Kevin Gowen wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >> In a poll asking, "If a presidential election were held today, who
> >> would you vote for: George W. Bush or Bill Clinton?", the results
> >> released today put Bush ahead 53-32.
> >
> > So what?
>
> ISTR you speculating about how Bush II would do against Clinton.

In 2000, like how even the also ran, second best, unproved Al Gore got more
votes.

> Perhaps I am remembering incorrectly.
>
> > The Bush Administration has them well brainwashed.
>
> Of course it does. Bill Clinton looks cute in a suit. I have to go drive my
> kids to soccer practice now.
>
> > And if
> > the US or the world ever become satisfyingly safe,
>
> Is such a thing possible?

It's what Bush is spending future generations' money for, as well as attacking
other nations for. Or was that a lie, too? It could be that Bush will spend
just enough money on security, or stir up just enough trouble around the
world, as before the UN in Iraq, or in sound bites on the news, for the US
always to be viewed with distrust and suspicion by even traditional post WWII
allies.

> > then people will
> > remember the economy and deficit, or foreign relations again.
>
> That's all that gets talked about now.

No, they are brainwashed into thinking that incarcerating people for being
Middle Eastern or Muslim for no good reason, or attacking other nations before
they supposedly attack the US, are more important. After Iraq, Americans
responded to survey saying they did not want further military action. But if
it is in the Administration's agenda to fight a war against Iran, Syria, or
North Korea, then they will find a way to do it, and justify it as surely as
the war against Iraq was justified.