Skip navigation.

At a crossroads

from the burning-in-the-bosom dept.

This comes from an article published in the Daily Record (Ellensburg, Washington's paper) on Wed. Oct. 6, 2004 by Mathew Manweller—a Central Washington University political science professor.

In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high.

This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence.

Down the other lies a nation that is aware of it's past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history ...

The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from whom we are.

Professor Manweller is right. We stand at a crossroads in this election unlike any other in recent memory. From the start I've had a powerful feeling about this election. It feels far more important to me than any other I remember. We need to stay the course and reelect President Bush.

Read the whole article before it's taken offline. It's well worth your time.

Manweller

Manweller says if Bush loses:
"We will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big of a task for us."

-Reeks of foolish, foolish pride. Some things better darn well be too big for us.

-"demands of history", "legacy", "turn away from 'who we are'" this sounds like a lot of sanctimonious, inflated, platitudinous clap-trap.

No offence Mason, but I've got to say I think that that is a really dumb article.

Kerry/Beezlebub 2004?

a funny picture. someone has too much caffeine in their system if they're taking something like this seriously, but its funny

www.worldnetdaily.com

Being able to "take decisive

Being able to "take decisive actions" is only a virtue when the action is the right action. Leading the country into war based on fabricated "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction is hardly the correct coarse of action. Sure, I'm not a huge Kerry fan but it'll take some doing to be worse than the current administration. I know Sadaam was a madman, but unilaterally taking him out only reinforces the empirialistic image of America held by the rest of the world. More importantly, it weakened the legitimacy of the United Nations. There are some things you just can't do and then get reelected, Bush ol' boy.

FACT: 99% of Bush supporters still believe Sadaam Hussein was connected to the 9-11 attacks (he wasn't)

FACT: 80% of Bush supporters still believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (there weren't)

Sounds like most Bush supporters are ignoring all evidence just because they want to believe Bush. After all, he quotes scripture. So does Satan

"Facts" are flying, aren't they? :)

It is NOT a fact that 99% of Bush supporters believe that Saddam was directly connected to 9/11, but a significant percentage do - as shown in more than one poll.

Neither is it a fact that 80% of Bush supporters believe there were weapons of mass destruction. But, once again, there are many that do - as shown in polls. If 95% of Mason's do not, that really only shows he associates with an exceptionally enlightened group of Bush-supporters. (Which one should expect at BYU. :) )

Finally, it is obvious to all (Liberals and Conservatives) that the U.S. did not unilaterally invade Iraq. There is no debate on this fact. But "unilateral" happens to be the best word people can come up with to describe a "non-multi-lateral war" - a war which the international community authorizes and participates in widely. Sometimes the language fails us, but the meaning is clear. In such cases, debating the semantics of the word is not really productive I believe.

Bottom Line: While I am sympathetic to what "Someone without a login" argues, I think he needs to take greater pains to be accurate.

One more thing - I couldn't disagree more with Mason's condemnation of the UN. Like the United States, the United Nations has its faults, but its heart is in the right place, and it is a net force for good in the world. But I guess that's a subject for another day.

Not quite yet

i like the way that sounds, but i'm afraid that it hasn't quite happened yet:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/iraq.polandtroops/

it's definitely an appeal to the emotions but ...

No offense taken, but I think he makes a very good point about a Bush defeat effectively castrating future presidents ... turning us into another willy-nilly like some of our peers from the UN who are unable to take decisive action in situations similar to ours.

FACT: The invasion was hardly

FACT: The invasion was hardly unilateral ... and nither is the current occupation. And some random percentage of liberals--say ... 92%--continually ignore this fact. (See last month's issue of Scientific Proof Magazine.)

Now, about the UN: Our country needs to remain free of their control, so I'm glad the legitimacy of the UN has been "undermined". If I remember correctly, Ezra Taft Benson mentioned on multiple occasions that our nation should avoid becoming subject to any outside entity, particularly the UN--something to do with the founding fathers, the consitution, etc ... I'll try to look that up. It's pretty interesting. I'd actually like to read it again myself.

One more thing ... you need to qualify your statements. There were WMDs in Iraq at some point. And it would be nice if you linked to an actual report to back up your figures.

FACT: You are an idiot

It has been made abundantly clear in recent months that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

FACT: 95% of all of my friends are going to vote for Bush, and none of them believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq anymore.

I, or nobody that I know have EVER believed that Saddam was connected to 9/11. I can see that if you read into some random comments made by administration officials that it could appear that they were saying that, but in reality they never have. There are countless statements made where Saddam Hussein was linked to Al-Qaeda, and if in your piss-ant sized mind that leads to a connection to 9/11 then...

FACT: 99% of all Americans believe that John Kerry and John Edwards are gay. Source

Mason handles the unilateral thing pretty good, I'll just add that you are about as stupid as Kerry, say that there was no coalition going into Iraq. There was Britan, Australia, Spain, Poland, and about 30 other countries. Kerry tried to use this argument during the debates.

For the record, I have made several posts that are critical of Bush littered around the site here. I'm not ignoring any evidence, there quite simply isn't a better man for the job than Bush. Kerry is a fool who will take us back to the pre 9/11 days and we will all pay the consequences of that when it does happen.

Weakening the legitimacy of the United Nations... oh no. The world as we know it is over. Do us all a favor and move to france.

How is it that nobody can understand...

This is a multilateral effort... 4 nations have troops in Iraq right now - US, UK, Poland, Australia. I think I might be missing one, I'll have to check.

Another 30 nations are backing the effort financially. The fact that Russia, Germany and France haven't signed on doesn't make this a non-multi-lateral effort. If I remember correctly, 54 nations signed onto the inital war against Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait, so we are missing less than 50% of the backing we had the last time around. France, Germany and Russia not being there seems to be the biggest thing anybody can point out as to why this was a bad idea. France and Germany are strong backers of the Kyoto treaty. France and Germany allow terrorists to hide out in their nations. France and Germany need to get a clue. It's not the other way around.

minor point

Jake, i'm not sure if you were intending to state it the way you did, but I'm sure there are a number of people who would do a better job than Bush ... just not anyone who's in the running.

no more poland

a few days after bush repeatedly reminded kerry of poland, they pulled out of iraq.