I don't have hard numbers to back this up, but there are a LOT of people that I talk to that aren't voting for Kerry, but are voting against Bush. With that kind of popular support, if you can make people understand that Option #2 is no better than Option #1, you may effectively kill some of your opponents (lackluster) support. Not only does that sound effective, but it's no more lame than depending on anti-Bush fans for your support. I won't pretend to understand the objective of the OP, but the takeaway (for me) from this article, is related to a comment Kerry made a while ago. Something along the lines of..."most world leaders support me and not Bush"... He refused to identify who he was talking about, but it's not Blair, not Putin. I fully expect the French & Germans support Kerry. I wonder who other major world leaders support. Either, way, I would have expected Putin to be on Kerry's side before Bush's. This makes it sound like he thinks they both suck. I'd be surprised if a poll of world leaders showed that Kerry's statement was anything more than garbage. Democrats ARE two-faced and Republicans ARE two-faced, because they are both politicians. Bush is a tool and Kerry is a tool, because they both have lived politics for way too long.
Not so fast (see highlighted part) Bush: New NATO Troops in Iraq Not Likely Thursday June 10, 2004 9:46 PM By TOM RAUM Associated Press Writer SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) - President Bush said Thursday it is unrealistic to expect NATO to send more troops to Iraq, but he made a parting plea to close allies to do what they can to guide Iraq into a stable democracy. ``They need our help, and they will have our help,'' he said at a news conference here concluding three days of talks at the Group of Eight summit on nearby Sea Island, Ga. French President Jacques Chirac remained skeptical of any additional NATO military role, but Germany's chancellor said he would not block it, if Iraq requested such help. His own country will not send troops, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder made clear. Bush admitted as much, telling reporters: ``I don't expect more troops from NATO to be offered up. That is an unrealistic expectation.'' A U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq approved earlier this week will have the ``practical effect'' of allowing the leaders of countries with troops already in Iraq to persuade their governments to keep them there, he said. Despite the disagreement on NATO's possible role, Bush said the United States and France now have ``excellent'' relations. Bush's appeal for more Iraq help came as the Group of Eight summit of powerful countries drew to a close with a show of unity on promoting democratic reforms across the larger Middle East and fighting AIDS - but no new commitments on money or troops for Iraq. Four of the countries, the United States, Britain, Italy and Japan, have forces in Iraq. The other four - France, Germany, Russia and Canada - do not, and their leaders gave no sign of changing that. Bush had hoped to win general approval from summit partners for a wider role for NATO in Iraq peacekeeping or in the training of Iraqi troops - one that could be refined further at the NATO summit in Istanbul, Turkey, later this month. ``We understand the Iraqi people need help to defend themselves, to rebuild their country and, most importantly, to hold elections,'' Bush said after meeting privately with Chirac. Chirac has strong reservations about the idea of expanding NATO's role, but is open to discussions before the summit at month's end, French officials said. During a photo session after meeting with Bush, Chirac did not mention the dispute over Iraq or NATO, but spoke instead of how much he had enjoyed the G-8 summit, particularly the food. ``I can tell you that over the last few days, this cuisine here in America was certainly on a par with French cuisine,'' Chirac said. ``He particularly liked the cheeseburger he had yesterday,'' Bush said. ``It was excellent,'' Chirac said. Bush later said he had conveyed Chirac's compliment to the chef. ``It's a whole lot better to hear the food is good from Jacques Chirac than from George W. Bush.'' A senior administration official present at the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said U.S. officials think there is time to reach common ground on the NATO question between now and the Istanbul meeting at month's end. While Iraq and the wider Middle East dominated the summit, the leaders also reached modest agreements on other issues like training 75,000 new peacekeepers to patrol war-torn countries over the next five years and coordinating efforts to find a vaccine against the AIDS virus. The administration was eager to reach the accords to showcase Bush as a leader able to get things done on the global stage. His Democratic presidential challenger, John Kerry has charged that Bush has alienated many of America's traditional allies. Throughout the week, protests against the summit were light. About a dozen people were arrested Thursday when they sat in front of the security gates on the only road leading to the island site, but the numbers who showed up during the week were far below expectations. After the summit, Bush and other leaders were leaving this exclusive beach resort for Washington to attend the state funeral of former President Reagan. Bush was to see the casket Thursday evening when he returns to Washington. Among the agreements announced on the concluding day of the summit, the G-8: - Approved a U.S. proposal to train and where necessary provide equipment for 75,000 new peacekeepers to provide the world with a more rapid response to crises in Africa and elsewhere. - Agreed to extend for another two years a popular debt-relief program for the world's poorest nations that had been scheduled to go out of existence at the end of this year. The G-8 countries also agreed to provide for bigger amounts of debt forgiveness. - Directed their finance ministers to pursue an agreement in the Paris Club of wealthy creditor countries for substantial relief of Iraq's massive $120 billion in foreign debt. However, the leaders reached no agreement at Sea Island on how much of that debt would be forgiven. - Backed a U.S. proposal to accelerate development of an HIV vaccine through better coordination of global efforts. The United States pledged $15 million to launch the effort.
Given your seeming inability to analyze information, that is not surprising. For example, in your last post, you hinted that the Germans and French support Bush over Kerry, highlighting the passage: You seem to take Bush's word over everything, believing that the US and France have excellent relations, despite the venom with which this administration has attacked France in the past year along with the rhetoric coming from French officials. I would think that there is somewhere between little and no chance that French officials would prefer to have Bush in the White House over Kerry. The French certainly can't SAY that, especially in a public forum, but I would bet just about anything that the French are still just as pi$$ed at Bush as they were a year ago. Not that any of that really matters, especially to members of this administration.
I think the point of posting the article is to portray democrats as hypocritical...not to highlight the nature of Putin's views. Edit: by the way, Happy Birthday, andymoon! I checked the calendar to see who else shared my birthday.
Even if US and France have excellent relations, how is that related to support Bush? I would not expect you to equalize national interest with the support of a single person, or should I? The odd thing is, lots of countries in the world are admiring and trying hard to adopt US democracy, but at the meantime, many people in US are thinking or speaking in a way towards that some of the countries are trying to get rid of. Those buzzwords are so familiar, therefore scary. "Strong leadership", "unpatriotic", "either with us or against us", "liberation" etc. People who lived in a "communist" country before might have a sense of that.
Thanks, RM! And you're totally right. I just think at the present time, crying hypocrisy coud hurt Democrats worse.
Completely agreed. Got a question for ya, btw. RM95's Girl pulled out my senior yearbook the other day. In my neverending quest to put faces with the names here, wanna give me your initials? I understand if you don't want to, it's just out of curiousity.
Now before you go off an a no-blood-for-oil vamp, I want you to know something. Without oil, our economy, whether you like it or not, would grind to a halt. I know that protecting most of the world's oil supply is in our vital national interest. If anyone on the right says not (which they won't, they're lying.). Do you think we'd go through this whole Iraq war if there were no oil? Only if Clinton were still President. There is no vital interest for us in the Balkans, yet Clinton committed us to an action that did us no good.
bama -- did you really feel it was a mistake to help out in the Balkans?? to attempt to stop ethnic cleansing?? i think if we're going to go around trumpeting our moral right and our moral authority, those are the kinds of actions we have to take.
I just didn't think we should have done most of the heavy lifting on the issue. If NATO wanted to go in there with our help, we should have obliged. But we should have been just a small part of the forces, not the lion's share. But I stand by my statement, the Balkans is not in our vital national interest.
That's the bloody truth, glad you admit. What makes me sick is that there are still people painting angel face on themselves and claiming "liberating Iraq". But there are couple of things I would like to share with you, according to my knowledge or the information I got, without Iraqi Oil, the US economy will NOT stall as you claimed. US has enough reserve, and there are more than enough oil in Alaska. I don't think the idea of that "since oil is not reproducable, let's use up all yours, then we will touch ours" is not something you should be proud of. Besides, the idea that we have to rely on oil is just what those big oil company lobbist told you. All kinds of alternative technologies are available, and many of them are obsolete for more than 10 years. Why they didn't get enough fund or attention to implement? This is a good question. From all your other posts, I can see you probably a hard-working guy who's making a good life. Yes, you deserve your good life, but you don't need to diss poor people like you do. What gives you the right to label them as just lazy? How do you know? do you have any statistic to back you up? The claim that those people have children shouldn't have done that before they could make enough money is just beyond me. I am not sure how many janitors you have in your organization, but I would bet you have far more middel level management staff, who make far more than 20 bucks an hour. Trust me, if those organizations take 5% pay off management, they can pay a lot better to average Joes, and they can afford it for sure, and they will actually be ended up better. You know what, the simplest economy books will tell you that. Those super movie stars are getting 20 million for each movie, but if there is regulation like cap limit, they would still be happy to do a movie for 15 mil, and their janitors, and fry cooks can be paid much better. Everything exists is somewhat reasonable, but don't just assume that they are all right.
