Bush's Lost Opportunity

[LoraJ]

And now that Saddam is gone the war on terror has been a success in that area of the world?

Are you not aware that it is worse?

 

[Nancy]

Originally posted by Rokkitsci
Here is my point.

This election is the most important election since the Civil War.

What is at stake here is our national identity, if not our very liberty.

The issues are crystal clear.

Anyone who has not made up their minds by now must not have been paying any attention for the past three years.

This election should not be about who can "sound" or "look" better in the few weeks before the election. This election should be about very baisic ideas that have played out on the public stage for the past three years.

For anyone to be "undecided" about which candidate is better for the future of the country at this point is shameful.

I apologize for the use of the word "stupid" - I should have stuck with just "ignorant." or perhaps "recklessly uninformed."

Either way, I do not like having the future of our nation in the hands of people who are so insulated from the real world that they are "undecided" about our very survival.

Anyone who has to wait until the last minute to make up their minds in THIS election should not - in my humble opinion - be allowed to vote. They have demonstrated that they don't have the interest to understand the situation. They are as likely to wake up the morning after the election with a totally different view of who is right.

Some things are larger than political spin - this is one of them.

I repeat - if you are undecided at this point - you have just not been paying attention.

NOT TRUE....I have been paying attention and reading and reading and watching and watching. My mind still says I don't want either man in there...so I am still undecided. I feel I have to exercise my right to vote, but I don't feel either is competent of doing the job. So what does that make me? Stupid, ignorant, recklessly uniformed...or some other insulting name???? I am trying very hard to justify to myself voting to put either man in office and feeling confident that he will do a good job for the whole country.

But since we are not one of those states that are up in the air we don't get any campaigning here and I feel like my vote won't mean anything one way or the other so maybe I just won't bother. That way my ignorance and stupidity won't make a difference.

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by shortbun
As to Kerry's presidency, it will take
the first four years to undo all the damage W has done
to this country, it's people and the world in general.
And-to your quest for Kerry to explain his stance on war
and the military in general...if you don't understand by now,
give it up and write a novel.

How is it that Kerry's supporters overlook his gaff's so easily? He is going to undo the damage how? His stance on the military is that he isn't going to start a draft but he is going to create 2 new divisions. 2 new divisions? He is complaining about a "back door draft", the military is understaffed, but he is going to create 2 new divisions? From where? From the planet of clones from Star Wars?

And his plan for North Korea is to have bilateral talks? It would be the equivalent of China having military talks with Mexico - yea, we would feel comfortable with that. For instance, when Russia was having talks with Cuba in the late 1950's - that wasn't a problem was it?

He's going to fix the economy by repealing the tax cuts "for the wealth" - which will force immediately the loss of many jobs. Then, when the "rich" need to cut back on expenses, a 2nd wave of unemployment will begin from those who provide services for these "rich" people.

His stance on the Iraq is to call their goverenment a puppet government - yep, that really installs confidence in how he will treat our allies.

I really wish we could have 2 other candidates, but we have who we have. I'm by no means a "Bush no matter what", but at least Bush doesn't scare me. If Kerry does what he says he will in the debate, he is going to increase our military at the same time he is having talks with North Korea, while alienating Russia and China. And this isn't raising any alarms in others?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by denisenh
I think that you need to re watch the debate.
Kerry was finally able to make it clear to ALL, including Bush, what he "believes in" as you put it. The Kerry flip flop label is perpetuated by those who have run out of defenses for Bush's behavior.
BTW, How would Bush have any clue what it's like to be President, before he was selected to be one? What about his pre presidential promises?

And, what does he believe in? hypocrisy?

Let me mention again, because this has been ignored when I've posted it in a couple of threads.

Kerry stated that IF his plan was followed, he could start bringing troops home within 6 months. He said this in response to Bush; it is fairly clear this was not on his agenda to mention. I say this, because he said this in an attempt to clarify something Bush had stated and because a bit later he said that if he were president he'd create a NEW coalition and bring them into Iraq to rebuild (i'm paraphrasing).

