Why President Bush should have his second term? The arguments can be drawn from Gas price, Job creation and War in Iraq scientifically. If it is scientific, it must observe the same result, test in the same experiment and constitute a mathematical truth. For example, we all know that goose is white because we see the same color in anywhere. We know that water is H2O because the experiment result is the same. Needless to say, 2+2 = 4. We now apply these criteria to my arguments.
War in Iraq. Is America safer? The answer is YES because since 9/11 2001 till today (more than 1095 days) at this minute the homeland is secured and nothing has ever happened. We don't talk about world or globe safer because it is out of our hands. 9/11 commission says'American is not safe!' It means future and beyond this minute because we still face the threat of terrorists. If you want to extend this safer minute by minute until full four years to come, you should vote him for the second term. It is not fair to ignore this observable and mathematical fact.
Should we have war in Iraq? I did not hear anyone who complained when President Bush announced that the major combat was over. John Kerry even thought that Iraq was no match to us. Now, he wants to get European allies to help. This is just wishful thinking. There is not a thread truth to prove that he can do it. What he said is just a possibility, not a probability. Possibility means 50 to 50 choices. It could be right or wrong. Probability means percentages. President Bush got both from British and Russian intelligence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. His decision on war with Iraq is 20% percent of probability. If you have a ten-room house and two rooms are threats of being invasions. It required an immediate reaction and not a minute too soon.
What went wrong is not unilateral action by American force alone. Rather, occupied too long. If we pulled out the troops right after we liberated Iraq. Bush would be the best President we ever had. Now, it is not easy to pull the force out because we did not act alone, we have to take care of those collation forces leaded by us. John's great idea to involve more and bigger powers and to share decision making with them could have them to support us and to reduce the causality. This is very naive thinking. If you want them (e.g., French, German or Russian) to scarify lives, their demands may be too big for you to accept. Do not believe that NATO does not want to send troops to Iraq because President Bush intimidated them. If you give them enough benefits, I guarantee they will come. The question is 'Can we afford to?'
The truth of the matter is France and Russia that opposed the invasion of Iraq because French has a contract to develop oil production in Iraq and Iraqi government owes a lot of debt to France. When the war was between Iraq and Iran, Russian is on Iraqi sides and we are on Iranian sides. This really has nothing to do with President's alienation or not. John should have heard 'Business is business.' President of United States must have the best of interest of his people in mind. President Bush did just that.
America is the only super power in the world. We can conquer any one of six evil countries that President Bush had mentioned in a month or so. The unilateral invasion of Iraq is a living proof. However, the troops those are good enough to attack enemies and protect our homeland do not necessarily mean they are also good enough to occupy the big land especially when the politics is involved, we have to win enemies heart and mind. All the trouble came out. Increasing the size of troops or getting help from allies is not the answer. The question we should ask ourselves 'Do we want the land from them?' If we don't, we should pack up and leave. The internal conflicts of Iraq have nothing to do with us. If we don't like what we see, we demand them to make a change. If they don't, we can always go back. The world is supposed to be safer because we usually face six enemy countries, now we only have four to go. Figure never lies.
Michael Moores who tried to make a buck twists the fact to make a film "Fahrenheit 9/11". It has been embraced by the antiwar movement. However, Richard Clark who blamed the President in handling the war with al Qaida is the one who proves there is no relationship between Bush senior and Saudi family. He is also the one who authorized the plane to let bin Laden's relatives to leave for Saudi Arabia. The most damaging scene is that President seems to think that gulf was more important than 911. This is why people who wore 'Defeat Bush Sign' because they felt that President Bush did not love them and took the job not seriously. In fact, if you saw his tear in the eyes and told Americans that he had to wait for . . . What he waited for was military hardware to move to Middle East Region. He wanted to retaliate immediately but his soldiers and weapons were not there yet. News woman Pat Harvey of Chanel 9 has said, 'President is very sentimental.' This scene should repeat on TV as many times as possible.
A mother protests against the President because her son died in the war. I forgive her what she is doing because she is a mother but I will not forgive her what she is doing because she is a citizen. She made a trip to Washington, D.C. to find out what's wrong. Her conclusion was that the man in the White House must be changed. This really is a very simple conclusion. For one thing, not all mothers protested against war. For another, she does not represent all the mothers either. People think that war with Iraq is not worth to fight because spent too much money and died so many soldiers and not a progress in sight. However, from the theory of prevention, war with Iraq prevented further damage in the homeland because it turned enemy's focus on different area. Otherwise, we may have 9/11 in Los Angels, Boston, Las Vegas, so on. Civilian causality may have proceeded what we have now in Iraq. Believe it or not, this is 100% percent truth. Michael Moore and other stars just like to pursuit fashion. Anti-Bush second term is a fashionable thing to do. What do they know about the war? John said he would increase the troops if he is asked for. He cannot pull troops back either. Change the President is not the solution.
The report of 911 commission is inconclusive as far as the source is concerned. It did not exhaust all the possible cases. They did not read Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger's removal of classified documents from the National Archives and they just found that Iran involved giving paths of 9/11 Therefore, the conclusion that there was no relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam has not been proved definitely. What if the weapons of mass destruction are found after the election? Thus, we need to be very careful about it and should not make any judgement now. All we can rely on is the record that President Bush had done. If we go to war because we have to, then we will have many 9/11s, because we cannot have a war to prevent from bigger damages even if we want to.
We have not found weapons of mass destruction because our military cannot move around freely. However, we do see nuclear weapons in Libya. Col. Moammar Gaddafi decided to turn them in. This is a great achievement of President Bush on war with Iraq because we did not lose a single troop's life and spent no money. This is one stone for two birds. If you think that Col. Gaddafi is easy, you are deadly wrong. This result alone is worth to go to war with Iraq.
Do not think if we did not go to war with Iraq, those enemies will leave us alone. Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Libya, and Iran may form allies to fight against US in order to save bin Laden. President Bush's quick invasion of Iraq broke the formation, made Iran and Sudan not harbor bin Laden, and made Col. Gaddafi turned in nuclear weapons. What a great job he has done!
President Bush will bring the troops back in the very near future because middle level of al Qaeda operatives have been established and prepared to attack US homeland. The function of turning enemies' focus on the different area is lost. The troops will go after bin Laden and make al Qaeda cells to save bin Laden. Thus, homeland will be safe. This time President will lead us to a fast, precise, unconditional and complete victory, and give the relatives who died in two towers a good answer.
Job creation. The nation's economy is growing smartly, wages have begun to rise, and employers have added more than 1.4 million jobs to their payrolls in the past nine months. Yet voters continue to give President Bush poor ratings on his handling of the economy. Why? I will explain this phenomenon in terms of birds' eye view versus worms' eye view
Worms eye view is a private focus on a particular thing or event. So, they could not see the creation of jobs because those jobs do not relate his/her personal experience. This is just like to visit a doctor for headache and doctor fixed your foot instead. However, if we want to know the complete picture of the job problems, we have to use birds' eye view. That is, a composite view to generalize the results. Therefore, we must start with birds eye view. Otherwise, we cannot find the symptom of the problem. But to deal with the problem we have to start with worms eye view. Although Bush did not solve the problem of dairy farms directly, but he did create the new jobs instead. If you drop the personal feeling, you will see those new jobs that are good for you.
On the other hand, jobs list in John's American Jobs Plan are fixing high way, school yards and the governmental jobs. These jobs are for semi-skillful labors and they don't need to be retrained. All they have to do is to go to a new place to work without any extra efforts. However, these jobs are either temporary because the jobs can be completed sooner or later or those jobs made a big government. Bush provides you with permanent jobs, It may be needed to be retrained for new jobs but it is better than before. It is not that the old dog cannot learn the new tricks. Rather, they are not willing to make any change. If you discover the job availability in the present job market in terms of birds eye view, you will never insist on your private focus in terms of worms' eye view.
President Bush not only can produce permanent jobs but also create a new town. For example, if we fix the highways of entire country, it will cause the shortage of cement, private investors will see the profit to build a factory that produces cement. New factory needs hire more workers, workers need buy groceries, private investors build new stores. One thing lead another, the new town is built up. the work of the dept. of commerce is to see there is a need to help to facilitate the process. For example, if private investors may hastate to build cement factories, the government will make one to get it starts. If one tried to fix school yards and provided government jobs at the same time, then no impact of shortage will be produced. They are just some temporary jobs. Fixing highways is just a lead. The result is a new town. By the way, people only remembered President Reagan's tax cut . I would say his massive military build-up in peace time lead to the recovery of American economics.
Furthermore, because the war in Iraq has caused so many shortages, he will build up new factories, hire more workers and these new workers get higher pay because the factories make money, Most of all, these kinds of jobs are liked by the semi-skillful workers. For example, build lumber factories, Ask the dept. of commerce to find out where the shortages are? And lure the private investor to put money in or build a company to sell stocks in the market. The important part is stopping the imports and creates factories and hire more workers instead. We are not only increasing the revenue but also reduce the high price of goods. Everybody enjoys and is able to afford the luxury he wants.
It comes around and goes around. John Kerry criticizes that person has to have two or three jobs in order to make a living under Bush administration. This exactly sounded like Jack Camp, Bob Doe's running mate, blamed the Clinton administration on economical situations. John Kerry promised you to create 26 million high pay jobs. Saying is easier than done. I could tell you a bird in hand is better than many birds in the sky. Edwards told you 'Hope is on the way.' Kerry told 'Help is on the way.' How long does it take for 'help' to get here? Or just hope for it.
Job loss prevention is as important as job creation. John did not make clear how he stops American companies moving to overseas? He only said something about tax. President Bush produced many ways to solve this problem. One particular method is collecting the extra money in currency exchange rates. For example, Levi moved to China to make jeans because they paid 9 dollars per hour in US, but only paid 25 cents per hour in China. Then they will sell goods back to US to make a huge profit. This is not fair to the local factories because they take advantage not only the low wages but also currency exchange rates. One US dollar equals to eleven Chinese Renminbi. If one pair of jean cost 9 dollars to make in US, but only cost 2 Chinese Renminbi to make. As far as the jean is concerned, 9 = 2. However, 9 US dollars equals 99 Chinese Renminbi. 99 Chinese Renminbi can make 49 and half pairs of jeans. The 48 and half pairs belong to currency exchange. So, this exchange rate advantage must be back to government. This means no matter where you make jeans, but the profit is similar. Therefore, no American company will move to overseas unless they cannot find in US. President Bush wants people of Ohio to know they will keep their jobs and even get the better pay.
Gas price. This topic seems the least important. However, It comes out in a poll every time. As a matter of fact, war in Iraq and job loss are caused by a single entity raising the price of crude oil. Because of the higher energy price, American products made with higher energy cost cannot compete in a free market, thus, their employees lost their jobs. Because of higher price of crude oil, the rich Arab warlords are able to finance terrorists. This is how we got in war with Iraq in the first place.
Evident that gas price leaded inflation can be proved in terms of two oil crises and the double digits' inflation of Cater administration.. For example, The oil price per barrel in 1970 was $2.55, 71' was $3.45, 73' was $11.65, 76' was $12.37, 79' was $14.56, but Saudi was $24.00, 80' was $28.00 but Saudi was $32.00, ended up to $38.00 per barrel at the Oct. of 1981. The first oil crisis was 1973 oil embargo, and the second oil crisis was 1979 Iranian revolution. And the double digits' inflation of Cater administration was in 1980-81. The price of crud oil was wandering around between 1973 prices and 1980 prices since then. It may have a short term high like $41.00. But American can no longer go back it's good old days. Therefore, the standard of living went down badly. (Reference: World oil market and oil price Chronologies: 1970-2003. "http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chron.html" )
John Kerry proposes to raise minimum wages to meet the standard of living. However, high labor cost is the reason why companies moved to overseas and people lost their jobs. So, raising the minimum pay rate is not a proper solution, rather a problem. What we need to do is lower the oil price. When oil price is down, everything that produced with low energy cost will also go down. Thus, America goods can compete in the free market again. Reducing the energy cost can survive the old industries, reborn the disappearing companies and increase the employments. Therefore, the fatal issue and the primary goal is how to increase the oil production. President Bush proposed to produce oil in Alaska. John Kerry opposed it due to environmental protection. If President's proposal was past three years ago, you will not suffer the high price at the pump today.
People trained deductive logic in US collages and seldom touched inductive logic. Therefore, the argument between the drink of clean water and the use of oil cannot get a correct answer 'Who is right?' It is very easy in inductive logic. That is, if you have two good things, you choose the better one. If you have two bad things, you choose the less bad one. When people cannot go to work because lack of gasoline, who hell in the right mind thinks of clean water? Which, oil or water, is more important for the time being? We not only pay the price whatever OPEC want. We also quietly wait for their decision when we should have. Is this an enough reason to get oil from Alaska? Needless to say, most of the deficits were from oil trade.
In American history whenever the gas price goes up, everything else will be leaded to go up too. Stabilized gas price is a must. Lower the gas price is essential. Think of it. The price of gasoline was 57 cents per gallon in 70'. If Americans get paid 9 dollar per hour but their spending is still in the 70's level. How much money will they save? The average price per gallon now is about $1.80. And this is three times higher than 70'. Then American probably only need 1/3 of the income to cover everything and 2/3 of the income can be spent on whatever he or she please. 1/3 is three dollars, we only pay 1/6 of three dollars for gas and the rest is for something else. And we also have six dollars to spent as we please. If you count 40 hours a week and 52 weeks a year in contrast with the standard of living in 70', everybody is a rich man. President Bush wants you to control your own money anyway you please. And this is for minimum wage receiver only. You make more than minimum wages.
People under Bush administration do not need 'Help is on the way.' Except those people who has either emotional or physical defects cannot work such as widows, widowers, orphans, single parents and disable persons. The majority of people have plenty of money to spend. People don't need tax cut, health care, education aid, or economical help of any kind. If you want to buy a spot car? Go ahead. If you want to go to college? Go ahead. If you want to get a cruise in Europe? Go ahead. Whatever you want? Go ahead. When alternate fuel is found and produced, the gas price will be down dramatically. No one who has money finances the terrorists anymore. The world is in real peace. However, the develop of alternate fuel takes a lot of times. We need the gas right now. Drill in Alaska and other places are a must, can proceed to independent of foreign oil and lower the gas price. Who is more qualifying to explore the oil field than Bush-Cheney ticket? You know they are from oil family. And everybody can expect the obvious change in the second year of second term. Everything else, like Abortion, constitutes no urgent discussion at all.
Bush is THE man. In conclusion, Who is the man to lead us a complete victory? Bush is the man. Who is the man to protect the jobs of all Americans? Bush is the man. Who is the man to make Americans so rich? Bush is the man.
Click on Translator: choose language, just type in URL & click. You only type in once, it will translate the entire page. And page after page until all done. This page URL as follow.