Support NeoGAF

[BigGreenMat]

Sorry, to add yet another political thread, but alas it is that time of year. The question that had really been irking me is why everyone thinks Bush is somehow strong on foreign policy, homeland security, and terrorism? I mean it just doesn't make sense. I mean he is the president on whose watch 9/11 occurred and he hasn't been exactly stellar in raising international support. Not to mention the fact that the man had absolutely zero experience with any sort of international affairs and still has absolutely zero expertise in any area relating to these things.

I can respect his words immediately after 9/11 and the strong forward posture he gave the American people when they needed it, but I still don't see how that transforms into a strength in foreign policy, homeland security, and terrorism.

Is this all just a case of the nature of change and the fear it induces? I have heard a lot about Cheney and the Republicans fear mongering and trying to scare people away from change, but I still can't see how the status quo is comforting considering the relative greenness and small world perspective of this President on whose watch a major terrorist attack occurred. I can understand there are a lot of people who might like the man's character and possibly his policies, but I cannot wrap my mind around why he is seen as a great protector. What has he protected? I don't know it is just frustrating.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Wait to the debates and then you can see if he is or isn't.

 

[alejob]

To be fare I believe the terrorist attack would still have ocurred no matter who was president at the time.


However I don't believe the war on Iraq is part of the war on terrorists. But thats another story.

 

[PotatoeMasher]

When it comes to terrorists and foreign policy, we need a President who won't send mixed signals about decisions. We need a president who understands you can't fight terrorists with sensitivity...

If we falter just because they chop off our heads, they'll just chop off a few heads anytime they want their way...

President Bush makes decisions that aren't always popular because he thinks that's what is best for the country... If a president swings his oppinions on protecting our country based on polling data, we've got trouble...

John Kerry has shown us no reason to believe he could lead a country in wartime... He doesn't even claim his decades in the senate... John Kerry is 100% politician. George W. Bush is 40% politician...

Quite simply though--Bush supporters believe in our president. We don't have to rely on hating John Kerry to get out our vote. We have a man who has been tested and a man who has earned our trust...

 

[DarienA]

When it comes to terrorists and foreign policy, we need a President who won't send mixed signals about decisions. We need a president who understands you can't fight terrorists with sensitivity...

If we falter just because they chop off our heads, they'll just chop off a few heads anytime they want their way...

President Bush makes decisions that aren't always popular because he thinks that's what is best for the country... If a president swings his oppinions on protecting our country based on polling data, we've got trouble...

John Kerry has shown us no reason to believe he could lead a country in wartime... He doesn't even claim his decades in the senate... John Kerry is 100% politician. George W. Bush is 40% politician...

Quite simply though--Bush supporters believe in our president. We don't have to rely on hating John Kerry to get out our vote. We have a man who has been tested and a man who has earned our trust...

I'm not trying to slam you... hopefully this can stay civil but hasn't Bush been tested and found wanting?

What do we have to show for the terrorist attacks? Who has been brought to justice because of them?

What do we have to show for the invasion in Afghanistan? That's not even on most folks anymore and we still have troops and fighting there.

What do we have to show for the invasion in Iraq?

And can you clarify that 40% 100% politician comment?

 

[brooklyngooner]

We have a man who has been tested and a man who has earned our trust...

This is quite literally the funniest thing I have ever read on this forum, I spit my Minute Maid cranberry all over my keyboard.

 

[dog$]

People like Bush for the same reason they liked Tucker automobiles: there is no reverse gear.

Don't ever question where or why the car is moving; just be happy and rest assured the car is never going backwards.

 

[xsarien]

President Bush makes decisions that aren't always popular because he thinks that's what is best for the country... If a president swings his oppinions on protecting our country based on polling data, we've got trouble...

The problem is that Bush's "steadfast resolve" in the face of facts that directly contradict his stance isn't leadership, it's arrogance. It isn't about the poll data, it's about simple reaction and adjustment to new circumstances.

