I’d have to agree other posters here that it was over the top to shriek in horror in response to what more than half the voters ended up choosing. I can’t imagine shrieking so myself, but then I’m maybe a little more used to hearing reasonable, opposing points of view than you are. (Tip: That was condescension.)

First of all, the party was better than glamorous. It was a warm gathering of friends. And though you dismissed our hosts and everyone else as “workaday,” they are in fact successful writers, producers, designers and actors.

Secondly, you offered no more information than anyone else. Indeed, the crux of your argument was that you are really smart and lost the use of your finger to a racist cop some 30-odd years ago. I will take you on your (repeated) word that you are smart (though insulting the parents of your child’s friends on the internet seems plainly stupid). But neither that nor the finger you wave like a badge changes the facts. Whatever additional information you know, it does not alter the following:

– Bush portrayed a link between Iraq and Al Quaida in order to build US support for war when no such link existed.

– He alienated the US from the world by first rushing to war without a real alliance (and, yes, before inspectors had finished looking for the WMDs Bush has himself acknowledged were not there) and then precluding those outside his “alliance” from the rebuilding effort. He has even alienated career intelligence and diplomatic personnel, who have resigned in protest.

– He completely miscalculated every aspect of the war, including Iraqi resistance, human and financial costs, the complexity/plausibility of implementing a democracy in Iraq, and the length of time required to do any of it. And neither he nor anyone in his administration has taken any responsibility for these grave mistakes.

– His administration is made up of ideologues who are widely known (and reported by respected press such as the Washington Post) to refuse to subject their policies to the rigorous examination, such as white papers, considered standard by previous presidents.

– The combination of his war and domestic policies have turned a massive surplus into a massive deficit.

– Haliburton (whether they are one of four such companies in the world or not) continues to get non-competitive bids even when top army officials oppose it.

– He still doesn’t have a viable plan to “win the peace,” implement democracy and get us out.

Because we seem to agree on social issues (on which Bush is in full agreement with the radical religious right), I will not list these grievances here. But as a result of the above listed points, it is fair (even if all of my fingers work) to conclude that Bush has put the US at greater — not lesser — risk of terror. As I stated on Saturday, Kerry never impressed me as a good alternative; simply the only one available.

Oh, and for anyone out there who thinks voting for Kerry will somehow improve the perception of America worldwide, let this little ol’ Canajun disabuse you of that notion. America will be hated by envious and petty people around the world no matter whether it’s JFK or Dubya parked in the Oval Office. If you don’t trust me, read this and follow the links.

I disagree with GWB on gay marriage, trade protectionism (don’t get me started on BSE and softwood lumber!), budget deficits, and a whole host of other issues. And if I were American, I’d vote for him anyhow, because he’s dead right on the one issue where he can’t be wrong.

Please know that there are a few of us outside your borders who want a strong America as a positive influence in the world, and who know that GWB – warts and all – is the best choice to achieve that goal.

In particular I am impressed by the dissenters like mbro and pandaba. I disagree with their sentiments but they are certainly not moonbats and the site would be even better if there were more from the left wing who could also engage in (mostly) polite discourse. I have seen many other blogs but it has always been 99% one-sided discourse with the occasional troll who gets a bath and is then banned.

Your election from this distance feels eerily similar to ours with the MSM pushing a leftwing agenda but completely missing the popular sentiment of the masses who understand that this time around mere politicking just doesn’t cut it. This is not a rehearsal. It is the real deal.

The rule is: if we catch you fighting us, and you’re not wearing a uniform, we shoot you.

We don’t follow that rule. Lots of other countries do, but we don’t. It is, however, the rule as stated. It goes with the one about how using civilian installations for military purposes (like putting an anti-aircraft gun on top of a hospital) is a war crime.

(If you look into it, you’ll find that Saddam, the Serbs, and the North Vietnamese were fond of this one.)

In any case, though, you miss the other point about Guantanamo: in this context, internment is not punishment for a crime: it’s a humane way to remove combatants and irregular combatants from the battlefield instead of shooting them. As such, you keep them locked up until the war is over.

As we’ve already seen from Gitmo, if you release the irregular combatants, they tend to go back to fighting you.

I don’t think detaining the gitmo prisoners without charging them is right, but I don’t think releasing them at the behest of the ACLU is right either. It’s the lack of any rules that apply to them that is the problem; in fact, that’s what allowed the release to happen. We are going to see more and more combatants of this sort in the future, i.e., countryless, non-uniformed soldiers, and they are not the first countryless combatants the world has ever seen, either. Had we even proposed a set of rules that applied to them, even something very simple, we could at least claim in good faith that we were trying to codify the rules of the game.

I’ve heard the Lincoln-did-it-so-it’s-probably-okay argument, and I just don’t buy it. It’s an appeal to authority. I do admire Lincoln, but not everything he did was okay. Lip service at least ought to be paid to the rules, and if there aren’t any, we have to make them up.

Of course it’s necessary to keep these combatants when they can still go out and rejoin the war. But under what circumstances are we going to allow ourselves to keep them indefinitely? It had better be some extreme ones.

So I ask you: are you all going to spend the next 4 years grousing and poisoning the well, a la Michael Moore, if it isn’t your candidate?

The problem with Michael Moore is not that he represents the political opposition. It is that he is an extremist, lying demagogue who panders to the basest anti-American sentiment and bask in the ensuing applause. If there is an equivalent figure on the Right, I don’t know who it is, and that person would not be welcome here at Roger’s, if my observations serve me correctly.

It is possible to have meaningful political opposition, but Michael Moore ain’t it.

To answer your question, if Kerry were to be elected, I personally would oppose whatever moonbattery he came up with, but I would not resort to lying to do so.

For instance, I don’t know what Kerry’s current position on Iran is, but if he is elected and he proposes giving uranium to Iran (as his web site said), I will “grouse” about that, you betcha.

I too was in the entertainment industry in LA, for almost 20 years. 2 years ago I was at an awards dinner when several letters from dignitaries were read, one of which was the President. After the letter was read I clapped warmly, as we all had for each letter but the rest of the room was silent. Talk about crickets! Not a peep from anybody but me. The looks I got were indescribable but you all can imagine.

My now ex-business partner turned to the rest of our table and sheepishly said “We’re a 2 party company,” like I was a pedophile. Over the first few months of the war I lost 7 out of 10 of what I thought were best friends. We dissolved the business, I sold my house and very happy to be living in Phonix, where W has a very comfortable lead.

You said: “Bush has had to do a lot of harsh things, and make a lot of questionable decisions.”

We are at war and so far Bush has not had to face the level of harshness as a Truman, FDR or Lincoln. He has never had to suspend Habeas Corpus for American citizens. He has not had to intern Americans as a cover to protect the nation’s secrets. [See Michele Malkin] and of course he has never had to make decision on the order of magnitude of Harry Truman in 1945.

War is uncertain many questionable decisions will always be made. As an example provided in another thread. General Marshall made a tradeoff between shipping efficiency and quality of armor. Many American tankers died because of it. General Bradley ordered Patton to halt an arbitrary stop line at Falise and thereby allowing 50000 Germans to escape. They came back to haunt us in the Fall. General Eisenhower decided to let Montgomery try to grab the Arnhem bridge to bring the war to a close sooner. It was a disaster.

You also said: ” and I don’t mean invading Iraq, I mean sequestering those prisoners at gtmo;”

Some of these ACLU released prisoners have gone back home to commit more terrorist acts. Willie Horton on a grand scale. GITMO detainees are unlawful combatants who have very limited rights under the Geneva convention. In past wars they were legally subject to summary execution. So by historic standards they aren’t being treated harshly at all.

You go on to say: “he has not done his part to win Americans’ hearts and minds,”

We are at war. The Commander’s job is to win the war not the love of his men. General Patton was a first class SOB. But his seeming detachment masked a desire to make sure as many men would get home safely as possible. In the end he was the most beloved combat commander since Robert E. Lee. Only Eisenhower exceeded him popularity. Bush has won the hearts and minds of half of the nation. The other half is probably out of his reach. Just as Lincoln could never win over the South, Bush can never win over the socialists.

Finally, you said: “and that’s probably because he has been too certain of himself and his vision.”

He is in good company then. The same could and was said about Lincoln.

Leadership is not a popularity contest but in the end great leaders always achieve great popularity.