Presidential Candidates

[grnmchn]

Where is Ron Paul? That is a good question. Ron Paul has a lot of support via internet. He's gone after a different base than the rest of the politicians. I don't know if he necessarily can win a party nomination off of his off base support from younger/internet voters though.

Just keeping in mind here that you will never find a President that will be able to tackle immigration policy in the way some American want.

He's got some support but not enough to propel himto the front of the race. He'll finish 3rd, at best, for his party.

[Bouncer]

Really? I think there are LOTS of supporters of both Hillary and Bill - past and present.

agreed, and bush has made even more people Clinton supporters. nobody wants the current hostile administration that we have.

[Bouncer]

Reasons?

simply put, i like her more then the other choices. world relations were so much better with the Clinton's in the white house. ya they made mistakes but i am sure they have learned from them. Hilary has far more experience then the other candidates.

[grnmchn]

Do you think world relations would be any different had Clinton been in office during 9/11? Bush def has blame for us being in Irag so long with no real exit strategy, but under the circumstances I don't think we had any other choice than to engage in this war....

[Scrumhalf]

Do you think world relations would be any different had Clinton been in office during 9/11? Bush def has blame for us being in Irag so long with no real exit strategy, but under the circumstances I don't think we had any other choice than to engage in this war....

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. This is a canard that the neocons keep putting forward. But for Iraq, we could have made much more progress cleaning out Afghanistan and the NW provinces of Pakistan. Instead, we have managed to get ourselves entangled in Iraq, losing thousands of fine young men in the process. After 9/11, the whole world was with us in Afghanistan. We have managed to squander all that goodwill.

[grnmchn]

Great insight. I def think we have fallen from grace with other countries as a result of this war. I guess, in mind, the country we are fighting in is almost irrelevant. We are fighting a theory or belief, not a specific country or person. The children in the middle east are taught to hate Americans and trained to kill. I'm not sure anything will ever change that way of thinking...

[Bouncer]

Do you think world relations would be any different had Clinton been in office during 9/11? Bush def has blame for us being in Irag so long with no real exit strategy, but under the circumstances I don't think we had any other choice than to engage in this war....

i think 9/11 would have been handled in a much better fashion then way bush went about it.

[FitnessBrat]

I think Bush gets a semi-unfair hatred because he was in office at the time of 9/11. I don't agree with all of his ideas/doings, but I damn sure wouldn't want to be in his position either. It's easy for the new candidates to say "I'd do this different" etc, now that he's chosen the obvious "wrong" path. SH, you bring up excellent points, ones that aren't personal (abortion, gay marriage, etc) and don't have anything to do with war or the middle east.

[grnmchn]

i think 9/11 would have been handled in a much better fashion then way bush went about it.

I'm not so sure. American were juiced up with fear/anger/hatred after that day. Had he sat back and not made immediate efforts for justice, the american public would have crucified him for that. Let's not forget that in the 6 months after 9/11 both republicans and democrats alike were looking to the government for answers. Everyone wanted immediate action. Now it's convenient for everyone to point fingers. I think he was right for going over there, but he should have had an exit strategy or a limit to how long we were going to be there. Once we were there for a year, we passed the point of no return. He was screwed either way. I just think the whole situation would be a career killer for anyone in office during an event like that.

[Scrumhalf]

Bush started off ok after 9/11, focusing on Afghanistan. But soon thereafter, he lost his way. Maybe he took bad advice from the neocons he filled his adminstration with. Maybe he had some personal agenda to "finish what daddy didn't."

Whatever the reason, he decided to broaden his scope to include a remaking of the entire Middle East, a breathtakingly crazy enterprise. Just look at the people who have tried and failed. Both France and England with infinitely more colonial experience than we do have attempted and failed. I am not sure what hubris prompted Bush to think he could succeed.

Just think, how many troops do we have in Iraq? 150,000? If we had not decided to take on the Iraq project had put just half of that number of troops in Afghanistan, I bet we could have dropped a grenade or two into every cave out on the Afghan/Pakistan border and found Bin Laden and his cohorts. That's what we could have done had we not had Bush's misguided policies directing us.

The fault ultimately rests with Bush himself. His cabinet, his advisors, all are full of one-dimensional thinkers. He chose to not surround himself with a plurality of viewpoints and ideas so that there would be vigorous debate before any such action as Iraq would have been taken. By ruling out dissent in this manner, he managed to silence all voices except the ones singing the song he wanted to hear. And our country has to now live with the results.

History will judge Bush very harshly, in the same vein as James Buchanan whose vacillation in the face of Southern dissension led to the Civil War. Buchanan's failure to deal with the secession is generally considered to be the worst presidential mistake ever made. I will posit that Bush's ill-advised Iraq strategy will not be too far behind.

[Scrumhalf]

I'm not so sure. American were juiced up with fear/anger/hatred after that day. Had he sat back and not made immediate efforts for justice, the american public would have crucified him for that. Let's not forget that in the 6 months after 9/11 both republicans and democrats alike were looking to the government for answers. Everyone wanted immediate action. Now it's convenient for everyone to point fingers. I think he was right for going over there, but he should have had an exit strategy or a limit to how long we were going to be there. Once we were there for a year, we passed the point of no return. He was screwed either way. I just think the whole situation would be a career killer for anyone in office during an event like that.

I am not sure I agree with your analysis. Bush's initial response to 9/11 was fine - he came out firm and strong. He gave the Taliban an ultimatum to kick out Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and when they refused, he didn't mess around. He sent in the troops. The public was baying for blood and if he had stuck to his goal of going after Bin Laden, he would have done fine. He could have put 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and totally cleaned out the border areas.

Where he screwed up was bringing in Iraq into the equation. It was totally unnecessary and it destroyed his credibility and, as the future will show, his legacy.

And I don't agree that an event like this is a career killer. It can be that, or it can be a defining moment. After all, FDR did very well after Pearl Harbor. Bush just screwed up, plain and simple.

[NewbieChris]

Bush started off ok after 9/11, focusing on Afghanistan. But soon thereafter, he lost his way. Maybe he took bad advice from the neocons he filled his adminstration with. Maybe he had some personal agenda to "finish what daddy didn't."

Whatever the reason, he decided to broaden his scope to include a remaking of the entire Middle East, a breathtakingly crazy enterprise. Just look at the people who have tried and failed. Both France and England with infinitely more colonial experience than we do have attempted and failed. I am not sure what hubris prompted Bush to think he could succeed.

Just think, how many troops do we have in Iraq? 150,000? If we had not decided to take on the Iraq project had put just half of that number of troops in Afghanistan, I bet we could have dropped a grenade or two into every cave out on the Afghan/Pakistan border and found Bin Laden and his cohorts. That's what we could have done had we not had Bush's misguided policies directing us.

The fault ultimately rests with Bush himself. His cabinet, his advisors, all are full of one-dimensional thinkers. He chose to not surround himself with a plurality of viewpoints and ideas so that there would be vigorous debate before any such action as Iraq would have been taken. By ruling out dissent in this manner, he managed to silence all voices except the ones singing the song he wanted to hear. And our country has to now live with the results.

History will judge Bush very harshly, in the same vein as James Buchanan whose vacillation in the face of Southern dissension led to the Civil War. Buchanan's failure to deal with the secession is generally considered to be the worst presidential mistake ever made. I will posit that Bush's ill-advised Iraq strategy will not be too far behind.

Extremely well put. One of the best summations of the Bush Presidencies I have seen on the internet in a long time.

Whatever the reason, he decided to broaden his scope to include a remaking of the entire Middle East, a breathtakingly crazy enterprise.

This is the most significant mistake that the Bush Administration made. Its completely ridiculous to believe that you can enforce a certain type of political system upon anyone, let alone the middle east. I can't even add anything because I think you are so correct.

[NewbieChris]

He's got some support but not enough to propel himto the front of the race. He'll finish 3rd, at best, for his party.

If he brings out college aged voters you are going to be surprised. The question at hand is can he get us off our asses and into the polling booths in the VERY near future...I hope so.

[grnmchn]

Scrumhalf, you seem like a very intelligent guy, and your view points are well received. Hopefully, our next leader can figure out a way to bring the US back to it's position as world leader...

[NewbieChris]

I'm not so sure. American were juiced up with fear/anger/hatred after that day. Had he sat back and not made immediate efforts for justice, the american public would have crucified him for that. Let's not forget that in the 6 months after 9/11 both republicans and democrats alike were looking to the government for answers. Everyone wanted immediate action. Now it's convenient for everyone to point fingers. I think he was right for going over there, but he should have had an exit strategy or a limit to how long we were going to be there. Once we were there for a year, we passed the point of no return. He was screwed either way. I just think the whole situation would be a career killer for anyone in office during an event like that.

Plain and simple the man wanted in Iraq and was using any excuse to make it happen. I don't know if he believes that the middle east really needs democracy or what, but the idea that he could change an entire region is crazy. Look at the Russians, they got fucked up doing exactly what we are doing now.