 

[alejob]

Now does this guy believe Kerry will be sensitive to terrorists? Does he think kerry will backoff because of beheadings?

Comon dude! The US doesn't take sh!t from terrorists, thats the history of the US no matter who's president. Its not an innovative new thing that Bush has established.

 

[Dilbert]

When it comes to terrorists and foreign policy, we need a President who won't send mixed signals about decisions. We need a president who understands you can't fight terrorists with sensitivity...

If we falter just because they chop off our heads, they'll just chop off a few heads anytime they want their way...

President Bush makes decisions that aren't always popular because he thinks that's what is best for the country... If a president swings his oppinions on protecting our country based on polling data, we've got trouble...

John Kerry has shown us no reason to believe he could lead a country in wartime... He doesn't even claim his decades in the senate... John Kerry is 100% politician. George W. Bush is 40% politician...

Quite simply though--Bush supporters believe in our president. We don't have to rely on hating John Kerry to get out our vote. We have a man who has been tested and a man who has earned our trust...

Troll much?

I don't know what the funniest part of your post is -- there's SO much to choose from! -- but I think I'd like to key on the "40% politician" remark. You really think that a member of one of the most connected families in American political life -- probably THE most connected, even more than the Kennedys -- is only "40% politician?"

And what, pray tell, is the other 60%? It sure as hell isn't "businessman" -- we know what happened when he tried running companies. Feel free to post a pie chart. 40% politician, 40% moron, 20% asshole sounds about right.

 

[Incognito]

I don't think he was trolling. Sadly, that's how most Americans feel regarding W. They, taking cues from their president, simply cannot admit the wrongdoings of the administration.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Quite simply though--Bush supporters believe in our president.

Care to explain how the war in Iraq has built trust in you, and other Bush voters?

We don't have to rely on hating John Kerry to get out our vote.

You're right. It's the other way around. Republicans rely on hate, and scare tactics to get their votes.

We have a man who has been tested and a man who has earned our trust...

Bush has definitely been tested, but I wouldn't call his response a success. Iraq is currently a joke no matter how much spin this administration puts on it, our borders are still in shambles, airport security is still piss poor, we took our focus and troops away from the real terrorists to go into Iraq, and cities most likely to be hit by terrorist attacks (NYC) still don't have the resources and funding for their police to fight biological attacks, while unlikely small towns (i.e. in Wyoming) do have the resources. We also had the world on our side after 9/11, and Bush has flushed that down the drain. Your trust must be easily earned. What does it take aside from being a card carrying Republican? Probably not much.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

And what, pray tell, is the other 60%? It sure as hell isn't "businessman" -- we know what happened when he tried running America.

Fixed.

 

[BigGreenMat]

My point is what Bush did after 9/11 was admirable in his comforting a nation, but any President would have done that. My question is why do people trust him on foreign policy?

 

[PotatoeMasher]

I stand by my original post. No amount of arguing is going to solve anything, so I'll let you guys get the last word.

I was just explaining why I, and the vast majority of our country, believes President Bush is better on terrorism and natl defense...

If that's considered a troll, then please ban me away to the depths of hell...

 

[Incognito]

My point is what Bush did after 9/11 was admirable in his comforting a nation, but any President would have done that. My question is why do people trust him on foreign policy?

because americans after 9/11 have grown more and more isolated(remember folks, to a lot of americans, terrorism is only our problem), and they want a president who feels that same way. if you're not with us in this brazen "war on terror" then you're simply against us. no ifs, ands or but's.

 

[xsarien]

I stand by my original post. No amount of arguing is going to solve anything, so I'll let you guys get the last word.

I was just explaining why I, and the vast majority of our country, believes President Bush is better on terrorism and natl defense...

If that's considered a troll, then please ban me away to the depths of hell...

Less a troll, more a laughable delusion.

 

[Nerevar]

I stand by my original post. No amount of arguing is going to solve anything, so I'll let you guys get the last word.

I was just explaining why I, and the vast majority of our country, believes President Bush is better on terrorism and natl defense...

If that's considered a troll, then please ban me away to the depths of hell...

I honestly thought it was a joke post. I thought you were just quoting the lines that they've said in the commercials.


I now invoke Godwin - the people who vote for Bush are the same people who would've voted for Hitler.

Time to move on to a new discussion.

 

[DarienA]

I stand by my original post. No amount of arguing is going to solve anything, so I'll let you guys get the last word.

I was just explaining why I, and the vast majority of our country, believes President Bush is better on terrorism and natl defense...

If that's considered a troll, then please ban me away to the depths of hell...

So you choose to not answer any of even the politely asked questions? I'd really like to understand your position.

Why bother posting on a f'n bulletin board if you are not going to back and forth?

 

[demon]

I stand by my original post. No amount of arguing is going to solve anything, so I'll let you guys get the last word.

I was just explaining why I, and the vast majority of our country, believes President Bush is better on terrorism and natl defense...

If that's considered a troll, then please ban me away to the depths of hell...

You didn't explain shit. All you spewed out was "I love Bush; Bush earned our trust; I'd suck Bush's lovepump", but gave absolutely no reasons whatsoever. And that seems to be depressingly typical of pro-Bush "arguments". You don't even need reasons to support him; you just blindly do, and as you said, no amount of arguing or presenting of facts contradicting your views can change your opinion.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

I stand by my original post. No amount of arguing is going to solve anything, so I'll let you guys get the last word.

And I thought arguing politics online was going to solve the world's problems...

was just explaining why I, and the vast majority of our country, believes President Bush is better on terrorism and natl defense...

One major problem. You didn't explain anything. Why has Bush earned your trust? How has he succeeded in the war on terrorism and Iraq (note: both separate issues)?

If that's considered a troll, then please ban me away to the depths of hell...

I wouldn't call it a troll at all. Sadly, you sound like my Republicans friends. They can easily tell me why they are voting for Bush, but when I demand some reasoning behind their case, the political talk quickly ends.

 

[Triumph]

I stand by my original post. No amount of arguing is going to solve anything, so I'll let you guys get the last word.

I was just explaining why I, and the vast majority of our country, believes President Bush is better on terrorism and natl defense...

If that's considered a troll, then please ban me away to the depths of hell...

See, the problem with Bush supporters is that they think that they do not have to justify their support of the President, and when faced with proof that he is not what he seems they pull the ostritch routine and put their heads in the ground.

You say that you need a leader who is resolute in hunting terrorists. Should I remind you that in the days and weeks after 9/11, Bush said the greatest priority was finding and neutralizing Osama bin Laden? And that six months later, he "wasn't concerned about it"? Is that strength and resolution to you? How so?

Bush has indeed been tested. But if you really look at his scores and not his outward, tough guy demeanor you'll see he's failing(what a shock, Bush is a poor student). I don't expect any of this to sway you, but I would appreciate it if people would think before they do something as crucial as vote(note that I'm not voting for Kerry).

 

[Zaptruder]

Bush has the best fucking marketers going around spreading his name.

My goodness... the worst effect 9/11 had was fear and terror; that allowed a person like Bush to do what he's done... and continue to be rewarded with it. Is it possible for one man in this era to topple america from it's position of solitary superpower? Bush is the most capable man on the planet right now.

 

[NWO]

So you choose to not answer any of even the politely asked questions? I'd really like to understand your position.

He's not going to.

I have gotten into many debates with why people like Bush on many different forums and they ALL SAY THE SAME THING and they can't back up a reason for liking him.

I ask what has Bush done as President that makes you vote for him again and they just attack Kerry and say "oh the country would go to hell with Kerry leading it" or "Bush doesn't back down from his stance even if he's 100% incorrect so he's a god to me" or something like that.

