An observation of three people's opinions

My uncertainty stems mainly from Bush's total inability to articulate a coherent, fundamentally sound reason why we are in Iraq and this point in time. I also have issues with the Bush tax cut and the amazingly huge deficit we are accumulating despite the fact that is doesn't seem to bother Lake. I have issues with Bush's refusal to participate in the Kyoto Accords. I don't consider myself a particular granola type but when we screw up this earth, and we are, where are we going to go?? I think Condeliza Rice was a token black female appointee and is totally unqualified to be NSA. I cannot stand Karl Rove and his gang.
Overall, I have major problems with this administration.

My uncertainty also stems from the fact that Kerry says some things I like to hear but I have trouble reconciling his inability to point to his senate record as a synopsis of what a Kerry presidency would be like. After 20+ years as a Senator, I should think he could point to some significant acheivements as a guide to how he thinks. I also have issues with his military past. As a veteran, I have a real problem with his "medals", his time in country, and most of all, his testimony against the war.


I don't vote for the party. I vote the man. And what I hate the most is the spinmeisters telling me what their respective candidates said when I know it's not what I heard. I am not stupid. As much as both parties want me to be, I am NOT stupid.

So what am I supposed to do Trav? I like neither candidate. Yet I have to make a choice.

For die hard repubs and dems, there is not conflict. Unfortunately, I have one as I am neither.

I'm not a diehard Republican either Jumper. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000. But I see him as the best person running for the job. Kerry's appeasement philosophy is frightening. And regardless of what Kerry says about his plans for tax issues, the middle class will be the ones screwed. I think a Kerry election victory would ensure increased terrorist attacks against US targets even before January. A Kerry victrory would embolden N Korea(in re nukes) and China (in re Taiwan) and Muslim fundamentalists and would increase turmoil worldwide. I think Kerry's penchant for saying how we should not be "going it alone" comes across to foreign leaders (especially totalitarian ones) as weakness. No now is not the time to change horses midstream IMHO.

And Kerry's statement last night that we need to "Stop alienating the Muslim world", Bullshit. 99% of terrorist acts in the world at any given time are Muslim extremists. More appeasement talk and hope they will just leave us alone if we give them what they want. We need a powerful POTUS. Not a UN pussy.

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ October 01, 2004 12:55 PM: Message edited by: G L ]</font>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by travelinman:
We couldn't get UN support because France, Germany and Russia were all selling illegal material to Saddam. We could have waited years and the UN would never signed on.

Where have you been?

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">To add to this:

What about the 17 UN resolutions to Sadaam? He was told time and time again to cooperate or pay the price. You can only tell someone something so many times before you have to do something.

What about the "oil for food" scandal as well?

France, Germany and Russia did not want us to go in there b/c they knew that we would uncover the shady things they had been doing with Sadaam

Heh, what about our shady dealings with Saddam?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...ndshake300.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jigsaw Jr.:
And that has what to do with 9/11?

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It took money to finance the attackes.

I see, because I thought we went over there because of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jigsaw:
I see, because I thought we went over there because of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It was one of MANY reasons.

There are many reasons we went into Iraq. WMD, Un resolutions not carried out, SH as a threat, Intelligence we had at the time. Bottom line is, Congress(including Kerry) gave the go ahead.

Whether or not you agree with going into Iraq...you have to look at what we do now. Kerry has no plan. He mentions training, elections, coalitions etc... HELLO, Bush is doing that.

Kerry thinks he can get more into the coalition? Umm who, The French Germans, and Russians. For one, I doubt that, and if he does, at what cost?
The nations who have helped liberate Iraq, are they going to be push aside for the French (et al) to profit from the reconstruction?

Kerry is already alienating the current coalition. It been reported that Kerry sister is activily cmapaining in Australia for the guy who wants to pull OUT of Iraq. Kerry has ridiculed Allawi(however you spell it). This is the man who is working hand in hand with Bush in the restoration of Iraq. It seems to me Kerry is trying his best for Bush to fail in Iraq...borderline treason in my book.

Kerry as a 20 year senator has done nothing. IMO if his ideas and policies are so great for the country, why in the hell hasn't he written/ sponsored bills in congress? How come, when he was on the intelligence committee, he didn't work to reform it then? Why did he vote to cut intelligence? Isn't that one of his campaign promises?

There are just way to many questions as to who John Kerry is. His goal is to become president. He is going to promise what it takes to get votes. He can say that "he can do better" until he is blue in the face....but his record doesn't back it up.

Bush's weak coalition is falling apart and he has lost the international leadership credibility to reverse that. Kerry has a better chance at strengthening the coalition, a necessity to reduce our costs and begin an exit strategery, a crucial element Bush should have had in place before starting the war.

Kerry has sponsored gobs of bills, obviously you haven't bothered to look. He voted to reduce the intelligence budget at a time when a major program had been cancelled. Since the intel community wasn't going to pursue that expensive program, it made sense to reduce the budget. The Republicans also voted to reduce the intel budget at that time, by an even larger dollar amount. It shows how shameless they are to attempt to turn their own votes around on Kerry.

Kerry made a very telling comment during the debate. When talking about Middle East policy he made the comment that his policy would be what was best "for the region, best for Israel and best for the United States..." Freudian slip? I don't think so. He simply puts America last in his thinking and we want that for POTUS?