NationStates Jolt Archive

The 2004 presidential campaign is revealing several fundmental truths about Americans in general: we view the world in a highly polarized fashion (where you're either right or wrong) that makes 30 second sound clips more important than established fact, and that we still listen to smears even while we complain about how dirty politics has gotten. But perhaps the worst thing of all is that we do not hold our politicians accountable for what they do.

Take George W. Bush as your example. Here is a President who, by all accounts, ought to be trailing John Kerry in the polls. Instead, he may very well be re-elected to a second term in office, despite obvious and glaring policy failures spanning four years. This is the first president in over 70 years to witness a net loss of jobs on his watch. In Ohio, which I call "home", we are -still- losing thousands of jobs even after Bush proclaimed that we are in a "recovery". For the swelling ranks of the unemployed there is "hope"...the prospect of taking a job paying on -average- $9,000 less than the ones they lost. Even those lucky enough to have held onto their jobs during this recession have lost about $3,000 worth of purchasing power during Bush's term in office.

America's influence and image are eroding all around the world. A recent poll in countries that are regarded as American friends and allies shows that Bush is enormously unpopular abroad. The Canadians back Kerry over Bush by a whopping margin of 61% to 16%. The British, our military allies in the War on Terror, prefer Kerry over Bush 47%-16%. The story was repeated again and again...in Europe, Bush only managed to take Poland, and by a narrow margin (31% to 26%). Bush has not captured Osama Bin Laden, has not crushed Al-Qaida, has not found Weapons of Mass Destruction, and has not defeated the Iraqi insurgency. He has not brought security or freedom to Iraq, and intelligence estimates from his OWN administration say that, in the BEST case scenario, things won't get worse there. The worst case scenario is total civil war in Iraq with U.S. forces caught in the middle.

Worldwide, leaders who backed George Bush in Iraq are paying the price politically. Spain withdrew from Iraq after Aznar, the Spanish Prime Minister, was defeated in elections. In Italy, Berlusconi is barely holding onto power. Tony Blair is facing a battle for his political life in elections next year, and Australia's John Howard is fighting a neck and neck battle for HIS re-election despite the fact that Australia's economy is currently booming.

And yet, here in the United States, Bush is holding his own against John Kerry. Why? George W. Bush has made many mistakes...and these aren't little errors. These are massive lapses in good judgement! Iraq is hanging like an albatross around America's neck to the tune of 200-300 million dollars a day, thanks to George Bush. That's 7 or 8 billion dollars a MONTH spent on Iraq alone, money that isn't there because of Bush's tax cuts. Money he said we wouldn't have to spend because Iraqi oil would pay for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq (and so far, it hasn't come close). Wake up, America! Every other nation on Earth that participated in this war is holding THEIR national leaders accountable for the blunders in Iraq. President Bush has only provided flimsy excuses to explain why he -shouldn't- be held responsible too. A thousand Americans are dead chasing George Bush's WMD mirage in Iraq. Hold him accountable this November. Send the cowboy back to Texas where he belongs.

I'm voting third party, but not Nader, so I chose the fourth option.

I'm voting third party, but not Nader, so I chose the fourth option.

Are you voting for either Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party) or Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party)?

I think I've relegated myself to writing in either Nobody or Cthulhu for President.

Take George W. Bush as your example. Here is a President who, by all accounts, ought to be trailing John Kerry in the polls. Instead, he may very well be re-elected to a second term in office, despite obvious and glaring policy failures spanning four years. This is the first president in over 70 years to witness a net loss of jobs on his watch. In Ohio, which I call "home", we are -still- losing thousands of jobs even after Bush proclaimed that we are in a "recovery". For the swelling ranks of the unemployed there is "hope"...the prospect of taking a job paying on -average- $9,000 less than the ones they lost. Even those lucky enough to have held onto their jobs during this recession have lost about $3,000 worth of purchasing power during Bush's term in office.

Come on now, you are blaming Bush for the collapse of the techology bubble in the late 90s. Let's face it, the web boom created an over inflated job market with over inflated salaries. Kids were walking out of college with 4 year degrees making $75k a year. Everybody saw IPOs and quick millions. When the bubble burst, the economy spun into a minor recession, added to by 9/11. Recovery takes time, but unemployment rates are going down and new jobs are being produced. Most Americans are beginning ot recognize this truth, which is one of the reasons Kerry is losing and Bush will probably be reelected.

I think I've relegated myself to writing in either Nobody or Cthulhu for President.

woo, another convert!

nobody should be your commander in chief. vote nobody!

Are you voting for either Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party) or Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party)?

Badnarik.

bah, why bother, no one's going to change their mind.

Recovery takes time, but unemployment rates are going down and new jobs are being produced.

Try reading some Noam Chomsky. This article comes from the last time a Bush was in power. Notice any similarities? http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sld/sld-1-06.html

There's more reading round the subject available at http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/

This was merely a focused article. I have many other arguments regarding WHY Mr. Bush should not be re-elected. And even if your economic argument was right, Grebonia, that does not excuse his negligence regarding the Iraq war.

You also ought to be aware of the possiblity that the rest of the world will retaliate if we elect Bush to a second term. He is EXTREMELY unpopular with the rest of the world...if we retain Bush, it will essentially validate his policies. There will assuredly be protests, perhaps even under-the-table economic moves to punish the United States. Even if no such retaliation is forthcoming, we STILL need the world because it buys American goods. I know for a fact that sales of American products in Europe have been falling, in part due to heavy-handed policies of the Bush Administration.

There are other candidates, they're just really small. What if I vote for one of them? Theres no option for it. Richard Gayter for president!

You also ought to be aware of the possiblity that the rest of the world will retaliate if we elect Bush to a second term. He is EXTREMELY unpopular with the rest of the world...if we retain Bush, it will essentially validate his policies. There will assuredly be protests, perhaps even under-the-table economic moves to punish the United States. Even if no such retaliation is forthcoming, we STILL need the world because it buys American goods. I know for a fact that sales of American products in Europe have been falling, in part due to heavy-handed policies of the Bush Administration.

Are you actually saying that other countries might attack the US if we elect Bush again? If so then I hope he wins by a landslide!! I will NEVER submit to what ANY other country wants the US to do. As for economic "punishment" I can only say that as the worlds largest economy it would be foolish for "old" europe to do so. Too many countries in "new" europe are willing to trade with us if the others won't. Europe is hardly an economic powerhouse. The europeans have forgotten how to work and have this huge system of entitlements that is crippling them. Why is it illegal for anyone to work more than 36 hours a week in France? Because they "share" jobs there. Yeah....thats a system to be afraid of. :rolleyes:

Are you actually saying that other countries might attack the US if we elect Bush again? If so then I hope he wins by a landslide!! I will NEVER submit to what ANY other country wants the US to do. As for economic "punishment" I can only say that as the worlds largest economy it would be foolish for "old" europe to do so. Too many countries in "new" europe are willing to trade with us if the others won't. Europe is hardly an economic powerhouse. The europeans have forgotten how to work and have this huge system of entitlements that is crippling them. Why is it illegal for anyone to work more than 36 hours a week in France? Because they "share" jobs there. Yeah....thats a system to be afraid of. :rolleyes:
Say what you want, the EU has the biggest GDP in the world.

There are other candidates, they're just really small. What if I vote for one of them? Theres no option for it. Richard Gayter for president!Realistically though, it is all about Bush and Kerry.

Are you actually saying that other countries might attack the US if we elect Bush again? If so then I hope he wins by a landslide!! I will NEVER submit to what ANY other country wants the US to do. As for economic "punishment" I can only say that as the worlds largest economy it would be foolish for "old" europe to do so. Too many countries in "new" europe are willing to trade with us if the others won't. Europe is hardly an economic powerhouse. The europeans have forgotten how to work and have this huge system of entitlements that is crippling them. Why is it illegal for anyone to work more than 36 hours a week in France? Because they "share" jobs there. Yeah....thats a system to be afraid of. :rolleyes:

I can't BELIEVE you just said that. I did not claim that other countries would attack us. I DID claim that there could be unpleasant economic and diplomatic repercussions that ought to be considered. Mind you, even with those possibilities the choice of President remains OURS.

Your analysis of Europe mixes arrogance with ignorance. How efficient of you. The European Union is a larger economy than the United States of America. Do not underestimate European resolve...they are even forming a joint European military command to override NATO in regional affairs. The standard of living in Europe is equivalent to that of Americans. They merely choose to live differently than us, based on their collective experiences. "Old Europe" as you contemptuously call it, was around when OUR nation was still in its' infancy. They have learned many lessons about life the hard way, over hundreds of years of trial and error. While the United States brims with the energy and vitality of a young nation, European nations are old and wise. You should not scorn them, just as they could afford to learn something from us. Many of them certainly saw through Bush's deceptions regarding Iraq when (I) was not smart enough to see it for myself.

You also clearly do not understand the depth of the Anti-American feelings in Europe, either. I -do-. I talk to them over the internet on a daily basis. They do not hate America, but they are -extremely- unhappy with the Bush policies, and with Bush himself. They are eager for change. They want to feel like they can work with the USA again and not be bullied by a president with a myopic worldview.

And don't diss France. In case you've forgotten, they helped us win independence from England in the Revolutionary War. :)

I can't BELIEVE you just said that. I did not claim that other countries would attack us. I DID claim that there could be unpleasant economic and diplomatic repercussions that ought to be considered. Mind you, even with those possibilities the choice of President remains OURS.

Your analysis of Europe mixes arrogance with ignorance. How efficient of you. The European Union is a larger economy than the United States of America. Do not underestimate European resolve...they are even forming a joint European military command to override NATO in regional affairs. The standard of living in Europe is equivalent to that of Americans. They merely choose to live differently than us, based on their collective experiences. "Old Europe" as you contemptuously call it, was around when OUR nation was still in its' infancy. They have learned many lessons about life the hard way, over hundreds of years of trial and error. While the United States brims with the energy and vitality of a young nation, European nations are old and wise. You should not scorn them, just as they could afford to learn something from us. Many of them certainly saw through Bush's deceptions regarding Iraq when (I) was not smart enough to see it for myself.

You also clearly do not understand the depth of the Anti-American feelings in Europe, either. I -do-. I talk to them over the internet on a daily basis. They do not hate America, but they are -extremely- unhappy with the Bush policies, and with Bush himself. They are eager for change. They want to feel like they can work with the USA again and not be bullied by a president with a myopic worldview.

And don't diss France. In case you've forgotten, they helped us win independence from England in the Revolutionary War. :)

Republicans and Libertarian republicans (Biff) only care about recent history. They are all about " what have you done for me lately"

The standard of living in Europe is equivalent to that of Americans.

Um, no it isn't.

http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?selected_topic=9&action=view&article_id=4284

I'm going to vote for Bush, but Nobody would be my second choice. He already has a great theme song that would make you want to vote for him.

"Nobody knows, the trouble I've seen."

That is interesting, Grebonia, because a U.N. report on this issue completely contradicted that. I wonder what the U.N. report included as variables in the study, and what your source studied.

And Tzorsland, -why- would you vote for Bush? Do you really want a president who has such a myopic, narrow view of the world? Former Bush Admin. officials like former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil have depicted Bush as being dangerously lacking in specific knowledge regarding the policies he is charting. The word even from the insiders is that Bush is -so- decisive that it crosses the line into outright stubborness. Bush will continue pushing his ideals even if it is clear that those ideals are failing the nation. In short, not only is he ignorant, but he is unwilling to acknowledge it when his plans go awry. Do you really want to strengthen the hand of this type of president by giving him a second term? If you do, he will not need to worry about running for reelection again, and you can expect an even more radical approach to the issues from Bush than he has hitherto displayed.

Do you really want to strengthen the hand of this type of president by giving him a second term? If you do, he will not need to worry about running for reelection again, and you can expect an even more radical approach to the issues from Bush than he has hitherto displayed.

I would disagree with that just because Bush is a neo-con president, and they are not gonna want to give up the office after Bush is done with it.

That is interesting, Grebonia, because a U.N. report on this issue completely contradicted that. I wonder what the U.N. report included as variables in the study, and what your source studied.

Got a link? Everything I've ever read has said that the EU per capita GDP is significantly lower than the US's.

Yay George Bush

Unfortunately, I do not. If I find one, I'll post it for sure. I don't want to pull a Rather maneuver, lol. :D

Seriously, though. This race is only 50% Bush. The other half belongs to John Kerry, and I believe in John Kerry's agenda. I do not believe that he is a coward or a flip-flopper, as the Bush Administration has portrayed him to be. Cowardly flip-floppers did not volunteer to go to Vietnam, did not become decorated officers with multiple bronze and silver stars, and did not have the GUTS to come back here to Congress to speak out against what was going on there. All of these things took courage and decisiveness.

The various "examples" of Kerry flip-flopping are not true...the Bush/Rove attack machine did not bother to include the context of the situation. For example, take the often trumpeted Kerry vote for troop funding, then against it. As it turns out, John Kerry voted for the funding at first. He did so for a reason...the Republican Senate leadership promised him that they would repeal some of the higher-income Bush tax cuts to PAY for the defense spending. When the bill reached the Senate floor for a general vote, however, Kerry discovered that the G.O.P. leadership had gone back on its' word and had stripped out the tax cut repeal. At that point, Kerry voted against the measure to signal his displeasure that he had, in effect, been lied to. In addition, what Bush-Cheney forgot to mention was that, had the bill passed, Bush actually threatened to veto it for other reasons. It was a dead bill regardless of what Kerry did, but NOW the Republicans have used it to attack him. This is particularly ironic since it was THEY who set the situation up in the first place.

Cowardly flip-floppers did not volunteer to go to Vietnam, did not become decorated officers with multiple bronze and silver stars, and did not have the GUTS to come back here to Congress to speak out against what was going on there. All of these things took courage and decisiveness.

he actually tried to get out of going to Vietnam (the way Cheney got out), but when that failed, he signed up for Swift Boat duty which at the time was not supposed to be the dangerous assignment it became. So I give him props for being there, but I don't see it as an incredible act of bravery.

As far as the flip-flopping, the one place the Republicans have him is over Iraq. He has been all over the place with his stance on Iraq during the campaign in blantant manuevering for votes. And I'm not talking about voting for the war than against funding.

That no one has yet voted for Nader is I think a demonstration of the polarization that Bush has caused, and even moreso of the hatred the Left has for him. This forum is generally very liberal and to see all of them succumb and vote for Kerry just to get rid of Bush instead of voting for Nader the way they would surely like, despite their normal stubborness is stunning.

I can't BELIEVE you just said that. I did not claim that other countries would attack us. I DID claim that there could be unpleasant economic and diplomatic repercussions that ought to be considered. Mind you, even with those possibilities the choice of President remains OURS.

Your analysis of Europe mixes arrogance with ignorance. How efficient of you. The European Union is a larger economy than the United States of America. Do not underestimate European resolve...they are even forming a joint European military command to override NATO in regional affairs. The standard of living in Europe is equivalent to that of Americans. They merely choose to live differently than us, based on their collective experiences. "Old Europe" as you contemptuously call it, was around when OUR nation was still in its' infancy. They have learned many lessons about life the hard way, over hundreds of years of trial and error. While the United States brims with the energy and vitality of a young nation, European nations are old and wise. You should not scorn them, just as they could afford to learn something from us. Many of them certainly saw through Bush's deceptions regarding Iraq when (I) was not smart enough to see it for myself.

You also clearly do not understand the depth of the Anti-American feelings in Europe, either. I -do-. I talk to them over the internet on a daily basis. They do not hate America, but they are -extremely- unhappy with the Bush policies, and with Bush himself. They are eager for change. They want to feel like they can work with the USA again and not be bullied by a president with a myopic worldview.

And don't diss France. In case you've forgotten, they helped us win independence from England in the Revolutionary War. :)

While I don't disagree with most of what you said, as an fellow American, we are one of the oldest governments that has not completely changed.

Sorry, I hit enter too quickly.

It's not just that I oppose George Bush. I also demand that people critically analyze what he's done in the past four years. He's choked off prescription drugs from Canada, barred Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices with the drug industry (costing you, the taxpayer, more), and created a drug card system for seniors that almost none of them use, because although it offers you many choices, none of them are worth a damn.

He allowed Enron to gouge California during the energy crisis a few years ago by refusing to enact price caps, costing California billions of dollars. Then he failed to assist the workers of Enron when that company imploded, taking their life savings' with it.

He suggested that conservation was "a personal virtue", not a public policy.

He tried to strip Clinton-era restrictions reducing the amount of arsenic in drinking water (he backpedaled after a public outcry. Who is the flip flopper now?).

He gutted the Clean Air Act, making it easier for the power industry to pollute and punishing them less severely when they do. And last time I checked, we ALL need to breathe.

He backpedaled out of the Kyoto Climate Treaty which we had -already- agreed to.

He withdrew us from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia in order to build a missile defense shield that will cost billions and has failed numerous test runs.

He is currently trying to ban the import of brie cheese from France on the grounds that it is "unsafe"...which is a nice way of saying he wants to punish France for opposing our wishes. (Hey, I LIKE brie cheese! It tastes cool. :D)

He was accused by his own anti-terrorism czar (who also worked for the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations) of dragging his feet on critical anti-terrorism efforts and for not paying sufficient attention to terrorists pre-9-11 (even after outgoing President Clinton -warned- Bush to be vigilant regarding Osama Bin Laden).

