[The Missing Link]

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK:
"Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community."
......................................
"Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found."

I have to appreciate how these things are always worded. I'd have to say that over two-thirds of the time, statistics that are non sequitur but sound good are placed together in hopes of suggesting cause and effect or point and proof.

Need we forget the news over the past few months? Let's recap.
(a) All intelligence sources in the US believed that there were WoMDs in Iraq. Let's face it, sure, either this is a big screw up on our part OR Iraq hid them really well OR sent them off to somewhere else. However, given that intelligence, what are you going to do? Say you don't believe them? These people, wrong or not, have jobs to investigate this stuff; consider them the leaders of the intelligence community. Disbelieving them is probably the most stupid thing you can do.
(b) The Russians believed there were WoMDs in Iraq. Source: our good old friend Vladimir Putin. Vlad had whispered in the ear of our President that there were WoMDs in Iraq, and it wasn't just the Russians. There were other people too who were convinced of it. With our own intelligence plus the intelligence of others telling us this, just what are you going to do? Ignore them all? How much are you willing to risk?
(c) Bush could not have passed it by the U.N. because of the French. No matter how you look at it, the French would never have approved this measure, and it's not just because they didn't like the war. They didn't like the war because they were getting kickbacks from Saddam Hussein because of the overtly corrupt Oil for Food program. Saddam gives them a little oil for cheap so that they can sell it elsewhere for big-time bucks. Let's ponder this. If it were in France's best interest to leave Saddam there, EVEN IF they had WoMDs in Iraq, would they have been sold on the idea? Like heck they would've.
(d) If "vast majority" of the international community equates to France and Germany, then I think they've got to start looking in the dictionary some.
(e) Bush actually met the requests of the US Senate prior to going to war in Iraq. They requested Bush to go to the UN; he did. They requested weapons inspections; Bush allowed them. They requested allies; Bush satisfied them.

Now let's go on the offense. You don't like Bush? Better not vote for Kerry as a substitute.
(a) Kerry voted for the authorisation of the President to go to war. Sure, NOW he's claiming it that the President should have the right... pending that got the alliance he was promising. So let's get this straight: you vote for the war when you really want to wait and see how it goes before you really want that war to kick start? Where does that start making sense?
(b) Kerry, in the midst of his anti-war mobilisation, has said that he would, knowing today that there would be no WoMDs found in Iraq, still have gone into Iraq with the war. Okay, so it's the wrong war, but I still would've done it. It looks like Nader is more promising all the day.
(c) The primary qualm now about the Iraq war is the lack of allies that Bush took into the war. Given that we have no idea WHAT Kerry really thinks about the war AND given that even Kerry can't get the French into the war now (nor then because of Oil for Food), what alliances does Kerry hope to obtain to help complete the war?

Yep, looks like if you're upset about Iraq, you'd better vote Nader this time around.

1. "Bush spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history."

I will admit, I don't like the abandonment of pay-go. However, we have to consider the following things.
(a) Bush's tax cuts are not "for the rich". Anyone remember the Bush checks that Bush signed into law at the very beginning of his campaign? Those went to everyone, not just "the rich". Secondly, even if they were "for the rich", let's do a quick analysis of who the rich are.... how about business owners? To quote a rather famous source, "I never got a job from a poor man." As such, the business owners, now with a bit more money in their budget, are able to hire more workers and increase the salaries of their employees. What, you think that every person in the world is inheritly greedy and will hoarde every single dollar to themselves and not buy stuff? No way! They're going to buy stuff from someone else. Even if that is an umpteen million dollar yacht, that yacht has to be made, and thus people have to be hired to build said yacht. Rich people tend to get bigger tax cuts because, surprise, they pay more taxes.
(b) As if Kerry is going to be better. Kerry still hasn't responded to claims about the tax gap between his spending proposals versus his tax freeze on the "middle class". Kerry vows he won't raise taxes on anyone who earns under $200k per year, but at the same time can't raise enough money to fun his multitrillion dollar spending cap. Balance the budget? Only if he's using that "new math" concept.

"Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down. His first two years in office resulted in 2 million Americans losing their jobs AND he cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US History."

(a) Can anyone say... 9/11? Folks, if you think Bush caused this ruckus, I've got news to you? Do you remember waking up on 9/12? People were really freaking scared. People didn't want to leave their houses. People thought the malls would get blown up. People thought the world was going to end. People... stopped spending money. THAT'S the reason all the economic indicators went belly up. You think Bush caused that? Don't you remember how many airlines nearly or did go bankrupt in the months following 9/11? The terrorists caused that. If anything, Bush did the opposite. Bush had to spur the economy into action. Bush HAD to lower taxes in order for us to increase consumer confidence. You think we'd have spent more money if he had hiked taxes!? Not on this planet. Why else would interest rates be the lowest they had been in 50-some years?
(b) We came in with a bubble in the economy from the Clinton's era. I won't even blame it on Clinton (the President doesn't do all that much to physically help the economy, and if you don't like that, then tough; it's a fact), but the fact that the bubble DID burst at the get-go is a sign that we started off Day 1 with a negative directioned economy. 9/11 made that even worse. To think that in the past two and a half years that we nearly turned around the 9/11 sink is actually quite amazing.
(c) With this comes the issue of jobs. Yes, jobs. Now before anyone ridicules me on this, I live in Ohio, ranked 49th in job "creation" this year. We've had a net loss. But people, when money doesn't flow in the nice circle that we call "circular economics", people don't make money. If people don't make money, people can't afford to keep others as employees. When employees can't be kept, what happens? They get laid off. This net job deficit over four years (which is a debated statistic) is a NATURAL result from us being both at war AND attacked on our home soil. Never mind that the President has REALLY LITTLE control on job creation; Bush did the best he could.
(d) Talk to any investor in the nation and ask who would be better for the economy. Nine times out of ten, they'll say Bush. Bush's economic policies, record and statements, are more consistent with economic growth than Kerry's record and statements. And that comes from someone with financial and investment experience.

Conclusion

The quotes are all a sham. They're pitting statistics up against non sequitur conclusions, tainted with the "It's Bush's fault" charge when nine times out of ten, there was little he could have done to have prevented it. Thus, for those of us actually thinking about what we're being told, there's two sides to every issue. Bush is FAR from perfect, and I'll be the first person to admit that. But he's not as bad as many demean him to be; in fact, he's actually a decent President. The problem is that most people see Kerry as this hero, or at least see him as "Not Bush". Kerry may accuse Bush's policy of being "more of the same", but Kerry's policy can be summed up in three words: "Bush, but better". Yes, you had all better vote for Nader, because Kerry surely won't be helping us out.

This election won't be a landslide by any means. If it IS a landslide, it'll actually be for Bush than Kerry given the newest polls out -- 50% to 47% Bush.