Okay. that's a contradiction to the Republicans. . .how can he do this within 6 months? But, let's say you are okay with his answer. . .he wants to build a newer and better coalition. Do you know where his sister Diana was on the very evening of the debate? She was in Australia attempting to DISMANTLE our coalition by campaigning against the incumbent, John Howard. John Howard is a STEADFAST friend to America. . .much more so than France and Germany (who also have stated they won't join his coalition!). The opposing candidate (don't remember his name now), if elected, has stated he will pull out the Aussie troops and do a Spain. Why would Kerry want John Howard to lose? i have my own thoughts on this, but since I can't seem to understand ANYTHING Kerry or his supporters do, I won't share my guess.

So, Kerry had (and I'm paraphrasing since I don't have the transcript open) stated the real problem with Iraq was that we didn't have a coalition (but we did and we do==so, he's wrong). And, he wants to build one (but we already have one) but, in the meantime, his sister is in Australia DISMANTLING the coalition we have. Anyone understanding this logic? I sure don't!

Next hypocrisy. . .
Although he wants the coalition (though he really doesn't, because he's sabotaging it) for Iraq, he doesn't want one for N. Korea. BIG MISTAKE. . .why not have the major powers in the region applying pressure on N. Korea. Bilateral talks are a big mistake. . .China is the power broker in that region. South Korea is vulnerable. We NEED the leverage from China. . .Japan is terrified about N.Korea. China's threat to N.Korea is HUGE and N. Korea WILL pay attention. What are they scared of with us, or with Kerry? A missile strike? It's IMPORTANT to keep the Chinese and Japanese in the forefront of these "negotiations" or applied pressure.

So, coalition for Iraq: good (although in secret, bad. . .Australia), coalition for N. Korea: bad. Troops in Sudan? Good (and, I agree this would be good). Troops in Iraq (bad, but since we're there, okay, good. . .but just for six months. . .no, just until we build a coaltion. .. but first we'll try to dismantle the coaltion starting in Australia cause the americans won't know. . .etc., etc., you get the picture!)

He wants to cancel our missile defense system? Okay, again, no transcript open. . .This is the next phase, technologically speaking, in our homeland defense posture against airborne attack. The Patriot Missile success shows us that such a program could be successful. It would be strategically irresponsible and constitutionally ILLEGAL for any president to cancel a military system that could increase the defensive capabilities of our country. It is the sworn duty of the Chief Executive to protect the people of the United States and the nation itself and the Constitution. Technology continues to go forward. It is the President's responsibility to harness that technology, increase the defensive and, if necessary, offensive, military capability of the United States. To not do so is indefensible.

It floors me that people assert that Kerry won this debate. He won style points (although, I don't think he delivered his answers too stylishly). There was no substance in his answers. And, they were contradictory. He states he has never wavered? That he has only had one view? Even you supporters have to admit that is a falsehood. You excuse all his contradictions because you know he was only being a politican. . .you think you know what he really means. But, who knows, really, what he means?

He mentioned stem cell research. Bush didn't respond to this as well as he should have. Bush doesn't support EMBRYONIC stem cell research FUNDING. The federal funding is banned. .. not the research and not private funding. And, stem cell research on nonembryonic or nonfetal stem cells still qualifies for federal funding.

The No Child left Behind accusation. This is false. On another thread I described all the increases in federal funding made to the schools. . . http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=654989&perpage=15&pagenumber=5
Kerry's accusation is FALSE--it's not an "unfunded mandate" States can opt out. There is a 6 billion dollar backlog that has not been spent. Accountability is PART of No CHild Left Behind. . .not the unending supply of taxpayers' cash. Look at the statistics posted in that thread.

He stated that he's never actually stated that Bush 'lied'. Well, that's a lie. .. I heard on the radio the other day three times he used the term "lie".

Sure, Bush could have answered more forcefully. But, you know what? He kept on saying, "It's hard work", because IT IS HARD WORK to bring democracy to a country who has not had it. It's hard work to train a new military. It's hard work to create new textbooks and open schools and do all the wonderful things are troops are doing while fighting the terrorists that want our defeat more than almost anything else except ending up in Paradise with 72 virgins!