Bush has done SHIT on terrorism and he probably has made more terrorists in the middle east because of the fucked up job he has done. He doesn't care about getting terrorists or he would have caught Bin Laden instead of Saddam.

If a Democrat was President and after a couple years all they caught was Saddam and Bin Laden was running around still kicking Republicans would be all over the Democrat saying how he did shit in office and that he did a poor job of fighting terrorists.

You'd think a guy with the world's greatest army, technology, and power would be able to catch some leader of a group of terrorists but he can't. Bin Laden is in another country yet we put 80% of our resources into Iraq instead of where it should be going if the guy actually cared about fighting terror.

Terrorists are beheading people left and right, the Bush Administration blames the problems in Iraq on the fact that our army is too good (WTF you mean they'd have done a better job if Cheney and Bush went into Iraq with a couple guns), they can't make up their mind with the "terror alert color system" and they say your safer today because they got rid of all the crazy terrorists but that you'll be attacked if you vote for the other guy.

 

[Error Macro]

Regarding terrorism: Bush supporter here... Yes, I can acknowledge his faults. He has many of them. Yet, from my point of view, I don't want to take a chance with someone who may, and in all probability would, be seen as "weaker" on terrorism. When Kerry says that he wants to wage a "more compassionate" war, that's just a little more than concerning to me. Someone who is relying so heavily on the promise and concept that he can somehow rally more world support for the operations in Iraq, when the major countries have flat out said they would not support the U.S. regardless of who was in power, seems questionable to me. However, of course, the issue of terrorism is not the only factor in my decision on how to vote.

[EDIT] After reading a thread on Patriot Act judgements it reminded me: I will say that one thing that greatly concerns me, and makes me very upset in some cases, is our diminishing civil liberties and privacy, via the Patriot Act and other measures. Just in case you'd like to know one major thing I strongly disagree with the President on.

 

[Outdoor Miner]

To be fare I believe the terrorist attack would still have ocurred no matter who was president at the time.

Sorry but, NO NO NO NO. That is not the case. If Gore had been elected, if he devoted half as much of his time that Clinton did to "anti-terrorism", 9/11 could have effectively been avoided. Bush had ALL the warnings in the world that there was going to be an attack soon.

Everytime someone says Bush is strong on terror, I want to gouge my eyes out w/o any aid from the pain! Just sickening. As for as fighting terrorism goes, Bush was a FUCKING JOKE in that regard his first year.

The fact that right-wingers had the nerve to blame Clinton for 9/11, when in fact Clinton had the best anti-terrorism record since god-knows-which presidency is just fascinating. The public doesn't give a fuck though, and this country is going to hell in a highway.

Bah.

 

[Banjo Tango]

Regarding terrorism: Bush supporter here... Yes, I can acknowledge his faults. He has many of them. Yet, from my point of view, I don't want to take a chance with someone who may, and in all probability would, be seen as "weaker" on terrorism. When Kerry says that he wants to wage a "more compassionate" war, that's just a little more than concerning to me.

What do you think Kerry means by "more sensitive"? Why does that worry you? And how do you reconcile the fact that Bush made the same statement?

 

[DopeyFish]

in order to defeat your enemy, you must become your enemy.


or something


*scratches head*

 

[Chrono]

in order to defeat your enemy, you must become your enemy.


or something


*scratches head*

PFFFT! Haven't you learned anything from games? Only ICE defeats Fire and not fire! You do double damage with the OPPOSITE element!

How this relates to this thread I don’t know!

 

[Pimpwerx]

We need to stop judging these guys on rhetoric and start looking at results. On that point, Dubya's failed. We're hundreds of billions of dollars poorer after going into Iraq, which had nothing to do with the War on Terror (although they promoted it as such), and didn't even have the WMDs that were supposed to be the smoking gun. Bah. We've failed to capture Osama Bin Laden, the guy supposedly behind the actual 9/11 attacks. We have not reprimanded either Saudi Arabia or Egypt, the homelands of a majority of the 9/11 attackers. No, we haven't had a terror attack here since 9/11, but we didn't have one before that since 1993 either. OTOH, the country we've now liberated has seen terror attacks on a daily basis since the invasion. So we haven't caught the perps, we've dumped a ton of cash into a lost cause that will continue to drain massive amounts of cash for years to come, and we've turned this expensive venture into the new hotbed for terrorism. Tell me again...was the point of the War on Terror to bring terror to the places where we wage war? If so, then Iraq - check; Afghanistan - check...looks like Bush's results speak for themselves.

OTOH, John Kerry is a human cipher and his suggestions for fixing the problem ring hollow. He can't give a straight answer on anything and there's no guarantee he'll do any better than Bush. But that said, I fail t see how he could do any worse. PEACE.

 

[BigGreenMat]

Regarding terrorism: Bush supporter here... Yes, I can acknowledge his faults. He has many of them. Yet, from my point of view, I don't want to take a chance with someone who may, and in all probability would, be seen as "weaker" on terrorism. When Kerry says that he wants to wage a "more compassionate" war, that's just a little more than concerning to me. Someone who is relying so heavily on the promise and concept that he can somehow rally more world support for the operations in Iraq, when the major countries have flat out said they would not support the U.S. regardless of who was in power, seems questionable to me. However, of course, the issue of terrorism is not the only factor in my decision on how to vote.

Thanks for the post Error. So in effect you are saying the reason you support Bush more is because you are afraid a different leader would be seen as weaker. As in the perception of our leader is important in the war on terror? Ok, gotcha. That is the closest thing I have gotten to an answer yet. Thanks a lot.

 

[Socreges]

What do you think Kerry means by "more sensitive"? Why does that worry you? And how do you reconcile the fact that Bush made the same statement?

I hope you understand that, when confronted with a dilemma such as that, they will probably not answer you.

Spoiler

Reverse psychology, perhaps?

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

Compassionate war on terroism, means to not just use force but to also to use a means of curbing terroism. Whats the point of using force if your not making the effort to solve the problem, attacking Iraq is not going to do that. We have to work on keeping 12 year old Arab boys from going down this path of hatred toward the U.S. edit: The world.

 

[Raven.]

Why is Bush better on Terrorism?

....

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."- Bush

Soldier returning from recent iraq war

"Shortly after his return [sept 2k3], his wife, Janice, became pregnant. On June 29, she gave birth to a baby girl, Victoria Claudette. Matthew and his wife believe Victoria's shocking deformity has something to do with her father's illness and the war - especially since there is no history of birth defects in either of their families.

They have seen photos of Iraqi babies born with deformities that are eerily similar.

In June, Matthew contacted the Daily News and asked us to arrange independent laboratory screening for his urine. This was after The News had reported that four of seven soldiers from another National Guard unit, the 442nd Military Police, had tested positive for depleted uranium (DU).

The independent test of Matthew's urine found him positive for DU - low-level radioactive waste produced in nuclear plants during the enrichment of natural uranium."
bbc related article

What more do you want, he's certainly keeping his word.

 

[Error Macro]

Thanks for the post Error. So in effect you are saying the reason you support Bush more is because you are afraid a different leader would be seen as weaker. As in the perception of our leader is important in the war on terror? Ok, gotcha. That is the closest thing I have gotten to an answer yet. Thanks a lot.

Well, thanks for your sarcastic respsonse. Yes, perception is reality.

 

[darscot]

Some of you think Bush as seen as being strong. The comes off as an absolute idiot. The sooner this guy is gone the better off the US will be.

 

[Dilbert]

Well, thanks for your sarcastic respsonse. Yes, perception is reality.

So you think that terrorists would attack the United States based on their perception of the President? And if so, you think that having Bush in office makes terrorists LESS likely to attack?

 

[Socreges]

Well, thanks for your sarcastic respsonse. Yes, perception is reality.

If only the terrorists watched FOX News, that might prove true.


