Please continue the discussion about the US Presidential Election 2004 here.
Posts about statements by the Bush administration about the Iraq war should go into this thread only: Statements about the Iraq war: Misperceptions or misleading?
Rascal
Moderator
Vote for Kerry.
When I was in Malaysia, I overheard in the US Embassy that people who haven’t received their ballots in time, can go there to vote and be counted.
So, I’m wondering if the AIT offices in Taiwan can do that for US nationals who want to vote but don’t have an absentee ballot to cast?
Kerry confuses me.
Kerry has been stating that the US is at its best when it leads the world and the UN. He claims that the US is best when we have broad international support for our goals.
Yet, in January 1991 he voted against an authorization for the use of military force in pursuance of a UN-approved and Arab world-approved policy to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Unless I am wrong, even France and Germany agreed with the use of force then against Saddam. But, even then, Kerry complained then that we were in “a rush to war.”
I have real difficulty taking him at his word now, when he claims that he wants to “kill” the terrorists.
He wasn’t alone. It’s well known that Colin Powell didn’t really think Kuwait was worth going to war over. It is the famous gap between Chaney and Powell.
[quote=“Yellow Cartman”]When I was in Malaysia, I overheard in the US Embassy that people who haven’t received their ballots in time, can go there to vote and be counted.
So, I’m wondering if the AIT offices in Taiwan can do that for US nationals who want to vote but don’t have an absentee ballot to cast?[/quote]
I can’t vouch for this personally, but I’ve read on various websites that there’s an emergency ballot available, for Federal elections only, for anyone living outside the U.S. who has applied/registered on time (whatever “on time” means for their State) and who has not received his or her ballot. I don’t know whether there are other conditions for eligibility.
I want not only to repeat the first disclaimer, but also to add that I may have garbled the information above. Anyway, one U.S. Embassy site, for India, has some info about it at the paragraph numbered 2 on the page. I don’t know if the AIT has such an emergency ballot.
Hope this helps, but I also hope that a person researches this for himself/herself, because again, I’m not sure. If it turns out that I’m eligible for, and have to use, this ballot, I’ll post more info if anyone wants it.
I am not a fan of these polls…but this just makes me chuckle:
George W. Bush
59%
John Kerry
41%
Ralph Nader
1%
USA AIT in Taiwan, including tele #'s.
Personally…having dealt with both I reccomend calling the Kaoshiung office for help. The Taipei group does seem to have their collective head placed where the sun rarely shines. The AIT Kaoshiung group has consistently demostrated orofessionalism of a 1st rate.
That’s true. However, Powell believes that once a decision is made to go to war, you go with everything you have.
Contrastingly, Kerry wants to conduct a more “sensitive” war, or, actually, to treat terrorism as a police and judicial problem, despite the fact that we’re already at war.
[quote=“xp+10K”]
I can’t vouch for this personally, but I’ve read on various websites that there’s an emergency ballot available, for Federal elections only, for anyone living outside the U.S. who has applied/registered on time (whatever “on time” means for their State) and who has not received his or her ballot. I don’t know whether there are other conditions for eligibility.
Hope this helps, but I also hope that a person researches this for himself/herself, because again, I’m not sure. If it turns out that I’m eligible for, and have to use, this ballot, I’ll post more info if anyone wants it.[/quote]
Please do xp+10k. I’ll look into this as well. Thanks much.
Tigerman,
Terrorism is always a police and judical issue.
Ironically for Powell and Armitage the Iraq war has seen the Powell doctrine being sidelined by Rumsfeld. Now the US is in the midst of conducting the very war that the Powell doctrine was espoused to prevent happening. This doctrine said hit them hard with everything you’ve got for clearly defined military objectives. The war in Iraq couldn’t be more poorly defined.The goals and objectives shift like the desert sands and they only went with half the troops required to execute the occupation effectively.
The Iraq war is still not the war on terrorism.It’s a war against a soverign state, by definition this is not a war on terrorism. Of course during the occupation the US has encounted insurgents that use terrorist strategies. That’s to be expected. However, for the most part the terrorist tactics that have been used have been largely strategic and not random.
