Originally posted by bbarrone disagreement. I and many like me didn't vote for bush sr. ONLY because he walked away from the people of Iraq and allowed a truely terrible slaughter. It had nothing to do with the economy or anything else. he came on tv and said "i am pleased to announce that hostilities are concluded" and i turned to my wife and called him several terrible names and that was it. only his failure to "finish the job" cost him the election with clinton. I voted for the simpleton third party guy because of the moral corruption of both the main stream candidates. wasted my vote. but that's my right. hopefully, jr. will not repeat his fathers failure. this is my opinion, and means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Not everyone here subsribes to the 'love it or leave it' school of thought. You really ought not take too much from these polls, while a substantial number of people support military action, many others did not support the war prior to the attack and do so now merely because they feel they must 'support the troops'. This is very common, in almost all con ...[text shortened]... ntinue here the way they've been going for last couple years, the same fate may befall Bush Jr.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyFair enough. It was terrible to promise the Kurds that we would help their revolt, and then leave them to their own devices. For those who don't know, it was the Kurdish uprising we helped to foment that was put down with chemical weapons. But for the majority of people who supported Bush at the war's close and then voted against him, I think the status of the economy at the time was the deciding factor. Remember the catch phrase 'It's the economy, stupid'? Focusing on the economic weakness of the time was Clinton's strategy, and it was very successful.
one disagreement. I and many like me didn't vote for bush sr. ONLY because he walked away from the people of Iraq and allowed a truely terrible slaughter. It had nothing to do with the economy or anything else. he came on tv and said "i am pleased to announce that hostilities are concluded" and i turned to my wife and called him several terrible name ...[text shortened]... repeat his fathers failure. this is my opinion, and means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Originally posted by bbarrI will agree with you that the polls said it was the economy. i thought at the time that people really didn't have their priorities in order, but it is truly amazing how many people never asked me for my opinion. for me though, it was the desertion of principles; the same reason i can't support the un in any serious way. they walk away from tough issues... the several african genecidal wars to be more specific. i will never forgive carter for earning a nobel peace prize either. his one big chance to make a difference was in facing up to pol pot and edi amin. he did nothing. genecide. peace prize? don't get that one.
Fair enough. It was terrible to promise the Kurds that we would help their revolt, and then leave them to their own devices. For those who don't know, it was the Kurdish uprising we helped to foment that was put down with chemical weapons. But for the majority of people who supported Bush at the war's close and then voted against him, I think the status o ...[text shortened]... sing on the economic weakness of the time was Clinton's strategy, and it was very successful.