Welcome to NESR! Most features of this site require registration, including replying to threads, sending private messages, starting new threads, and uploading files. Click here to register.

Results 1 to 3 of 3

The Case for Bush: Ken Bucchi gives commentary from the right

  1. #1
    IWOK Prez. bigred875's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Manvile, RI
    Posts
    8,115

    The Case for Bush: Ken Bucchi gives commentary from the right


    This guy..Ken Bucchi is my uncles best friend..they went to Bellingham HS together... He used to be in the CIA, Air Force and was a private investigator for awhile...not sure what he is doing now...but he is a really cool guy..he has the BEST stories....

    http://www.encorepub.com/feature%207-a.html

    The Case for Bush: Ken Bucchi gives commentary from the right

    I believe that the best way to lay out the case for President Bush is to simply delineate his comments and actions as unaffectedly as possible, especially those made post 9-11.
    Almost immediately following the war in Afghanistan, President Bush proclaimed, “If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community’s already existing orders, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act.” Unlike Senator Kerry’s recent remarks, President Bush has remained clear on his position not to allow the United States to be held hostage to international caprice.

    “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...” Here again, President Bush was as straightforward and unambiguous as he could be. There should have been no doubt in anyone’s mind what Bush intended to do lest Saddam conformed to international pressure.

    “Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that (on terror)...” President Bush has never wavered on his belief that terror and Saddam’s Iraq were inextricably linked.

    On the domestic front, President Bush, when speaking about a particular multi-billion-dollar industry, stated: “To spur competition, companies should be forced to compete.” In this, he included the need for foreign insertion in order to bring costs down to their lowest prices possible, which would ultimately benefit most Americans, even if that meant certain jobs would go abroad. Not unlike the overseas automobile boon of the 1980’s, significant decreases in car prices, although temporarily leading to lost jobs here in America, ultimately benefited all Americans by lowering prices and increasing quality and safety. President Reagan realized that the automobile industry’s primary mission was not to create and sustain jobs, but to turn a profit and produce the best cars possible for all Americans. As is the nature of Capitalism, if a company turns a substantial profit, the natural byproduct is increased jobs.

    On lower taxes and Democrat accusations that the rich don’t pay enough of them, the following reasoning applies: Texas residents are given a limited choice each year on how much to pay in income taxes. The State’s top rate was 5.8% before being lowered to 5.3%. Since 2001 residents have been able to choose between the old rate and the lower one. Bush chose the lower rate of 5.3% so as not to be labeled a hypocrite.

    Bush has used legitimate loopholes to enjoy an effective tax rate of 14.76 %, which is why he has consistently fought against a 30% or more effective tax rate for people whose net worth is a tiny fraction of one per cent of his own fortune, or $200,000 annum.

    Now, given what you know about the war in Iraq and our present economic circumstances, does not all of the aforementioned seem reasonable? *Would you not vote for a candidate who has been this consistent, this steadfast in his mission? No, not yet? Well, I believe you will feel differently once you’ve read the rest.

    Prior to 9-11-01, America was hit by Muslim terrorists approximately 25 times dating back to the mid-80’s. Since 9-11 there hasn’t been a single terrorist attack in the United States. That has resulted, in large part, from the war in Iraq, which has lured these would-be terrorists into battling our highly trained soldiers in Iraq rather than our civilians here at home. It has also stemmed from the creation of the Bureau of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. In Senator Kerry’s 20 years of congressional experience, he hasn’t put together a single piece of legislation that could even remotely rival any of these actions the President spearheaded in a single year.