The goal of the war in Iraq quite separate to the war on terrorism that Kerry was describing has been a long time US strategy dating back to the early 1980’s when the US was afraid that the Soviet Union could make a move on middle eastern oil. At that time Wolfowitz identified Iraq as a country that the US should make a play for hence Rumsfeld’s diplomacy to Iraq. The importance of Iraq to the US national interests hasn’t diminished over the past 20 years. It has become all the more important.That, however, is not the war on terrorism. It, in fact, has turned into a war that has morphed terrorism.
That’s true. However, Powell believes that once a decision is made to go to war, you go with everything you have.
Contrastingly, Kerry wants to conduct a more “sensitive” war, or, actually, to treat terrorism as a police and judicial problem, despite the fact that we’re already at war.[/quote]
Luckily Bush went out of his way to avoid saying the war in Iraq was over. Do you think that elections will take place during a war? My thinking is that Bush will never announce that the war is over, it will just fade away.
[quote=“Fox”]Tigerman,
Terrorism is always a police and judical issue.[/quote]
Its not now. Well, for the most part it isn’t. The complainers keep trying to make it a legal matter. 
Had Clinton recognized this for what it is, i.e., a war, we could have had Osama bin Laden when the Sudanese Government offered to hand him over to us. But, unfortunately, Clinton refused the offer due to his concerns about the legality of the same.
No, the goals and objectives have remained the same from the beginning. Only the media’s focus on different objectives has changed. The goal of reforming the region remains constant and Iraq is an important part in the effort in this regard.
It is a vital part of the war on terrorism.
Its both a war on a sovereign state (was, at last) and also part of the war on terrorism. This has been explained too many times previously… I’m not going to reiterate.
Random has nothing to do with the issue of whether an act is terroristic or not. Its the goal and target of the attack that make an act terroristic or not.
Again, I disagree. Even if we assume that your claim above was true in the past… 911 has changed everything (except for the Kerry folks). Regardless of what past concerns were, the current matter is that of terrorists and wholesale reform in the region. Bush has spoken at length about the need to reform the region and also about how Iraq is vital to the same. Thus, the effort in Iraq is most definitely part of the war on terror.
The insurgents in Iraq obviously believe that the effort in Iraq is part of the war on terror… why else would they be there? The war rid Iraq of a secularist, supposed enemy of the Islamofascists… so, why are the Islamofascist insurgents in Iraq trying to disrupt and halt the reform process? Obviously, because they recognize that democratic reform is extremely adverse to their Islamofascist goals.
I wonder how it is that you and so many others don’t see this.
[quote=“Tigerman”]
The insurgents in Iraq obviously believe that the effort in Iraq is part of the war on terror… why else would they be there?[/quote]
They have been made into terrorists. Now they are trying to get their hands on chemical weapons.
Reuters: [quote]Insurgent networks across Iraq (news - web sites) are increasingly trying to acquire and use toxic nerve gases, blister agents and germ weapons against U.S. and coalition forces.[/quote]
[color=blue]Doppelganger alert! [/color]
Bogus “L. Paul Bremer”, October 5, 2004:
“We paid a big price for not stopping (the looting) because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness. We never had enough troops on the ground.”
The real L. Paul Bremer, October 8, 2004:
“I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq’s already decrepit infrastructure. The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we’ll never know.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7053-2004Oct4.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/opinion/08bremer.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=
ABC News poll, Oct. 6-9: Bush 50%, Kerry 46%; likely voters
Reuters/Zogby poll, Oct. 7-9: Kerry 46%, Bush 45%; likely voters
Source: Bloomberg.com, Oct. 10.
Rasmussen poll, three day rolling avg. as of Oct. 9 (pre-debate): Bush 50%, Kerry 46% (don’t know whether registered or likely)
Well you can tell by the way I use my walk,
I
Senator John Edwards interview on NBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews (Oct 13, 2003):
[quote]
MATTHEWS: Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?
EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn
[quote=“Comrade Stalin”]Senator John Edwards interview on NBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews (Oct 13, 2003):
[quote]
MATTHEWS: Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?
EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn
[quote=“twocs”]
He also criticizes the way that Bush didn’t give the UN a fair chance:[/quote]
But now we know the UN Security Council had been neutralized by Saddam’s payments to the French, Russians and Chinese.
:bravo: :bravo: :bravo: