What's worse is that people don't realize that all this leads to is a war of he said she said...."Well, you all killed 3,000 of our citizens first....No, Americans have killed us for years and years..." back and forth and back and forth. DavidS is spot-on. If it's war you want with Bush, it's war you'll get. The problem is we'll still be fighting it when he leaves and years after - very similiar to the Isreali-Palestinian war that has existed for decades.
This is a good game of poker we have going on here in politics these days. The GOP called Kerry's bluff. Play with the cards you are dealt and try not to run your campaign like you are holding a royal flush (when you know your stuff stinks just like everyone else, and someone at the table is most likely going to challenge you & call you out on when you show the first sign of weakness...) ...dang, I tried to add "hot waffle fries" in this post in relation to Kerry and poker terminology but it just is not working so I will take a break for now cause I am losing my train of thought My point is that the DNC made a point to be super positive at their convention, and they missed a chance to pander to the anybody but Bush crowd because we know that this election is not about John Kerry in the least bit...
Are we fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq? By the way, ima_drummer2k, this doesn't mean that we should not use military action for selective targets (Afghanistan). It means that we should be prudent when diplomacy (ideas) and military (force) is needed. The ME is a complex culture. It's not just one big "boogyman." We will always fear what we do not understand.
How the heck are these facts when John Kerry has yet to serve as President? Perhaps you should vote for John Kerry and if he wins then you might have some basis for facts.
...Or have Kerry get "permission" from France to do anything...Kerry wants us to be unsafe, and unfree.
No doubt about it, Kerry is trying to fulfill his life long dream of having us unsafe and unfree. Safety and Freedom have been a thorn in John Kerry's side for a long time. He even VOLUNTEERED to go to Vietnam, and then VOLUNTEERED for more dangerous duty, hoping to set himself up as powerful jungle lord of unsafety and lack of freedom. He would have been like Brando in Apocolypse now, making sure that everyone was as unsafe and unfree as possible. It would have worked too, but then he got a message from France that told him not to do it. So his plans were upset. Finally France sent him another message letting him know that it's now ok to set up a an unsafe and unfree empire. Just to make sure that nobody was aware of this Kerry even specifically mentioned that he won't be seeking permission from other countries or the UN, but will try and bring them along as allies like a good leader should. I'm amazed that you were able to uncover his wishes for an unsafe and unfree land. Good job Roxran.
Did anybody see McCain on NBC last night? He basically said that Zell Miller was wrong and being dishonest. He looked like he was in pain and didn't want to be in the interview. Finally, he just said that he wasn't going to say anymore and that President Bush was the better candidate because of other areas. Incidentally, Zell started supporting Republicans/Bush after Nov 2002, not Sep 2001. He was in pro Cleeland ads identifying himself as a marine and calling his fellow military friend a hero, not a traitor. Cleeland lost, and the Republicans gained a lof of positions in Georgia, including Governor. He, apparently, has always been a conservative Democrat but my guess is that he also is looking at survival.
rimjaub -- A man of Zell Miller's age is not nearly as concerned about survival than a younger politician. Zell was speaking from the HEART last night. He was a Democrat supporting a Republican on PRINCIPLE. Someone asked what the difference was between that speech and Al Sharpton's rant. Easy easy question. Well, first Al Sharpton is a bonafide madman who is prone to coming unglued every chance he gets. Zell Miller reserves his ire for only the issues that drive him to act. National Security is that issue. As Zell stated, he prioritizes the safety of his great grandchildren over his party affiliation. That's why he backs Bush. Only a Democrat would have had the necessary credibility to deliver such a passionate speech against a fellow Democrat.
Zell Miller has been and will be a democrat. He simply doesn't like where their current party is heading. Dividing America into parts has him bothered especially in a time of war. At some point Zell will go back to the democratic party and I'm sure they will welcome him, but right now he doesn't agree with what their party is doing.
Terrorism and terrorist recruiting are at an all time high. Your baseless claims to the contrary cannot change the facts.
Actually, the day AFTER that, we had nearly unanimous worldwide support. Even the most hardline Islamic countries came out and condemned the actions of the 9/11 hijackers. Bush threw that goodwill in the toilet, sat down and took a Taco Bell fueled dump on it, lit it on fire, and laughed as he flushed it down the toilet.
As Kerry himself has said, he does not want us to seek PERMISSION from the worldwide community, he just wants to encourage their cooperation, something that REAL leaders like GHWB do, but weak leaders like GWB eschew.
Well, obviously. It also allowed Cheney to not be as severe, something that gets him in trouble. I think Zell is a huge chip for the Republicans, my only caveat is that he might have come accross as too angry for moderates and conservative democrats. If he had toned it down just a bit (and not call all Democrats traitors, basically), I think that he would have been huge. Cheney, like 2000, gave the best speech, though. Also, if you don't think that political climate had anything to do with Zell's "change of heart" then I have nothing (you could even make it more positive and say he is trying to better represent his base as opposed to save himself). In 2002 he defended Cleeland's voting against certain Republican military spending bills (saying the Dems had better alternatives). Last night he used some of the same issues against Kerry. By the way, the backdrop behind Miller with the circular flags and the lines that were moving back and forth comes from something. I cannot remember or get my mind around it, but it is something. The Republicans are killing the Deomocrats in the visual propaganda department.
Are you saying that GWB did not solicit a wider coalition? Did he not go before the UN more than once?
And should have KEPT going to the UN. Saddam was completely contained and the UN could not have lifted sanctions without US agreement. GHWB showed leadership when he built the coalition for Desert Storm, GWB showed ignorance, arrogance, and hubris in spurning the UN and the worldwide community to start a war based on "intelligence" provided by a hostile government.
