see that this man has done a decent job of listing 10 reasons. When you go to cut it down, make sure you address all 10. Not just 1 or 2. That way when you make your position known, all can see the full side.

Personally I readily agree with 9 of the 10. For those that think they know me, guess which one I think is hogwash?

The ten reasons to vote for President George W. Bush weigh more than the ten reasons for voting against Sen. John F. Kerry (see my op ed: Ten Reasons to Vote Against Kerry). Of course, the sum of all twenty reasons is your vote to preserve and protect our Republic. This is the most important election in our lifetime, except every election from 2000 on will be the �most important� until the second American Civil War (ACW II) is resolved.

The strategic pause from the end of WW III (Cold War) in 1991 to our Pearl Harbor for WW IV (The Global War on Islamist Terrorism) on 9-11-2001 is over. Serious grown ups, even when they make major mistakes, must run the Executive Branch, not the soft, silly Liberals who will hesitate, vacillate, and tempt more attacks with weakness.

www.bushcountry.org...

Mod Edit: Removed part of a full copy paste, Please review the site terms and conditions of use.

Please visit the link provided above if you want to read more from the quoted material.

[edit on 12-10-2004 by UM_Gazz]

edsinger...I'm speechless...

Just when I thought I had seen the end of this propaganda from you, you go and do this. This is so flawed it just funny...

"Trust. Bush is an honorable man. "
"Family and Marriage"
"Conservative Enough"
"Good Man"

...Im not voting him because of the above reasons; not to mention countless others!



If this site had an award for "Way Above Top Secret Comedian" you would get all of my votes.

[edit on 12-10-2004 by Jazzerman]

Great post

Im thinking #7 is weak.

Can we change that # with this

George Bush is a man that believes, He has a hire power to answer to for the decision he makes. And it is'nt the popular point of view.

Comes from the Cocao Plant.

Originally posted by Jazzerman
...Im not voting him because of the above reasons; not to mention countless others!

If this site had an award for "Way Above Top Secret Comedian" you would get all of my votes.

here, here!

edsinger, you poor lost little sheeple person you, i am sorry to see you believing all that mans dribble.

Bush 1st debate: Iraq wasn�t a diversion from the war on terror

Fact:
Military experts believe that the �first front in the war on terror, Afghanistan, was left to fester, as attention and money were drained to Iraq.� It is hard to find a counter-terrorism expert who does believes that the Iraq War reduced rather than increased the threat to the U.S. (Fallows, �Bush�s Lost Year: How the War on Iraq Undermined the War on Terror�, Atlantic Monthly, 10.04)

Bush GOP Convention: Because of the Iraq war, Americans and the world are safer.

Fact:

�Among national-security professionals . . . one view prevails: [the war] has increased the threats America faces and has reduced the military, financial and diplomatic tools with which we can respond.� (Fallows, �Bush�s Lost Year: How the War on Iraq Undermined the War on Terror�, Atlantic Monthly, 10.04)

Bush Campaign: We gave [Saddam] a last chance; he ignored the last chance. And then I had a choice to make: take the word of a madman, forget the lessons of September the 11th, or do what's necessary to defend this country.

Fact:

Bush didn't have to listen to the "words of a madman" to know Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. In February 2001, the CIA delivered a report to the White House that said: "We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs." (CIA, 2001)

In February 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Saddam Hussein "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction." (State Department, 2/24/01) In 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency submitted a report to the administration finding "no reliable information" to prove Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons. (DIA, 2002)

Bush 2nd debate:

I remember sitting in the White House looking at those generals, saying, "Do you have what you need in this war? Do you have what it takes?�
I remember going down to the basement of the White House the day we committed our troops as last resort, looking at Tommy Franks and the generals on the ground, asking them, "Do we have the right plan with the right troop level?"
And they looked me in the eye and said, "Yes, sir, Mr. President." Of course, I listen to our generals. That's what a president does. A president sets the strategy and relies upon good military people to execute that strategy

Fact:

SENIOR OFFICIALS INCLUDING ERIC SHINSEKI AND PAUL BREMER SAID WE NEEDED MORE TROOPS

Bremer: �We Never Had Enough Troops.� In recent days, former Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator L. Paul Bremer 3rd has repeatedly criticized the Bush Administration for failing to send enough troops to keep order in Iraq. �We never had enough troops on the ground,� Bremer said. In mid-September, Bremer stated that �the single most important change -- the one thing that would have improved the situation -- would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout,� and said that �although I raised [the need for more troops] a number of times with our government, I should have been even more insistent.� [Associated Press, 10/5/04; Paul Bremer Remarks, DePaul University, 9/16/04]

Bremer�s Comments Echo Gen. Eric Shinseki�s Estimate that �Several Hundred Thousand� Troops Would Be Needed for a Postwar Occupation of Iraq; Shinseki Made �Lame Duck� For Criticizing Administration Iraq Policy. �More than a year ago then Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress the occupation of Iraq would require 'several hundred thousand' troops. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz called that estimate 'wildly off the mark.' The Pentagon leaked the name of Shinseki's replacement months before his scheduled retirement, rendering him a lame duck.� [UPI, 4/12/04]

Bush VP debate: I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11

Fact:

Question: "The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?"

Cheney: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection." [NBC, Meet the Press, 11/14/03]

Cheney: "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." [NBC, "Meet The Press," 9/14/03, emphasis added

Fact George Bush is a liar

edsinger, we all know what you stand for. I can respect that, but I can't agree with it.

Here's what I think.

1. Part of the blame does go to Bush on this one. No way that he can hide behind Rummy here. He gets briefings from the Joint Chiefs too.

2. I agree with Bush on Partial-birth abortion. However, I still keep abortion open as a viable solution, in extreme cases. I grew up as a child where abortion would have been the better solution for my mother. It truly and genuinely sucked, but is not without it's merits. I'm still generally undecided on Abortion as a whole.

3. Some people have joined the 20th century, and have accepted that liberals aren't quite so bad as communists, and by the same token conservatives aren't as bad as vampires.

4. He sure has done a great job of understanding capitalism. WTG Biggest Deficit EVER!

5. This is ludicrous. Since when does gay marriage threaten the family? This is asinine to suggest. A marriage is based on love. Not on if one of you has a penis, and the other a vagina. No big deal, IMO.

6. There's a reason why not everyone has a 401k. Bush needs to join the real world. Wal-Mart does have career employees, and they don't have 401ks.

7. I'm not touching this. The writer sounds like an uneducated bubba anyhow.

8. I'm sorry, but we need LESS defense spending, and a 1% increase somewhere else isn't enough. Schools are falling apart.

9. Oh man, that was good. I needed that. Thanks, man. He's about as honorable as a fox in a chicken coop.

10. See answer for nine. It's basically the same statement. The way this is worded makes Kerry sound like a snake for getting a divorce.

I'm a Bush supporter and I thought that was one of the lamest lists I have ever seen. I'm almost embarrassed to vote for him after reading that!

Jemison

Bush doing the double speek thing????

George Bush Yesterday:

"Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance," Bush said. "Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive, destroying terrorist networks and spreading freedom and liberty around the world."

George Bush on August 31st:

"I don't think you can win it, but I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world," Bush told NBC's "Today" show. "Let's put it that way. I have a two-prong strategy. On the one hand, it's to find them before they hurt us. And that's necessary. I'm telling you. It's necessary."

Which equates to what Kerry said yesterday:

"Democratic challenger John Kerry on Monday, saying the Massachusetts senator would prefer to reduce terror to an "acceptable level" rather than eradicate it."

So what is the president saying??? Can you explain how he says you can win the war on terror and also says you can't? Can you explain how the president says you can't win the war on terror but you can make it hard for terrorist which equates to being just a nuisance to the U.S.?

it's funny. while I'm leaning towards President Bush, many of the things listed are the very reasons I am only leaning.

the abortion issue actually scares me. I have one daughter and I'd bet money that the one on the way (wife hit me with that last night) will be a girl.

Bush is a transparent pathological liar, applauded by many at ATS who know no better.

* The concept of "winning" a war against an abstract noun has been shown many times at ATS to be self-defeating. *

[edit on 12-10-2004 by MaskedAvatar]

"Democratic challenger John Kerry on Monday, saying the Massachusetts senator would prefer to reduce terror to an "acceptable level" rather than eradicate it."

So what is the president saying??? Can you explain how he says you can win the war on terror and also says you can't? Can you explain how the president says you can't win the war on terror but you can make it hard for terrorist which equates to being just a nuisance to the U.S.?

I think the diffrence, is Kerry wants to fight the terrorist the same way Clinton did. And Gee. Here we are missing two buildings. Its the way Kerry says it. But here's the question. Do we go by what Kerry says, or do we go by what Kerry has done in the Senate. Witch one will you libs, allow us to scrutinize.