His Patriot Act has been used to detain thousands of persons, some of whom are U.S. citizens, without access to lawyers, without charge, for unspecified periods of time. This would, at a glance, seem to run right over the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States, which is theoretically the highest law in the land.

He sent our troops into Iraq without the proper equipment in order to strike quickly at Saddam Hussein, endangering their lives as a consequence. Although he won the war quite efficiently, he is losing the peace in Iraq. I use the term "peace" with some sarcasm.

Heeeeeloooo? I could go on, but these are NOT the actions of a skilled, thoughtful president.

That no one has yet voted for Nader is I think a demonstration of the polarization that Bush has caused, and even moreso of the hatred the Left has for him. This forum is generally very liberal and to see all of them succumb and vote for Kerry just to get rid of Bush instead of voting for Nader the way they would surely like, despite their normal stubborness is stunning.

My brain is liberal. But my heart is red, white, and blue.

I DEMAND that America live up to its' ideals. And all George W. Bush offers is division, character assassination, deceptions, and sellouts to his corporate friends. Do not take my word for it...look at his actions between 2000-2004.

Loose or win Bush will be gone after 2008,
If he looses I will accept it
If he wins the heck with what the world wants.
Its an American election.

You also ought to be aware of the possiblity that the rest of the world will retaliate if we elect Bush to a second term. He is EXTREMELY unpopular with the rest of the world. There will assuredly be protests, perhaps even under-the-table economic moves to punish the United States.
I really don't want to see Bush elected, but the world isn't going to retaliate if he is.

Um, no it isn't.
I agree! If anything, European standard of living is higher than American standard.

Here's a handy link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Human_Development_Index

The original source [it's a PDF file]:

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2004/pdf/hdr04_HDI.pdf

I agree! If anything, European standard of living is higher than American standard.

Um, ok, but you are wrong. While a couple nations may rank higher by that meassurement, the EU as a whole is much worse. If you want to point out a couple exception, why not compare them to individual US states?

Are you voting for either Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party) or Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party)?

*gasp* Someone else in the US has heard of Michael Peroutka! I'm in awe.

Realistically though, it is all about Bush and Kerry.

Yeah, the communists and fascists, oops, I mean Democrats and Republicans, expect that kind of thinking from everyone. It won't be until enough of the populace demands change by voting for third, fourth, fifth, etc.. parties that the Republiodemocrats will take notice and maybe we can shake this narrow-minded political machine into a goverment that is really by the people, for the people.

That no one has yet voted for Nader is I think a demonstration of the polarization that Bush has caused, and even moreso of the hatred the Left has for him. This forum is generally very liberal and to see all of them succumb and vote for Kerry just to get rid of Bush instead of voting for Nader the way they would surely like, despite their normal stubborness is stunning.

Bravo. My point exactly.

Isn't Pat Buchanan running for the Reform Party? I remember the good old days when Buchanan was the scariest conservative on the political landscape. My how times have changed. I suppose I'm sort of Leftist, but I dare not call myself a Democrat. I'm really amazed that I actually AGREE with something Buchanan is saying, though I dare not call myself a Republican.

Undecided. Will definitely vote!

badnarik!?!

While I don't disagree with most of what you said, as an fellow American, we are one of the oldest governments that has not completely changed.

I disagree. Prior to Lincoln, the US government more or less restricted itself to the powers granted to it by the Constitution. They weren't yet in the habbit of wiping their asses with it.

Yeah, the communists and fascists, oops, I mean Democrats and Republicans, expect that kind of thinking from everyone. It won't be until enough of the populace demands change by voting for third, fourth, fifth, etc.. parties that the Republiodemocrats will take notice and maybe we can shake this narrow-minded political machine into a goverment that is really by the people, for the people.



Bravo. My point exactly.

Isn't Pat Buchanan running for the Reform Party? I remember the good old days when Buchanan was the scariest conservative on the political landscape. My how times have changed. I suppose I'm sort of Leftist, but I dare not call myself a Democrat. I'm really amazed that I actually AGREE with something Buchanan is saying, though I dare not call myself a Republican.

Undecided. Will definitely vote!

The third parties have no chance of winning. They only function as spoilers that tug the central parties to greater extremes. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader in essence, but in reality a vote for Nader is a vote for George W. Bush. Many votes Nader garners COULD have gone to John Kerry.