Hasseim: "Akmahd, this pretty lady is saying that George Bush is strong on terror!"

Akmahd: "Oh shit, cancel the flights!"

Hasseim: "And... wait... he... DOES NOT WAVER!"

Akmahd: "To the mountains, Hasseim!!"

 

[Banjo Tango]

So you think that terrorists would attack the United States based on their perception of the President? And if so, you think that having Bush in office makes terrorists LESS likely to attack?

Has Bush ever made any statement indicating an understanding of how terrorist groups organize and what motivates them? I know his "They hate our freedom" line has been played to death, but is that really the sum of what he's said on the matter?

 

[Drensch]

Like any informed and rational thinking person I see the war in Iraq and the "war on terrorism" as two disctinct problems. However Bush has done his best to link the two. But I think the best thought on that comes from Joe Biden: If Iraq is the central front on the war on terrorism as Bush constantly says, we are losing and losing badly.

 

[Zaptruder]

PFFFT! Haven't you learned anything from games? Only ICE defeats Fire and not fire! You do double damage with the OPPOSITE element!

How this relates to this thread I don’t know!

You idot. Base elements go around in a circle! Fire MELTS Ice... and Water extinguishes Fire... something something something from ice and it goes back to water.

 

[Diablos]

Why is he, you ask? Who said he IS? It's because that's what people want to believe. I seriously think that some people are afraid that if George W. Bush leaves office, all of our efforts to stop terror will cease to exist. An end to a war does not equal an end to our efforts against terrorism. Well, to some degree maybe it would if we invaded a country that really DID harbor a massive amount of terrorists and really DID have WMD's/active and potentially dangerous WMD programs.

 

[DarienA]

If only the terrorists watched FOX News, that might prove true.

Hasseim: "Akmahd, this pretty lady is saying that George Bush is strong on terror!"

Akmahd: "Oh shit, cancel the flights!"

Hasseim: "And... wait... he... DOES NOT WAVER!"

Akmahd: "To the mountains, Hasseim!!"

Fruit punch on my dress shirt... thanks alot... <sigh> good thing I get out of work at 4....

 

[Everdredbanned]

Why is Bush better on terrorism? He's not afraid of taking away our freedoms to combat terrorism -- that's why!

 

[MrAngryFace]

I think my problem is that as president he has more to do than fight the elusive "war on terror" and its been proven in the past he'll pretty much lie to us using the war on terror to do what he 'feels is right'. So what about things that dont involve this? How many more times have we been lied to even in this term. Stuff that wasnt found out because it wasnt as hot a topic as a war.

That shit scares me. And for the sake of fucking up the argument, Hitler thought what he was doing was right. He fought off 'terror' of the jews. Hey thats cool tho cause everyone could predict him and he wasnt so much a politician as he was a loud charasmatic war monger.

News flash, the world runs on politics, and if we dont have someone who is swayed by OUR ideas or the ideas of the global community (to a realistic degree) we are going to end up very alone, no matter how many bombs we have to back up our backwards foreign policy.

 

[Brian Fellows]

Cuz Gavin Rossdale is boning Gewn and he dont take no shit from nobody!

 

[Incognito]

:lol @ error macro. where'd he run of to? lunch break? talking-points forum to anwer the questions posed to him?

 

[btrboyev]

If bush is so great on terrorism, then why has then been more consistent terrorist attacks around the world since he has been in office???

 

[duderon]

Once again, i think that people blindly follow a political party. It wouldn't matter who the hell was in office, or what the hell they were doing as long as they are republican almost half of the voting population is going to side with them. No one wants to look at the facts and choose. People instead want to think of the best excuses to keep there candidate in the white house. This can be applied to a democratic president, too, but it seems to be worse with republicans. Look at the facts, not at your parents party affiliation, you might learn something you didn't know.

 

[Jim Bowie]

Quite simply though--Bush supporters believe in our president.

Really? Do tell!