I guess asking the leader responsible for these acts is political? Pointing fingers isn't always political. We make all these judgements about Kerry, but we really don't know much about the man.
Calling for Rumsfield to resign is a political tactic. If some guy at McDonalds pees in the french fries, it's not productive to call on the CEO to resign.
He was pictured in Vietnam talking to a bunch of hippies. I don't know much about the guy, but he seems like he would make a good president. People are going to waste their vote on clark probably.
Soiled fast food products and perverse maltreatment of prisoners by soldiers are two considerably different scenarios, and fast food chains and militaries are two quite different organizations. In the military responsibility tends to go up the chain of command. This is a pretty big screw-up, so heads are going to roll high up. If a ship crashes without the captain knowing it, the captain is still going to be relieved of duty - if anything for negligence - because he as captain is held responsible. If ya think about it, couldn't the lack of Republicans calling for Rumsfeld's resignation also be considered political? There are at least several that are very critical of Rumsfeld's record and of his mismanagement of the scandal (e.g. McCain), and privately have doubts about Rumsfeld's abilities as secretary, yet no Republican has gone public and called for Rumsfeld's resignation.
Kerry is a traitor and it will be made crystal clear over and over before Nov. I applaud his efforts to fix the broke war in Viet Nam through peaceful demonstration in America but giving comfort and aiding the enemy is treason! Again Bush showed he was smarter than Kerry by hiding in the NG than to chance getting killed for a stupid Democratic started war. A war the French had lost and convinced the Democrats to go get back their territory for them. The soldiers I talked to said the French-Vietnamese were the best in the sack. Viet Nam War started and ended in France, think about it…Democratic foreign policy, with one wet finger in the breeze to advise if they are doing it right is good for black granite manufactures! Kerry became a traitor when he went to Hanoi. Bush figured out University, Canada, NG, AR or anything but go die for France’s territory. Again GWB proves to be smarter than Kerry! Rumsfeld isn’t the fall guy for the prisons; it’s the Democrat Bush left in the CIA. Changeyourlatitude
The Vietnam War actually began (for the Americans) under the Eisenhower administration. At any rate, I don't think it would have mattered whether it was Democrats or Republicans. Being the height of the Cold War both sides were eager to show off their toughness on Communism. Does not Bush's puffed-up image as a "war president" complete with jet fighter outfit photo-ops, and rhetoric about bravery and courage grate against his negligible NG career where he basically took advantage of the fact he was a rich kid with connections, not so much as him being smart. Personally I don't blame people for wanting to avoid the front lines, but it sure doesn't fit with Bush's bravado nowadays. Wrong. The French were fed up with trying to keep Vietnam. The Americans simply wanted to keep a puppet counter-Communist government in place there. Hmm... so Kerry fights in the war (and earns medals for bravery and saving other soldiers) and afterwards denounces the military/government, and is thus a traitor. Bush manipulates things so that he never has to fight at all, and he should be applauded. Makes perfect sense. Sheesh, who's being political now?
Quote: The Vietnam War actually began (for the Americans) under the Eisenhower administration. At any rate, I don't think it would have mattered whether it was Democrats or Republicans. Being the height of the Cold War both sides were eager to show off their toughness on Communism Well let’s do history, I was studying tits and ass as the Social Studies teacher showed me US Marines in Viet Nam in the very early 60’s. Do you remember JFK and the Communist Cuba missile crisis; Russia was at our front door. Toughness on Communism, we had just kicked North Korea’s ass along with China. We had communism just south of Florida being supported by the cold war enemy, USSR. It was when JFK was assonated the war in Viet Nam actually started. If logic and memory were applied China had its ass kicked, Russia just backed off. Cuba was a row boat commute so why did a Democratic VP transformed to P by a couple ounces of lead decide to go “far east to fight communism?” We were puffing up in Berlin and Western Europe. We had nukes on S. Korea and China was helpless. Dem’s doing head on French. Quote: Wrong. The French were fed up with trying to keep Vietnam. The Americans simply wanted to keep a puppet counter-Communist government in place there. Americans hadn’t a clue. Johnson wanted to help France. We were still licking our wounds from Korea. Remember Senator Harken a couple months ago calling Bush a bigot along with the ugly CA black Congresswoman, what’s her name because he wouldn’t stop the revolution in Haiti? Same shit, France and Germany got their ass kicked in Haiti and wanted the Democrats to bail them out. Haiti was a French-German territory just like S. Viet Nam. Senator Harken even called the poor black men of the island “African Americans.” Democrats fall on their knees to the French! Where was Americas surrender negotiated for the end of Viet Nam? Paris France! WHY? Quote: Hmm... so Kerry fights in the war (and earns medals for bravery and saving other soldiers) and afterwards denounces the military/government, and is thus a traitor. Bush manipulates things so that he never has to fight at all, and he should be applauded. Makes perfect sense. I honor Senator Kerry’s service in war. Duh, a millionaire volunteers to go to Viet Nam? Sound familiar? Kerry eats, breaths and dreams being JFK and that is why he went to Viet Nam and then left as fast as he could. Viet Nam was stupid, so why volunteer? Why not beat up on Cuba and piss off USSR we already kicked China’s ass in Korea and stayed there to rub salt in the wound. Quote: Sheesh, who's being political now? Me! Democrats only get soldiers killed and are wishy washy on foreign policy. I wouldn’t vote for either though because both are on the take to big business. The Democrats forget soldiers like they forget they claim Al and Jo are P and VP. Yet they won’t support their winner of the stolen election. Joe could be Prez right now had Al choked on a pretzel. And Joe can’t get 3% support. The same happens to soldiers forgotten by Dem’s! Changeyourlatitude
Anyone with half a brain and a bit of common sense can tell that Kerry is the better of the two evils. Anyone that doesn't want to vote for the lesser of two evils, vote kucinich. He's still in the democratic party.
Psychedelic Anyone with half a brain and a bit of common sense can tell that Kerry is the better of the two evils. That’s the exact problem! All the people with a half a brain and a very, very little bit of common sense will vote for him. How is he a lesser evil? He’s just a rich guy who wants a legacy. Anyone that doesn't want to vote for the lesser of two evils, vote kucinich. He's still in the democratic party. I kind of respect Kucinich with his Department of Peace. He just couldn’t get any traction in the race. His message is true, you know? Wise people would invest in correcting the cause verses bombing the effect. The absence of traction would be why his agenda couldn’t be accomplished even if he were elected. And with those ears the Arabs would want his head too. Changeyourlatitude
Heh, exact same can be said about Dubya. To me, as I said I'm not a Kerry fan, but he doesn't seem as obtuse as Bush when it comes to foreign policy; doesn't have as much a denial problem with the Iraq mess; outside of the war issue, I don't like Bush's domestic policies and catering to the religious right; and I think Kerry'd have to try real hard to pick a worse Cabinet than Bush has (for one I really can't stand Ashcroft).
Sadly Kerry isnt scoring to well on that front either from advanced reports. I fully expect nothing more from a Kerry Presidency other than a 4-8 year stopgap (as we had with the Clinton Era) before the present ruling agenda (read: PNAC) simply resumes control once again (after people have had another 8 years to ignore any continuity of the status quo which would make such resumption entirely likely). The only hope for any change in the future direction of our nation will be when enough Americans awaken to the need for true progressive dismantling of all mechanisms long under the control of the corporate power elite and an end to career politicians.
Lucifer You are correct Dubya is just another rich dude too. Almost all are rich inside of the beltway or soon will be. What do you mean about the denial problem? Are you saying it was a mistake? How would Kerry fix it? I think W’s cabinet is just right for the times and fail to understand why Democrats hate his cabinet so much, especially Ashcroft. More could be done for the environment, but at least W’s trying to get this H-car up and running. I don’t feel constrained at all by Ashcroft or Rummy. They seem right for the time of planes hitting skyscrapers. Lick I’ve been using this same logic for why I don’t feel like voting for either party. They represent themselves and their party, not the people. If the S & P paid their fair share and then gave the money to charity they give to the political partie-S then the little 100 employer wouldn’t have to give 40% of his earnings to the government. By the way I’m saving money and on retirement and have a lot of time on my hands so I spend almost all day on this thing debating. How do you guys manage enough time to do the same? Do you have very understanding employers? Or, are you unemployed? Changeyourlatitude
Yes I believe the invasion of Iraq was an overall mistake. Apart from the apparent lack of WMDs in Iraq and all the other aforementioned problems, we've also opened a huge power vacuum right smack in the center of the Middle East. Of course that's why we're stuck there. Saddam was no ideal head of state by any means, but he kept the region stable, and he was no fundamentalist. Now Iraq is more prone to influence by Islamic radicals than ever before. Rumsfeld knew his stuff about how to invade and take over a country, but he's proved incompetent in his foresight beyond the invasion. Ashcroft practically embodies the ultra-conservative religious right, a faction which I think is largely a problem in our government. The Attorney General in my opinion is way too much of a narrow-minded moralist, too extreme for his job. Ashcroft also was actually pretty negligent on counter-terrorism before September 11th... before that date he cut millions of dollars from the counter-terrorism budget. Yet he's willing to blow several grand to cover up a statue's exposed breast.
Well I think we are just where the government wanted us to be in Iraq. You are correct the fall of Sadam creates a power vacuum and that was one of the reasons for the war. To establish a democratic government right in the middle of the Mullahs. To do so will end their ability to recruit. That is why all the foreign fighters flood in to help! The WMD is not a closed case yet keep an open mind. I guess it’s better having the dudes from all the fundamentalist groups going to Iraq to fight where we have the guns and bullets to deal with them than in the streets of the US. There we don’t have to litigate on every issue like it was a crime verses a war crime. I think the government can use all the church it can get. This country and media is morally bankrupt. The things I see on TV for young children are worse than anything Ashcroft has done. I can make a list. Can you give me a source for Ashcroft cutting the counter-terrorism budget? Changeyourlatitude
I don't know, for one it won't be easy keeping a democratic government intact amidst the Gulf states. It will be hard to win real Iraqi support, as the government we set up will be bound to be viewed as the Great Satan's puppet (which it may or may not be). A real democracy ultimately comes from the people, not from a foreign authority. I wouldn't be surprised if a coup was attempted. Also I don't know if it would end their ability to recruit, if anything I think the occupation of Iraq will give the terrorists something to galvanize new recruits. Ah... isn't this what the Islamists preach, only for a slightly different faith? The last thing we need is overly judgmental religious zealots in our own government polarizing this war into a christian-islamic polemic and clouding our judgment even more. Having lived in Saudi Arabia, a society where religion rules, I sure don't want to see anything like that happen here. I guess it's also just kinda where you and I differ... my politics on social issues are libertarian, and I think religion should be kept completely separate from the state. Well, trying to not to go too far off on a tangent but to be brief, sure plenty of today's TV is crap, but it's not for the government to decide what we can and cannot watch. I especially don't want people like Ashcroft to tell me what I can't watch. If you don't like what's on the TV simply don't watch it. Here's one source on Ashcroft cuttin' the budget - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/v-pfriendly/story/182832p-158666c.html
You are correct it will not be easy to set up a democratic government and for sure a coup(s) will occur. This is evident by the reluctance of the offense now both from Iraq and outside fundamentalist. It takes a silver bullet to kill the beast and once dead the reality of peace will keep it dead and a domino affect will occur throughout the region. The flaw will become obvious and not defensible by those who recruit the ignorant. The ignorant will flee to Iraq to share the wealth and freedom of democracy. It will be a fight to the death like trained roosters here in Puerto Rico. Once won, the reward will be a blessing for the world! Our country was based on the moral law of Christian and Judea beliefs. Take a look at the money and on what do you place your hand when sworn in for truth. Separation of church and state does not mean any church in government. It means no religion will be more powerful than another to influence the action of government as in former Europe. Simply turn it off. A line strait out of Hollywood, I could say if I had just turned it off when I was a child or my parents had just turned it off I wouldn’t be a smoker. And if modern kids or their parents “just turned it off” maybe they wouldn’t be homosexual. A government control of crap on the media need not be mandated in writing. The license for a channel should be subject to non-renewal if it produces programming that is not rewarding to society. It is a public conveyance and like you can’t scream fire in a theater you shouldn’t be able to continue to raise the bar of stupidity on TV. Watch three episodes of Ed, Ed and Eddie and get back with me on this one. Changeyourlatitude
John Kerry has a much higher intellect than Bush, thats not saying much but atleast we will improve a little there... He also has a very good strategy for his campaign which assures me im not picking a loser. I also think his foriegn trade policy plan is brilliant a lot more thought out and homebased than bush's "export america" plan.
Export America is not a party plan it is a bussiness plan. America and the Western world lives like grasshoppers on the work of ants. Americans, especially Democrats, despise slavery yet have no problem as long as the slave is in another country. Choice of purchase is a personal one. Grasshoppers chose the slave product and bitch about the system. Could you buy land, equipment and produce lettuce which "proud anti slavery Americans" would buy if you paid your workers a decent wage and health plan? When you answer yes then America is cured of the problem of slavery. Changeyourlatitude