It is hard work, as Bush said. If you ask Bush the same question 10 times, he'll keep telling you the same answer. And, unlike Kerry who answers the same question differently each time he's asked, Bush answers these questions truthfully. You are so used to hypocrisy when dealing with Kerry that you have started expecting it from our President, too.

I have to agree with Rokkitsci's comments.

 

[Missy1961]

Originally posted by Nancy
NOT TRUE....I have been paying attention and reading and reading and watching and watching. My mind still says I don't want either man in there...so I am still undecided. I feel I have to exercise my right to vote, but I don't feel either is competent of doing the job. So what does that make me? Stupid, ignorant, recklessly uniformed...or some other insulting name???? I am trying very hard to justify to myself voting to put either man in office and feeling confident that he will do a good job for the whole country.

But since we are not one of those states that are up in the air we don't get any campaigning here and I feel like my vote won't mean anything one way or the other so maybe I just won't bother. That way my ignorance and stupidity won't make a difference.

Please vote! Even if you cast your vote for another candidate. Every vote is important. You obviously care about the state of our country. I remember the first presidental election I voted in. It was 1980. Carter vs. Reagan. I just couldn't decide. I voted for Anderson. I knew he couldn't win, but it was my way of voicing my opinion.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Rokkitsci
If you will permit me to re-iterate - I have never claimed you don't 'remember' 9-11.

What I DO assert is that you have not CHANGED YOUR WORLD VIEW after 9-11.

Of course we all know that it happened. But the Democrats seem to think that it had no effect on anything. They discount its effect on the economy - and they still want to treat foreign policy as it had been treated on Sept. 10. They want to continue the same failed policies that resulted in our being so vulnerable on 9-11.

The point is that the world changed on 9-11. It appears that the Democrats do not recognize that salient fact. It is if they insist on continuing to make buggy-whips - long after the automobile had forever changed the world of personal transportation.

I am sorry if you do not recognize the different world we live in. I am glad president Bush does.

I am glad that we are not relying on more "summits" to defend our liberty. I am glad we have a president who will make the bold decisions that are required - without regard to the pollsters - or the French.

I am sorry that the once-great Democrat party puts political power over cooperation in the war on terror.

JFK would be ashamed of you - as would all his predecessors.

Perfect explanation and clarification of what I've been trying to express, too. . .yes, their worldview hasn't changed. . .Perfect. Thank you.

 

[Nancy]

Originally posted by Missy1961
Please vote! Even if you cast your vote for another candidate. Every vote is important. You obviously care about the state of our country. I remember the first presidental election I voted in. It was 1980. Carter vs. Reagan. I just couldn't decide. I voted for Anderson. I knew he couldn't win, but it was my way of voicing my opinion.

Don't worry, I will be voting..that was just my little vent at someone who thinks that if I am still undecided now I shouldn't be allowed to vote!

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Kendra17
And, what does he believe in? hypocrisy?

Let me mention again, because this has been ignored when I've posted it in a couple of threads.

Kerry stated that IF his plan was followed, he could start bringing troops home within 6 months. He said this in response to Bush; it is fairly clear this was not on his agenda to mention. I say this, because he said this in an attempt to clarify something Bush had stated and because a bit later he said that if he were president he'd create a NEW coalition and bring them into Iraq to rebuild (i'm paraphrasing).

Okay. that's a contradiction to the Republicans. . .how can he do this within 6 months? But, let's say you are okay with his answer. . .he wants to build a newer and better coalition. Do you know where his sister Diana was on the very evening of the debate? She was in Australia attempting to DISMANTLE our coalition by campaigning against the incumbent, John Howard. John Howard is a STEADFAST friend to America. . .much more so than France and Germany (who also have stated they won't join his coalition!). The opposing candidate (don't remember his name now), if elected, has stated he will pull out the Aussie troops and do a Spain. Why would Kerry want John Howard to lose? i have my own thoughts on this, but since I can't seem to understand ANYTHING Kerry or his supporters do, I won't share my guess.

So, Kerry had (and I'm paraphrasing since I don't have the transcript open) stated the real problem with Iraq was that we didn't have a coalition (but we did and we do==so, he's wrong). And, he wants to build one (but we already have one) but, in the meantime, his sister is in Australia DISMANTLING the coalition we have. Anyone understanding this logic? I sure don't!