For those here planning on voting for third parties, I ask you: Do you REALLY want to help Bush take another four years in office. I am staring at my own election projections here off to my right. In states like Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio (my home state), the balance is CRITICAL. If George Bush takes Ohio or Pennsylvania, in my opinion, he is almost certain to win a second term. Do you want that responsibility on your shoulders? Although you many not agree with everything John Kerry stands for, he remains the progressive movement's best shot at stabilizing the right-wing slide this country has entered. We MUST win this election for the sake of Americans who come after us. I am an idealist myself...but at some point cold reality meets you, and you must work on occasion within the system rather than around it.

Um, ok, but you are wrong. While a couple nations may rank higher by that meassurement, the EU as a whole is much worse. If you want to point out a couple exception, why not compare them to individual US states?

the eu is a bunch of different countries... it's not one giant country. i mean, that would make geography way too easy.

but yeah, as individual countries, it's quite alright to say oh look, these countries have a much higher standard of living than the u.s. as opposed to hey, england has a higher state of living than alabama.

Go Communists!

Actually, i prefer Socalists to anything else.

[Shalrirorchia #1]
The 2004 presidential campaign is revealing several fundmental truths about Americans in general: we view the world in a highly polarized fashion (where you're either right or wrong) that makes 30 second sound clips more important than established fact, and that we still listen to smears even while we complain about how dirty politics has gotten. But perhaps the worst thing of all is that we do not hold our politicians accountable for what they do.

Take George W. Bush as your example. Here is a President who, by all accounts, ought to be trailing John Kerry in the polls. Instead, he may very well be re-elected to a second term in office, despite obvious and glaring policy failures spanning four years. This is the first president in over 70 years to witness a net loss of jobs on his watch. In Ohio, which I call "home", we are -still- losing thousands of jobs even after Bush proclaimed that we are in a "recovery". For the swelling ranks of the unemployed there is "hope"...the prospect of taking a job paying on -average- $9,000 less than the ones they lost. Even those lucky enough to have held onto their jobs during this recession have lost about $3,000 worth of purchasing power during Bush's term in office.

America's influence and image are eroding all around the world. A recent poll in countries that are regarded as American friends and allies shows that Bush is enormously unpopular abroad. The Canadians back Kerry over Bush by a whopping margin of 61% to 16%. The British, our military allies in the War on Terror, prefer Kerry over Bush 47%-16%. The story was repeated again and again...in Europe, Bush only managed to take Poland, and by a narrow margin (31% to 26%). Bush has not captured Osama Bin Laden, has not crushed Al-Qaida, has not found Weapons of Mass Destruction, and has not defeated the Iraqi insurgency. He has not brought security or freedom to Iraq, and intelligence estimates from his OWN administration say that, in the BEST case scenario, things won't get worse there. The worst case scenario is total civil war in Iraq with U.S. forces caught in the middle.

Worldwide, leaders who backed George Bush in Iraq are paying the price politically. Spain withdrew from Iraq after Aznar, the Spanish Prime Minister, was defeated in elections. In Italy, Berlusconi is barely holding onto power. Tony Blair is facing a battle for his political life in elections next year, and Australia's John Howard is fighting a neck and neck battle for HIS re-election despite the fact that Australia's economy is currently booming.

And yet, here in the United States, Bush is holding his own against John Kerry. Why? George W. Bush has made many mistakes...and these aren't little errors. These are massive lapses in good judgement! Iraq is hanging like an albatross around America's neck to the tune of 200-300 million dollars a day, thanks to George Bush. That's 7 or 8 billion dollars a MONTH spent on Iraq alone, money that isn't there because of Bush's tax cuts. Money he said we wouldn't have to spend because Iraqi oil would pay for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq (and so far, it hasn't come close). Wake up, America! Every other nation on Earth that participated in this war is holding THEIR national leaders accountable for the blunders in Iraq. President Bush has only provided flimsy excuses to explain why he -shouldn't- be held responsible too. A thousand Americans are dead chasing George Bush's WMD mirage in Iraq. Hold him accountable this November. Send the cowboy back to Texas where he belongs.

Why Bush..?

Because we don't want a whiney equivocator at the helm.

Most all things that you blame a president for, are not things that a president has much leverage over.

Your self-reinforcing leftist nonsense is your religion, and it is threatened by the very prospect of your not winning this election. This causes panic in the left.

We shall see who wins the election, but the so-called Amercan that wrote this diatribe shows that the infection that is the left has indeed grown very very angry.

And that's a good thing, as it will promote change and the realization of what the left truly is.

A pathology that should be paid attention to and seen for the patheticly weak mindset that would destroy western civilization itself.