    Kerry’s latest position on the war in Iraq is that we should not have gone in but, now that we’re there, we cannot leave until we’ve returned some semblance of stability to the region. The logical progression of this reasoning is that the United States should have left Saddam in office and sought legitimate access to his purported arsenal vis-a-vis UN inspections. Given that we have since gone into Iraq, destroyed all of the facilities that could have feasibly produced WMD and have reasonably concluded that no WMD exists there, we can logically extrapolate that, according to Kerry, if we return Saddam to power in Iraq, we will be much better off than we presently are. After all, isn’t that precisely where we’d be had we taken the position that Kerry now insists he has been so consistent in explaining all along? Funny how no liberals could clearly elucidate Kerry’s position prior to the debates, where the Senator told us what he had allegedly been saying right along—but now every liberal I know seems to have his position down cold—curious. When I remind these folks that Kerry voted against the first Iraq war in 1991, which ousted Saddam’s army from Kuwait, they suggest that there were probably mitigating circumstances that could have readily explained Kerry’s position — sure, and if being President merely required delivering the occasional cogent argument behind a podium, Kerry would be my choice, hands down. Still not convinced?

    Then please return to the asterisks (*) mark above where I first asked if you would vote for President Bush based on the preceding information (First seven paragraphs) about his position on Iraq, the economy and taxes. I erred; what I meant to say is that all of those quotes and actions are attributable to Senator Kerry. If you found yourself squirming with discomfort at the mere notion that someone who advocates a 30% tax rate for people earning more than $200,000 would opt for a 5.3% rate when he should have, in good conscious, elected to pay 5.8%, then you are not alone. But here’s the real gut-check question for you Democrats: when I asked if you could vote for a person who believed and acted in a manner as described above (First seven paragraphs), what was your response? If even a single Democrat reading this article said: “Yeah, that’s my man,” I would not only be flabbergasted, I’d be extremely dubious. But if your genuine, guttural response means absolutely nothing to you, then why are you even reading this, except to possibly gather fodder for your “I hate Bush” diatribes? While it was Kerry who slithered out of his social responsibility to pay his fair share in taxes, President Bush earned one-tenth of what Kerry earned and paid twice the percentage in overall taxes, or 30%. Of course Kerry’s for higher taxes, because his six-figure hired gun will see to it that he doesn’t pay a dime over 12%.

    One of Senator Kerry’s persistent accusations is that Bush allows jobs to be outsourced abroad. What exactly does Senator Kerry call it when he advocates opening the floodgates on prescription medications from Canada? Or don’t those jobs count? Bush inherited a recession that was almost immediately exacerbated by a terrorist attack, which had both an adverse psychological and tangible impact on our already tumbling economy. One tax cut later, however, and our waning economy was on the road to recovery. Twenty percent of our population bares a full 80% of this country’s tax burden, so it suffices to say that a slight relief of that encumbrance benefited this sector of the population in a reciprocal manner, leading to the disingenuous charge that the rich were most benefited by the tax cut.

    A common theme that seems to resonate with Democrats is that too many people opposed the war from the outset for the President to have even considered forging ahead with war. According to Knight Ridder Newspapers, on January 12, 2003, “more than 60 percent of those surveyed would support an eventual war if it were the only way to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein or end the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.” Note that the majority of Americans supported a war in Iraq even if the sole purpose was to topple Saddam Hussein. Compare this to another period in American history where 38% of Americans opposed the Revolutionary War. The number of citizens for and against war was essentially the same as today. Unlike the Revolutionary War, however, our citizenry did not second-guess their collective decision when the going got tough, as many Democrats like Senator Kerry are doing today.

    Another common theme echoing throughout the liberal press, a.k.a. “mainstream media,” is that the country is very divided under this Administration. In fact, Senator Kerry recently said that he couldn’t think of a more divided election in recent memory. Really? If my “recent memory” serves me correctly, we were far more divided when Kennedy defeated Nixon — a point-two-percent (.2%) difference in the popular vote, to be exact. That election didn’t turn out too bad for America, did it? In another “recent” example, Carter defeated Ford by a mere 2.1%. Just how short is Kerry’s memory, exactly?

