Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Tblog Politics Challenge answered |
| 10.22.04 (2:43 am) [edit] |
|
Well, I extended a challenge to all fellow poli-bloggers (as I believe [url=http://redtigress.tblog.com]RedTigress[/url] calls it) to write a rational blog on any of the following questions, without resorting to hate tactics such as name-calling or unnecessary attacks against others. Many have expressed interest, and I look forward to reading all the responses (let me know when you've posted yours so I don't miss it). So I figured it would only be fair for me to write my own. Here goes. [i]What do you think is the single most important issue in this year's presidential race, and who do you think will win?[/i] This isn't a particularly easy or simple question, and any response will be steeped in speculation. My view is that national security is likely the one issue that will determine the election for most voters. The "war on terror" has been exalted to the status of being the prime focus of our national security. This is a bit misleading. But, I'd rather not delve into my personal beliefs on the matter in this response, so I will simply explain why I think most voters will cast their ballot according to their views on national security and the "war on terror." Obviously, it is in great part because of the attacks of September 11. Having been attacked, we naturally hope to defend our nation against future attacks, as well as to retaliate. National security will be on the minds of every voter, while other, more personal issues will be secondary. President Bush has been steadily losing support in regard to the war in Iraq, but still maintains a strong lead over John Kerry on the issue of national security. This is mainly because, whether we like his policies or not, we are more aware of what President Bush will do, and the possible actions of John Kerry as president are less clear. In other words, many people support Bush not because they agree with his policies, but because they know what they are and are uncertain of Kerry's. It is obviously going to be a close (and dreadedly contested) election, but in the end, I believe Bush will unfortunately be re-elected. Kerry does have a decent shot, but I think that more voters will be concerned with our national security and applaud Bush's efforts to ensure our safety, despite the less popular actions of the President. [i]Does John Kerry have a consistent position on the war in Iraq, and, if elected, would he be an effective leader in this war?[/i] Consistency and John Kerry don't seem to go together very well, at least according to the Republicans. But, I do believe John Kerry's position on the Iraq war has been basically consistent and fairly reasonable, even though I do not really agree with him. He initially voted to give President Bush the authority to take the nation to war. This does not necessarily mean that he supported the war, only that he thought the President should be given that authority (I disagree). He also stated that he believed Saddam Hussein to be a threat to our security. This belief is not exclusive to the position that war with Iraq was necessary or the right course of action. In essence, my belief of John Kerry's position on the war in Iraq is that he believed then and now that Saddam was a threat, the President should be given the authority to go to war, but that the war was mishandled. As far as his effectiveness as the leader in this war in Iraq, as well as the fight against terrorists, I see no reason to believe John Kerry would be any weaker or less effective than George W. Bush. I think perhaps he would be more rational about taking the nation into war, in fact. [i]Has George W. Bush misled the country regarding Iraq, and is his doctrine of preemption in our nation's best interest?[/i] Well, anyone who's ever read my blog before likely knows that I disagreed with the war in Iraq from its onset. Whether President Bush knowingly [i]lied[/i] to the public by stating that there were stockpiles of WMD and that Saddam Hussein had the intent to attack us, I simply do not know, and I would not make that assertion. So, no, I don't think that it is fair to claim that Bush purposefully misled the nation when he spoke of his belief regarding Iraq. However, I do believe that the war itself was misleading. Even had there been WMD, it was not right to invade Iraq in the manner this President chose to. It is my opinion that the war in Iraq was unnecessary, unjustified, poorly planned, and wrongly carried out by Bush and his administration. I believe that preemption is generally a horrible policy. While at times it is necessary to be the first to take action, war should always be the last possible option, and invading another country should only be done when truly justified. It only places our own security at risk by initiating force against other nations. So there's my brief take on these questions. If you would like to provide your own take, please feel free to answer them on your own blog, or argue in the comments (just please refrain from crude and immature remarks). :wink: |
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 10.22.04 (10:23 am)
"please refrain from crude and immature remarks"
No wonder no one has commented yet :-P
posted by: Donald Trump (reply)
post date: 10.22.04 (10:59 am)
I just linked over from RedTigress. First time visitor. Nice Blog. I don't have time to maintain my own blog so I will post my long winded, worthless answer here. : )
I feel the most important issues in any election year are truth, trust, and honesty. Bush is not truthful, honest, or trustworthy. Kerry will win the election by a wide margin.
Kerry has been consistent regarding the war in Iraq, and vietnam. People have either not read his statements previous to the war, don't want to understand him, or don't have the capacity to understand him. I believe he will be an effective leader, not just in this war but in all the issues that face the nation and the world. He understands that America does not exist in a vacuum.
Bush did mislead us. He was warned by the UN inspectors that it was uncertain there were any WMD. Until recently, Bush maintained that there was WMD. "Bad intelligence" and suspicious satellite pictures are no excuse, especially when you have weapons inspectors in the very country that you are accusing, telling you that they are not sure. That qualifies as misleading.
George Bush....... YOU'RE FIRED!
posted by: Donald Trump (reply)
post date: 10.22.04 (10:59 am)
I just linked over from RedTigress. First time visitor. Nice Blog. I don't have time to maintain my own blog so I will post my long winded, worthless answer here. : )
I feel the most important issues in any election year are truth, trust, and honesty. Bush is not truthful, honest, or trustworthy. Kerry will win the election by a wide margin.
Kerry has been consistent regarding the war in Iraq, and vietnam. People have either not read his statements previous to the war, don't want to understand him, or don't have the capacity to understand him. I believe he will be an effective leader, not just in this war but in all the issues that face the nation and the world. He understands that America does not exist in a vacuum.
Bush did mislead us. He was warned by the UN inspectors that it was uncertain there were any WMD. Until recently, Bush maintained that there was WMD. "Bad intelligence" and suspicious satellite pictures are no excuse, especially when you have weapons inspectors in the very country that you are accusing, telling you that they are not sure. That qualifies as misleading.
George Bush....... YOU'RE FIRED!
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 10.22.04 (4:06 pm)
I just posted me answer to the challenge :)
