A Warning to Republican Voters

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by thatwendigo, Nov 1, 2004.

  1. thatwendigo macrumors 6502a

    thatwendigo

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Sum, Ergo Sum.
    #1
    You've been told that Bush is tought on terrorism. Here's proof of just how "tough" he is:

    BUSH: LETTING TERRORISTS GO FREE (when it suits him)

    Everything you need to know about Bush's commitment to anti-terrorism can be found here:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

    Between 9/11 and March 2003, the Pentagon repeatedly asked the Bush administration for permission to launch a strike against terrorist leader al-Zarqawi and his chemical weapons lab in a remote corner of Iraq. The Bush administration repeatedly refused, because they felt that a strike against al-Zarqawi could undercut their case for war against Saddam.

    Saddam Hussein didn't have any WMDs, or even a WMD program. al-Zarqawi had both. Yet Bush decided not to stop al-Zarqawi when he had the chance.

    Saddam wasn’t one-tenth the threat to us that terrorist networks are, yet Bush let a terrorist leader with WMDs go free, because he didn’t want anti-terrorism to interfere with his war plans for Iraq.

    Al-Zarqawi later went on to plan massive terrorist strikes against England and Jordan. The intended death toll would have numbered in thousands. (Fortunately, his plans were derailed before he could strike.)

    Today, al-Zarqawi is a leading anti-American figure in Fallujah, and our troops continue to fight and die trying to get him.

    All this could have been avoided. But Bush chose not to stop a terrorist leader when he had the chance, because he had other plans.

    Those of you who typically support Republican candidates: does Bush really do justice to your party's values? He's certainly not making your safety a priority.

    Those of you who don't want to see Bush re-elected, please forward this far and wide. Everybody you know either supports Bush, or knows someone who supports Bush.​

    This was written by an associate on another board. Please, for the good of America, do something positive with your vote on the second.
     
  2. makisushi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Location:
    Northern VA
    #2
    Yes he does. And the Republican Party is behind him as well.
     
  3. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #3
    Explain please.
     
  4. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #4
    You know I've posted that link in 5-10 threads on this board when Bush's terrorism record comes up. There is also a thread on it here :

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=71893&highlight=zarqawi

    No one has even tried to defend Bush and the administration's actions on this. Personally this story scares the hell out of me. It makes it even worse when you see the quote where he says he's not that concerned about bin-Laden.

    They keep saying that Kerry has no grasp of the war on terror, but Bush's actions manage to prove he has no grasp either. In his desire to overthrow the states that "support" terrorism he is completely ignoring the terrorists themselves. How many lives could have been saved had we taken out Zarqawi before invasion? It might have weakened our case for war and led to us not invading. There's 1000 troops right there, not to mention the Iraqi casualties and the civilians that Zarqawi has managed to capture and kill.

    How can you conduct the war on terror when you don't pay any attention to the terrorists?
     
  5. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
  6. makisushi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Location:
    Northern VA
    #6
    Without having to go into major details, the biggest sign that the Republican Party supports him is that he is on the Republican canidate for president.
     
  7. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #7
    Um. Hmmm. Let's see here. I wonder if the party, say, decided not to go with the incumbent president as their candidate. Would that be political suicide? Yes, I think so. Their hands are tied. They had to go with Bush. Just like the Dems had to go with Clinton in '96. I'm not saying either was a good or bad choice - not in this post - but to argue that a party 'supports' the incumbent president because they renominated him is too simplistic. They supported him in 2000. They more or less had to renominate him in 2004.
     
  8. makisushi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Location:
    Northern VA
    #8
    Ok, if you don't like that arguement, you can look at the GOP agenda, and it is down the line the same agenda as the President's. I think it is safe to say that the Republican Party supports Bush.
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    If Bush loses today there will be open warfare within the GOP over the Bush Doctrine.
     
  10. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #10
    And so there should be. It shouldn't take an election defeat to weed out the neo's - they shouldn't have been allowed to hijack the party in the first place.
     
  11. LeeTom macrumors 68000

    LeeTom

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    #11
    Woah, you better get him off! I want to see who the "canidate" is, but if Bush is on him..... hey, I thought he was against the whole gay thing?

    Lee Tom
     
  12. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #12
    Save you the trouble, the Republicans will not win this POTUS election anyway.

    They poisoned their own well water.
     
  13. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #13
    Hate to be the one to break it to you, but this thread was posted a couple days before the 2004 election and the Repulicans won that one.
     
  14. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #14
    Must be desperate to go that far back to calm your own fears.
    Kerry made some bad mistakes on his campaign, and Bush still had strong momentum, Afghanistan was relatively quiet, and Iraq was not quite the disaster we know now.

    Look at the 2012 election.
    Remember this massive confidence Republicans would win the election?
    It was not even remotely close. It was over before the Central polls closed, and an avalanche by end of day (by electoral college, yes popular was closer).

    I fully expect the House to day Rep, Senate will be a tossup, but POTUS I am sure will stay Dem.

    Remember, there are 20 million on Obamacare, most of those will know a Republican POTUS will end that program.
    (Need to watch Kentucky on this)


    PS Lovely Yosemite picture!
     
  15. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #15
    You're the one that resurrected the thread, not me.

    And I'm definitely not afraid of the Democrats winning. I hate all the candidates this time around, but I'd take either of the Democrats over any of the Republicans in the race.
     
  16. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #16
    Oh, nuts!
    I'm sorry.
    Have to watch the date! Lousy "Similar threads" thing pulls up decade old zombie threads and miss the fact. :mad:
     
  17. Meister macrumors 603

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #17
    Actually reading the thread also helps ...
     
  18. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #18
    I did, and believed it an example of Republican blindly following their leader without question.
    (same for Dems agreeing with everything Obama does)
    Still applies today, and tomorrow.
     

Share This Page