Awkwardly enough I agree with much of what Phoenix said, with certain exceptions

The WMD issue comes back again and again. Yes Clinton thought he had them but the UN was far less sure on that, there were many attempts at dropping sanctions on Iraq in the 90s, as far as I know all of them were Vetoed either by the US or the UK.
I'm someone who believes in the morality of ultimate ends in politics, that the intentions in which you go into a situation will determine the outcome. That being said, If Bush came out in 2002 and said "We want to go to war in Iraq to rescue the Iraqi people" right off the bat, he would have gotten my vote of confidence and its far more likely that he would have gotten the support of a great deal more people in the world for his campaign. He did not, all this slime about WMD, contracts, spoils of war and the corruption of the Iraqi governing council have more or less attested to that. This was not a war for the Iraqi people but rather a war FOR Iraq, the landmass,, the strategic location and the goodies under the soil. That being said, leaving now would only damage the reputation of the US further, not only in credibility, but more in percieved military capability.

The tax cut on the other hand was not a good idea. I have a far right economics professor who told me this "I hate to admit it but Clinton revitalized the economy by raising taxes during the early 90s, the republican's blind approach to cutting taxes irregardless of economic considerations is what is causing the problem". The idea is that lowering taxes does increase spending but it cannot increase spending at the expense of a depreciating currency. Since the US is an import economy, it relies heavily on its strong dollar to purchase goods from abroad.  By cutting taxes you do put more money into the pockets of people but by depreciating the dollar at the same time, the real worth of the money goes down, thus in reality the amount cannot make up for the worth of the currency.

Bushes relection chances depend at this point on the centrist vote, or the swing vote. The undecided centrist make up a large portion of the public, granted most of them do not vote. The swing vote comes down to if he can convince people who would normally vote democrat, to vote republican, which in this polarized political climate will not happen.

In the end they are both politicians, so yes, Kerry might not be any better than Bush, but what American needs currently is at least a symbolic break from what internationally has been seen as a dismal and deteriorating administration.

Keeper, the Iraq-Iran war started over a territorial dispute between the two countries. The CIA and NSA funded the Iraqi government (Sadam Hussein) against the Iranians (Ayatolia Homeni) officially to stop the spread of fundamentalism in the middle east but unofficially most likely due to the 1976 Embassy hostage takings in Iran, which ended in the public embarassment of the then President Jimmy Carter and the American intelligence community as a whole.

I thought those guys were only used in Panama, or am I mistaken?

Thank you Woodsman, learn something new everyday, or would it be considered learning something old [/end rambling]
Oh, well Strategic Studies isn't really my bag, I'm more of a International Relations, Political Economy person, but thank you for the knowledge

id like to state that not all conservatives use a z where an s should be.

I'm wondering how my thread got hijacked from the election to marriage and religion in the government.

STAY ON TOPIC

theres an passionet conspiracy theorist.