Next hypocrisy. . .
Although he wants the coalition (though he really doesn't, because he's sabotaging it) for Iraq, he doesn't want one for N. Korea. BIG MISTAKE. . .why not have the major powers in the region applying pressure on N. Korea. Bilateral talks are a big mistake. . .China is the power broker in that region. South Korea is vulnerable. We NEED the leverage from China. . .Japan is terrified about N.Korea. China's threat to N.Korea is HUGE and N. Korea WILL pay attention. What are they scared of with us, or with Kerry? A missile strike? It's IMPORTANT to keep the Chinese and Japanese in the forefront of these "negotiations" or applied pressure.

So, coalition for Iraq: good (although in secret, bad. . .Australia), coalition for N. Korea: bad. Troops in Sudan? Good (and, I agree this would be good). Troops in Iraq (bad, but since we're there, okay, good. . .but just for six months. . .no, just until we build a coaltion. .. but first we'll try to dismantle the coaltion starting in Australia cause the americans won't know. . .etc., etc., you get the picture!)

He wants to cancel our missile defense system? Okay, again, no transcript open. . .This is the next phase, technologically speaking, in our homeland defense posture against airborne attack. The Patriot Missile success shows us that such a program could be successful. It would be strategically irresponsible and constitutionally ILLEGAL for any president to cancel a military system that could increase the defensive capabilities of our country. It is the sworn duty of the Chief Executive to protect the people of the United States and the nation itself and the Constitution. Technology continues to go forward. It is the President's responsibility to harness that technology, increase the defensive and, if necessary, offensive, military capability of the United States. To not do so is indefensible.

It floors me that people assert that Kerry won this debate. He won style points (although, I don't think he delivered his answers too stylishly). There was no substance in his answers. And, they were contradictory. He states he has never wavered? That he has only had one view? Even you supporters have to admit that is a falsehood. You excuse all his contradictions because you know he was only being a politican. . .you think you know what he really means. But, who knows, really, what he means?

He mentioned stem cell research. Bush didn't respond to this as well as he should have. Bush doesn't support EMBRYONIC stem cell research FUNDING. The federal funding is banned. .. not the research and not private funding. And, stem cell research on nonembryonic or nonfetal stem cells still qualifies for federal funding.

The No Child left Behind accusation. This is false. On another thread I described all the increases in federal funding made to the schools. . . http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=654989&perpage=15&pagenumber=5
Kerry's accusation is FALSE--it's not an "unfunded mandate" States can opt out. There is a 6 billion dollar backlog that has not been spent. Accountability is PART of No CHild Left Behind. . .not the unending supply of taxpayers' cash. Look at the statistics posted in that thread.

He stated that he's never actually stated that Bush 'lied'. Well, that's a lie. .. I heard on the radio the other day three times he used the term "lie".

Sure, Bush could have answered more forcefully. But, you know what? He kept on saying, "It's hard work", because IT IS HARD WORK to bring democracy to a country who has not had it. It's hard work to train a new military. It's hard work to create new textbooks and open schools and do all the wonderful things are troops are doing while fighting the terrorists that want our defeat more than almost anything else except ending up in Paradise with 72 virgins!

It is hard work, as Bush said. If you ask Bush the same question 10 times, he'll keep telling you the same answer. And, unlike Kerry who answers the same question differently each time he's asked, Bush answers these questions truthfully. You are so used to hypocrisy when dealing with Kerry that you have started expecting it from our President, too.

I have to agree with Rokkitsci's comments.

OOPS, I forgot one of the biggest things of all Kerry messed up on. He made it clear during the debates that the war on terror had but one front: Afghanistan, and one leader: bin Laden. Bush made the truth clear that the War on Terror is a GLOBAL conflict that has many fronts. Again , Bush gets what this is about. Kerry absolutely keeps on missing it--as do his supporters.

 

[lucysdad]

Kendra17 + Rokkitscii = husband + wife?

