If the terrorists want to attack, they're going to attack, regardless of who is in office. Believing that we are safer with Dubya in office is just foolish.jemeinc said:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Poll: Do you plan on voting in this presidential election?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
John Howard
The Liberal party party won (John Howard). Not only did they win, but they gained percentage in the House of Representatives (Labor this election needed 2.2% swing, next election they now need a 4% swing to win) and it lookes like they might have control over the Senate as well (it's been 20 years since a Government has controlled the senate)
For those who lost track I'm talking about the Australain Election.
By the way this might be somewhat interesting to Americans as John Howard was the third largest contributer to the Coalition of the Willing (during the war that is) and the first of the three who faced re-election. Although the war was a minor issue in these elections.
solvs said:
The Liberal party party won (John Howard). Not only did they win, but they gained percentage in the House of Representatives (Labor this election needed 2.2% swing, next election they now need a 4% swing to win) and it lookes like they might have control over the Senate as well (it's been 20 years since a Government has controlled the senate)
For those who lost track I'm talking about the Australain Election.
By the way this might be somewhat interesting to Americans as John Howard was the third largest contributer to the Coalition of the Willing (during the war that is) and the first of the three who faced re-election. Although the war was a minor issue in these elections.
Considering we got attacked as bad as we did under Bush as he was just coming off of a very long vacation, despite reports like "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within The United States" and warnings from people like Clarke going unheard... I'd say that was about as tenuous an argument as saying there are WMDs in Iraq and they had links to Al Qaida (also warned against by Clarke). Plus they know if they attack, we'll invade another country that had nothing to do with it so they can recruit more people against us (even Rove said we're creating more than terrorists than we're killing). Kerry, on the other hand, might actually understand the threat and not fight things like the creation of a 9/11 committee or the formation of the central intelligence agency, then claim responsibility for how well it's going like Bush has.jemeinc said:
But I'm sure it's all Clinton's fault.
Edit: You were kidding, weren't you? One of these
would have helped. These too. But I guess that's the point, isn't it. solvs said:Considering we got attacked as bad as we did under Bush as he was just coming off of a very long vacation, despite reports like "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within The United States" and warnings from people like Clarke going unheard... I'd say that was about as tenuous an argument as saying there are WMDs in Iraq and they had links to Al Qaida (also warned against by Clarke). Plus they know if they attack, we'll invade another country that had nothing to do with it so they can recruit more people against us (even Rove said we're creating more than terrorists than we're killing). Kerry, on the other hand, might actually understand the threat and not fight things like the creation of a 9/11 committee or the formation of the central intelligence agency, then claim responsibility for how well it's going like Bush has.
But I'm sure it's all Clinton's fault.
Edit: You were kidding, weren't you? One of these
Was Clinton in office for 8 years before 9/11, instead of Bush's 6 months? I forget? Oh and how many times was it that Clinton could have taken Bin Laden out? and how many times did Al Qaeda attack during his 8 years, and he did nothing? I forget.
Sure it happened on Bush's watch, but these things don't happen over night. Even Bush has admitted to not concentrating on Al Qaeda before 9/11, and neither did Clinton, or the media, or the american people.
The only people we should be blaming for 9/11 are the terrorists.
mo0805 said:
Maybe you should vote and write in the name of someone you think is suitable?
Or vote for the person you hate less, I'm sure you don't dislike both of them equally.
People like to stick up those the bumper stickers that say "Don't blame me! I voted for (the candidate who lost the last election)." when times are tough and many see the current leader as the reason. People who don't vote are as much to blame for bad leaders getting elected as much as those who voted for the candidate. By not voting, you only make each side's share of support amongest the public appear a little larger.
nacl99 said:
Clinton's outgoing people were so focused on terrorism as the number one issue that the incoming Bush people they were briefing said they were "obsessed" with terrorism.
Bush's people did not share this obsession.
Clinton tried to take out bin Laden.
Get your facts straight.
I wish Bush would.nacl99 said:
Instead he blames his Intelligence, Saddam, Clinton, liberals, and everyone else. I'm not neccessarily saying that if he had been paying more attention, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Or that it's Bush's fault. Re-read my post. I just think Bush hasn't done enough since and seems to be making things worse. Like, why are we so focused on Iraq when Bin Laden is still out there? No matter what ties Saddam might have had (which are tenuous, at best), Bin Laden is Al Qaida.
I'd rather have someone be smart about this, willing to listen to and work with other people to find the right solutions, rather than someone who talks big and makes all the wrong choices while ignoring what right in front of him.
Bush is not that man... and I can only hope that Kerry is.
as long as this is the 'pan-political' thread...
do a search on 'Sibel Edmonds' and read the volumes of articles about her allegations against the FBI. if she's telling the truth, and many of her claims have been corroborated and/or verified by intelligence experts and the 9/11 commission, then the bush administration was given specific and actionable intelligence about 9/11 before it happened.
i wonder how many decades it'll be before we finally learn the truth.
do a search on 'Sibel Edmonds' and read the volumes of articles about her allegations against the FBI. if she's telling the truth, and many of her claims have been corroborated and/or verified by intelligence experts and the 9/11 commission, then the bush administration was given specific and actionable intelligence about 9/11 before it happened.
i wonder how many decades it'll be before we finally learn the truth.
solvs said:
mandatory voting is only if you have previously registered and i missed the deadline by a day because i became a citizen of australia the day after the deadline to register to vote, not my problem.
doesn't matter anyway as we are still stuck with howard who won with quite a majority. howard is the equivalent of bush, though he's really bush's lap dog haha...
I hear he won mostly because of how good your economy is doing. Bush does not have the same luxury. According to recent polls, people are still split over the Iraq war over there. Even though you haven't had any combat related casualties in your ~900 troops. It's even worse in England, I hear. Especially with the recent beheading. Over 2/3 against in recent polls.samh004 said:
Even though Bush and Kerry are about even in the polls, a small majority are unhappy with the handling of Iraq. Accurate or not, gotta love the polls.
MattG said:
Actually it's not foolish at all ... There are strong points to be made for both candidates philosophies on this... This election comes to down to war & peace- everything else is second fiddle.. That was the point I was making with my tongue planted firmly in cheek... Both sides have valid points- whomever you choose to side with will be failrly logical... I don't see how anyone could be undecided at this - either way- because these 2 guys' strategies are so different... But that's just me....
nacl99 said:
why would bin laden NOT want bush re-elected? doing something insanely stupid such as invading iraq was the best thing that could happen to UBL, and the way it was done perfectly played into AQ hands.
this administration:
- initially made terrorism a minor priority (iraq and tax cut for the wealthy were the major priorities)
- after the afghan campaign (which ANY US president would have launched, it's not like it was an option), when they had the support of virtually the entire world, they stopped short of finishing the job.
instead of pushing for the kill with UBL/AQ and invest in Afghanistan reconstruction they decided to pursue their real pre-9/11 interests in iraq. So what could have easily (and cheaply) been the "poster child" of spreading democracy (and a huge legacy) was abandoned (again) to warrying factions and unstability (it is still better than the talibans, but they had the opportunity to make it good, not just better)
Instead, they invaded an arab country unrelated to AQ, on false premises.
And doing that they manage to:
- cause thousands of death among muslim civilians and children
- protect the oil fields/oil ministry but not the museums, hospitals, supposed nuclear facilities(!!!), weapons deposits
- fail to provide security to the "normal" people, or prevent the looting
- torture iraqis in the same prison used by saddam
- lose a lot of the worldwide support they had
- lose any moral authority and credibility the US had for much longer than just the next four years
As a consequence:
- most of UBL wildest claims were actually substantiated
- AQ had time to re-organized on a decentralized basis
- recruitment to AQ has gone through the roof
- terrorism has increased worldwide
- a previously inexistent safe haven for terrorists has been created (iraq)
- iran and north-korea have accellerated their nuclear programs
yeah, thanksalot W, I feel safer already
Wow...almost 1/4 of the people that voted in this poll said they didn't vote last year but that they would this year. I wonder how many of them didn't vote because they couldn't, and how many didn't vote just because they didn't feel like bothering.
zimv20 said:
i am also voting by absentee ballot, but i will be waiting a bit longer. i see no reason to make my decision just yet.
I know you're banned, but did I say anything against Australia? I just meant that they are lucky to have not been affected as negatively as we have in the US by the mishandling of this war. And that even without much direct loss, there are still people unhappy with Iraq, despite a fairly good economy. They supported us, which I am thankful for in principle, but their leaders there are lucky for not having to suffer from the backlash others have. Including our own leaders.nacl99 said:
Typical, turn a valid criticism like that into an personal insult against an entire country.
solvs said:
Heh heh - he's banned solvs, it's okay, let it go.
(I actually reported him myself, although I'm sure there were others.) And yes, there's no need for personal insults, let alone against an entire country. As for Australia being negatively affected though, one could say that they definitely were, at least indirectly, when the bombings took place in Bali. A lot of Aussies lost their life in that nightclub, which was a huge tragedy.
I think everyone "pays" in some respect, just some more significantly than others...jemeinc said:
you're so wrong --- Bush has made Iraq terrorist central HQ. If he hadn't terrorists would be much worse off in terms of being able to do whatever the hell they want.
It suits the terrorists having Bush and his polar narrow minded opinions. The day Iraq was invaded I bet bin Laden couldn't stop smiling
drift said:
1st off, kid, you don't know my opinion- therefore you don't know whether I'm wrong or right- or even if there is any right way to handle terrorism...If there is, noone's figured it out yet- you included...
I'm on record as saying there's strong points for both candidates' plans in this area... It's just a fact that both views, as different as they are, have their merits as well as their weaknesses...
Second of all, you're hatred for Bush has left you blinded... It's funny how you say Bush has made Iraq terrorist HQ, yet Saddam & his $25,000 payouts to suicide bombers' families & his funding & organization of terrorist groups over the years have nothing to do with this... Before you try to accuse me of believing that Saddam was directly involved with Al Quieda & 9/11 I'll save you the trouble - I don't believe that... But please don't tell me you believe Saddam had no ties to terrorism, because it's just fact that he did...
Now before you try to throw your political beliefs at me save your fingers- I've done my research, understand both candidates plans, & will vote on which one I believe has the better chance of being effective... Which one I choose doesn't really matter, what does matter is that I've made my choice based on research, not party lines... I'm an independant- I don't give a crap about republican or democrats... They'd both run me out for some of my beliefs on the "major" issues that define the 2...
Oh come on. What ties? What funding and organization of terrorist groups? All this - apart from ex-gratia payments to the families of those who died fighting Israeli oppression - has been comprehensively and repeatedly debunked. Let it go.jemeinc said: