[KS]RECON wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
[KS]RECON wrote:
me too ... George Bush is the 43rd and current President and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. He declared a global War on Terrorism and yes I absolutely support the Administration. YES!
Any particular reason why?
Thanks for asking ...
First of all, I just like Bush as a person. He seems to be a genuine Christian believer. That will tend to increase the likelihood that he values the same things I do, at least on fundamental issues. He also just seems like a nice person who understands the average person, not because he's ever been one in terms of finances, but because he's not a lifetime politician but someone who spent most of his life being concerned more about the kinds of things most non-politicians care about. I don't think he's stupid, though he's no intellectual and isn't interested in issues for their own sake. Sometimes that's refreshing, though.
Politics are supposed to be totally secular. If you have extreme religious types in power you end up with a situation like Iran. Religion has no place in politics. Morals, yes - Religion, no.
[KS]RECON wrote:
As for his views, I think I agree with him more than not, and often I'm agreeing with him more than I agree with other Republicans. He genuinely seems opposed to abortion. I don't think abortion is classifiable as murder, since that's a legal term, but I do think it's morally equivalent to murder in most cases, with some qualifications that aren't the usual ones. A recent post, I think, made some of those qualifications. Republicans tend to agree with me on this, and I think it's one of the most awful sins of our time. (Divorce is the other that comes to mind, but I'm not sure that's in the same category, since it doesn't involve killing or even physical violence but just psychological violence. I do think tighter laws on no-fault divorce would be a good thing, but I'm not sure how far I'd go with it.)
That's fair enough. Supporting him because he has a domestic policy that you approve of is great. I don't share your beliefs and am pro-abortion, if a woman wants to have an abortion that's her decision in my opinion. But if you're against it that's fine too, I can understand the arguments against it, but personally I believe that abortion is no different to contraception - it just depends where you draw the line.
[KS]RECON wrote:
On defense and terrorism issues, there's no doubt in my mind that I'd prefer him to any of the Democratic candidates, even with some of the worries raised against how he's done some things. I think the Iraq invasion can be defended within traditional just war theory, suitably modified in plausible ways for a terrorism WMD generation, and I think the evidence David Kay has found (which doesn't amount to no WMD being found but just no large quantities) is enough to justify self-defense, particularly given that the Clinton Administration agreed (and Clinton still does last I heard, which was some time in 2004). I'm more inclined to defend the humanitarian aid reasoning anyway, something more and more confirmed as a good reason as time has gone on, and the general problem with that approach had to do with legitimate authority, which I think can be explained given the U.N. incompetence and corruption before the war, at least among the nations relevant to giving the ok for this operation. The next highest authority level would be the individual nations willing to do what's necessary to enforce the resolution, which is exactly how Tony Blair defended it.
No usable WMDs were found. Nor was there ever any question of Saddam supplying terrorists. He hated and was hated by all fundamental Islamic groups because he was a secular dictator. Saddam actually did quite a good job of running Iraq, when he wasn't out murdering Kurds or oppressing dissidents.
The Iraq war was a silly mess that did not need to be fought. Unlike the war in Afghanistan, which legitimately fell under the banner of the war on terror. Afghanistan was necessary a) to show the world not to fuck with America and b) because they were openly harbouring terrorists (proper terrorists) in their country.
[KS]RECON wrote:
I hope that should clear up some of the reasons why I support Bush, not quite whole-heartedly but closer to that than simply a lesser-of-two-evils basis. Some of the main complaints about him from conservatives don't move me as much, because I tend to agree with him more than them on many of them. There are probably other issues that affect this that I'm not thinking of right now, but this probably shows which issues are more important to me at the moment of writing it, though that's also affected by which ones are being talked about more at the moment and are fresh in my memory.
Yup, it clears up a lot of things.
[KS]RECON wrote:
I didn't think to include this in my original reply, but I also think character is an issue. With some exceptions, I think the slate of Democratic candidates has been pretty poor in this area. Dean, Clark, and Kerry are probably the worst of the bunch. People have raised questions about Bush, but I think most of them had fairly easy responses, some were about things from before his surrender to Christ, and a few were unsubstantiated rumors with no more support than the adultery charges against Kerry. The ones that remain at best aren't clearly character issues or aren't clearly true, though there might be some evidence there. What remains is still better in terms of character than the primary opposition, and together with the other issues he comes out way ahead.]
It is true that the Democrat candidates weren't very good. Who cares if Kerry had some adultery charges, good for him. I don't like the phrase "surrender to Christ", it's scary.
Aren't you at all concerned about the economic issues, which should be at the heart of any Presidents agenda. Bush is not good at the economic side of things at all. That's what I'd really be worried about, all these wars are expensive and at the moment the US can't afford them.