If not, two ships that passed in the night. So sad.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
You forgot to add this:

Start an unnecessary war against a country that had no involvment in terrorism against us and wasn't a threat to us at all.

Can't forget that.

Rewarding Palestanian familes that blew up innocent Israelis is not being involved in terrorism? Providng aid and comfort to Al-Queda leaders is not involved in terrorism? Good to know!

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Rokkitsci
I am still saddened over the poor performance of president Bush in the Thursday debate. I wanted Bush to bury him so deeply that he would never be able to climb out of the hole. It appears that Bush was either extremely tired, or he had made a strategic decision to just play "defense" in order to avoid making any sort of gaffe, or appear "offensive."

I think that was bad strategy, if that is what he chose to do.

And I don't think being tired is a valid excuse. Sure - he had spent the day visiting hurricane victims. That too was a strategic decision. Was he thinking that it didn't matter how he appeared in the debate? That he could expend a lot of physical energy and still be effective in a debate late that night?

The debates are all about the "undecided" voters - who by definition are not too bright. Anyone who is undecided at this point is really too dumb to vote anyway, but sadly they have the power to decide the election.

You cannot rely on these "undecided" idiots to see past the stagecraft involved. They are going to believe whoever "appears" to be in command of the issues. Whether that person is blowing smoke are dealing in verifiable facts is lost on this group of intellectual hermits.

So, you have to put something out there that can sway them. Either you have to "look" so good that they just sit in admiration of the "Oprah" moment, or you have to make a case that even a simpleton can understand.

I would not have cared if Bush "looked" tired, if only he had made the following points that I am confident would have destroyed Kerry - whether said with Oxford English or Texas Twang - to any audience with a brain.

Points that Bush should have raised - even if NOT asked by Leaher:
(btw - Leaher did not seem interested in asking probing questions of Kerry - but we all knew that was not going to happen, so it is not an excuse - Bush should have been prepared to bring up these topics at some point):

1) Kerry's vote on the first Gulf War -

This was the killer issue for Kerry as far as I am concerned and it was never mentioned. Not even Kerry could have made a convincing arguement over that vote - without revealing himself as a radical peace-nik.

In that instance:
- the USA had the full backing of the UN.
- we had all the nations who are now claimed to be critical to any coalition (France, Germany, Russia, etc) as leading members of the coalition
- we had all the Arab nations in the region on our team
- we had a case of naked agression by Saddam Hussein against another nation
- we had human rights violations and political murder on a massive scale
- we had a promise from Israel to stay out of the conflict, regardless of the destruction rained on them by Saddam.
- we had the demonstrated resolve of Saddam Hussein to continue his invasion into Saudi Arabia which would indeed have put Saddam into a much more powerful tryranny (here is where comparisons to Hitler in the early 30's are valid - this was the precise moment in history to make sure Saddam never acquired the status Hitler obtained after the appeasement of Chamberlain)

In short, we had the most overwhelming cause - we had the most unanamous coalition - we had the unqualified support of the entire world - and still Kerry opposed it. We had every single thing that Kerry now derides Bush for NOT having, and still he opposed it.

WHY ???? How would Kerry respond to that? We will never know.

It is shameful that Leaher did not ask this direct question to Kerry. It is unforgiveable that Bush was not prepared to ask that question, knowing that Leaher would not want to expose his darling to the harshness of having to defend the undefensible.

I expected Bush to demand accountablily from Kerry early in the debate on this topic. When it didn't occur in the first ten minutes, my heart sank.

2) Kerry's record on military spending, especially SDI.

To the extent that Kerry has a record of any kind to show for his 20 years in the Senate - that record includes opposition to every military system that has come forward, especially his opposition to the Strategic Defense Initiative.

Kerry has never been asked to defend, or explain, his anti-military record in that regard. When the question ever comes up, he or his surrogates always just say something like = "That is the way the senate works. Sometimes you have to vote against a bill because of some amendment or rider or clause that you want to demonstrate opposition to. All senators do it."

Nobody has ever followed up that answer with something like:

"OK - we know that senators sometimes have to do this.
BUT,

- Isn't there SOMETIMEs that the senator can make a vote FOR a military expenditure?
- Is it your contention that EVERY military bill is laden down with "protest" measures??
- Is the PROTEST value of your vote more IMPORTANT than the meat of the bill??
- Have you ever SPONSORED a bill of your OWN - without the things you protest - to provide new military equipment??
- Has there EVER been a time you WISH you could have voted for a bill that provided new military equipement to our armed forces??
- If so, did you bring that issue forward in your Senate speeches on the matter? - If so, what did you say?"

and

"OK - you oppose SDI - why?"

3) Kerry's support of the Clinton "get Saddam" plans and his opposition to the Bush "get Saddam" plans.

This was the opportunity to show Kerry as a political partisan - to show that his "position" on any topic is dominated by prospects of political advantage, rather than the seriousness of the issue.

We can tolearate a modicum of that tendency on domestic issues - and yes both sides do it to varying degrees - but when it comes to issues of war and peace, issues of national survival, it is time to put politics aside and work with however has the responsibility to do the best job possible for the American people.

We can tolerate the domestic propoganda, but we cannot afford internal mendacity when it comes to defending our nation. The GOP has a good record of supporting the national defense regardless of who is president and how badly they opposed their domestic agenda - FDR - HST- JFK - LBJ. I don't know if Clinton or Carter ever asked for military spending, but I am confident that the GOP did not deny it just because they were democrats.

This question would go to the heart of the man - is he foremost a political partisan?? or is he a qualified statesman??

Again - it is shameful that Learher didn't ask it - and unforgiveable that Bush didn't raise it.

This is long enough - I have numerous other points that should rightfully have been made and were glaringly absent from the debate.

However, the above three are enough in my mind to have buried Kerry beyond rehabilitation. That Kerry is still above ground is Bush's fault. If Bush loses the election, I will look back on this sorry performance as the reason.

Bush can recover, and I am sure he will - but he could have coasted in had he taken care of business Thursday.

Now he has some more "hard work" to do.

Not to worry. Bush performed poorly in his first debate against Gore. And, like I said, Reagan performed very poorly in his first debate against Mondale. And Mondale went on to get only 3 more electoral votes than I did. And I wasn't even running!

 

[Planogirl]

Based upon the justification used by so many that Iraq was indeed involved in terrorism, does this mean that Iran, Syria and even Saudi Arabia could be next? They have also harbored terrorists and so on if I'm not mistaken. I'm not taking either side here, I'm just wondering what you think.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Rewarding Palestanian familes that blew up innocent Israelis is not being involved in terrorism? Providng aid and comfort to Al-Queda leaders is not involved in terrorism? Good to know!

And, of course TRAINING terrorists. But, training terrorists is not the same as terrorism to the Democrats? Oh. . . that's right, Arafat won the peace prize once. . .

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Planogirl
Based upon the justification used by so many that Iraq was indeed involved in terrorism, does this mean that Iran, Syria and even Saudi Arabia could be next? They have also harbored terrorists and so on if I'm not mistaken. I'm not taking either side here, I'm just wondering what you think.

Yes, Iran and Syria may be next. . .yes, that might be the case, but hopefully with our allies and with the knowledge that we MEAN WHAT WE SAY, diplomacy will work before there would be a need for military action.

As for Saudi Arabia? In its annual report on religious freedom, the State Department has finally identified Saudi Arabia as a country that violates religious freedom. Now the Bush Administration is REQUIRED by LAW to consider action against Saudi Arabia--including sanctions. (This is true for a Kerry Administration, too, btw--although I would wager that we will never have to say that again after Election Day--ooh, those words pained me to type!)

Personally, though, I think they will not be next.

Edited to add: I need to reiterate something: I'm afraid my response didn't reflect the seriousness of your question. Yes, it's true that Iran and Syria will be dealt with. However, although military action is SOMETIMES necessary, it is not always necessary. Preemptive action in Iraq and an overthrow of the despotic regime there will have ongoing positive effects. Libya is now back among the Family of Nations. Iran and Syria, when pressured, will follow suit. They do not want to be another Iraq. They know we are not all talk and no action.

Now, diplomacy will work. We had to go into Iraq--you disagree--but, in the long term--IF we stay the course-- the change there will have SWEEPING positive effects throughout the Middle East.

 

[LoraJ]

Originally posted by Planogirl
Based upon the justification used by so many that Iraq was indeed involved in terrorism, does this mean that Iran, Syria and even Saudi Arabia could be next? They have also harbored terrorists and so on if I'm not mistaken. I'm not taking either side here, I'm just wondering what you think.

Heck, there are terrorists here in the US. Maybe we should take out Washington DC?

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by Planogirl
Based upon the justification used by so many that Iraq was indeed involved in terrorism, does this mean that Iran, Syria and even Saudi Arabia could be next? They have also harbored terrorists and so on if I'm not mistaken. I'm not taking either side here, I'm just wondering what you think.

ABSOLUTELY - Iran is next - in the region. We may have to deal with North Korea too, but that time table is independent of the middle east time table.

This is one of the reasons that Iraq was SO IMPORTANT to disarm quickly and completely.

Try to think of HOW you would go about removing the regime in IRAN is Saddam Hussein had consolodated his power in IRAQ. It just could not be done.

However, with a stable IRAQ as a base - Iran will be much easier. Hopefully we will not have to use armed force. But the PRESENCE of armed forces on their border - both borders - may make "diplomacy" much easier to accomplish. Even without Yale debating skills.

I believe ultimatums delivered in a Texas Twang is more effective than rhetoric delivered in the King's English

Remember - we are now at war with GLOBAL TERRORISM - that means anywhere - anytime - anyone.

Much like in WWII - we first attacked in AFRICA (who never attacked us) before going into ITALY (who never attacked us) because that would make it easier to defeat GERMANY (who also never attacked us) before going on to attack JAPAN (who DID attack us - they were the last to fall) Yes, we were fighting Japan all along, but they were secondary. All we were doing is keeping them from expanding - keeping them on the defensive until we could turn our FULL attention to them.

This is how WARs are fought.

Police actions mean to go after only ONE individual who you can already PROVE was involved in a CRIME. This is apparently the model the Kerry supporters want. It is FAR from the model that *I* want.

In the words of Churchill = "Our objective is to wage WAR."

God help us if we ever have a president who is afraid to wage WAR when conditions call for it.

Thank God we have such a president NOW. Even if he doesn't speak well.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by LoraJ
Heck, there are terrorists here in the US. Maybe we should take out Washington DC?

This is the type of post that makes it almost impossible to NOT label such posters as stupid and ignorant and uneducated and mendacious.

I wish I could find some more charitible words to describe such tripe.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by lucysdad
Kendra17 + Rokkitscii = husband + wife?

If not, two ships that passed in the night. So sad.

Hey - what a GREAT SUGGESTION - ROFLMAO

It is, however, true that I sincerely respect Kendra17 - both in her analytical prowess, and her command of the language, and her willingness to devote her time to articulating her arguements in a very powerful way.

She takes the time to actually present her analysis in a way that anyone who has the interest can understand. i have found little to disagree with on any post she has ever made.

She handles the expected "slings and arrows of outrageous insult" in stride - just ignoring the worst and commenting with substance on the not-so-bad.

My hat is STILL off to Kendra17 = consider us (at least for my part) joined at the brain = if you must.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by Rokkitsci
This is the type of post that makes it almost impossible to NOT label such posters as stupid and ignorant and uneducated and mendacious.

I wish I could find some more charitible words to describe such tripe.

Its no more stupid than the idea of waging a war on something that CANNOT be beat( and that we are actually part of[us being terrorist as well])

 

[bsears]

Originally posted by Rokkitsci
This is the type of post that makes it almost impossible to NOT label such posters as stupid and ignorant and uneducated and mendacious.

I wish I could find some more charitible words to describe such tripe.

I would suggest to you that there is another option. Use a little self control and refrain from saying anything. I know how difficult that would be for the long-winded-in-love-with-the-sound-of-your-own-keyboard posters, but are you truly so immature that you believe that each time you posint out another's folly it makes you look smarter? News flash. It shows you for exactly how small you are. Get over yourself.

Quite frankly your compulsive need to label everyone, labels you more than your victims.