    Finally, the PLO’s Yasser Arafat recently made a public declaration that he favored a Kerry administration to a Bush one, suggesting that Kerry would bring a number of Clinton staffers onboard whom the PLO preferred to work with. Not surprisingly, the Israeli people favor a Bush Administration. At a news conference following a regional summit in the Tajik (Tajikistan) capital, Dushanbe, Russian President and liberal champion, Vladimir Putin said, “International terrorism has as its goal to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term. If they achieve that goal, then that will give international terrorism a new impulse and extra power.” Irrespective of how you feel about either candidate’s social, economic, or foreign affairs platforms, aren’t we far better served by a President not favored by the terrorists seeking to destroy us? Or is your wallet or your health care or your freedom to legally marry your “partner” more important to you than your freedom to breathe air?.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by ThisBitch View Post
    From my experience, its the natural red heads (aka gingers) that have no soul--- I mean are crazy.

  2. #2
    the phear hohum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Everett, MA
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,274

    The Case for Bush: Ken Bucchi gives commentary from the right

    I wish I had enough time to respond to this one. Certainly very articulate, and makes good arguments along with some pure rhetoric, some of which I agree with and other of which I completely disagree with (obviously). Some of his arguments don't pass the laugh test.

    The bit about the first seven paragraphs, I actually immediately picked out the quotes were attributable to Kerry (esp the stuff about the tax rate, hey I live in MA, its pretty obvious the tax rate numbers he's quoting) so I knew "the game was afoot".

    Is my guy a hypocrite? Yup, but I see all politicians as hypocrites, since they all act against their words when it serves their needs (even GWB) and I don't fault them that. Thats all part of the game of politics.

    A good deal of the last section paragraph is just pure fear mongering, and I think you'd see that too if you looked at that paragraph in exclusion.
    1) Since when do we think the Russians know how and what the terrorists are thinking? They've dealt ever so effectively with terrorism in their own country (see Chechenya), and Mr. Putin is blatantly sucking up to the current administration since it has been kind to him about looking the other way while he tries to consolidate czar like power in Russia.
    2) Palestinian terrorists != Al Qaeda. While Al Qaeda is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, the reality of the situation is that the two are not directly cooperating groups. They have their own turf wars and squabbles, mainly because the Palestinian Terrorists see Israel as the object of their hatred (realizing that its an Israel supported and propped up by the US and its military might), where as AQ sees the US as the object of its hatred, for supporting Israel, for having bases in their holy land, etc., etc.
    3) Breathe air vs health care, etc... come on, rhetoric in the extreme.

    Still, good reading, well done. I like the argument's style, I like the way he chose to use prose to convey the point. Why isn't he in politics

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    But when we ride very fast motorcycles, we ride with immaculate sanity. We might abuse a substance here and there, but only when it's right. The final measure of any rider's skill is the inverse ratio of his preferred Traveling Speed to the number of bad scars on his body. It is that simple: If you ride fast and crash, you are a bad rider. If you go slow and crash, you are a bad rider. And if you are a bad rider, you should not ride motorcycles.


  3. #3
    IWOK Prez. bigred875's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Manvile, RI
    Posts
    8,115

    The Case for Bush: Ken Bucchi gives commentary from the right

    lol..actually I think that way be were he is headed. I haven't talked with Ken for about 10yrs. He lives in CA and has not been back to visit often....

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by ThisBitch View Post
    From my experience, its the natural red heads (aka gingers) that have no soul--- I mean are crazy.

Similar Threads

  1. Just In Case We Ever Get Attacked....
    By DaSarge in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-16-07, 12:48 AM
  2. JUST IN CASE NO ONE NOTICED
    By TLC_CBR in forum Rides & Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-16-05, 09:00 AM
  3. Schiavo case
    By bentbryan in forum Controversial Topics
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 04-02-05, 09:23 AM
  4. tips for splitting the case?
    By Matt K in forum Bike Maintenance
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-26-05, 08:57 PM
  5. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-06-04, 03:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •