I have enjoyed and appreciated your postings on GA, for their good
humor and measured, informative responses. I was honestly surprised
recently to read that you're putting a vote in for GWB and that you
jokingly described yourself a member of the "conservative hoipalloi". 
As I have been hard pressed to find someone who is a Bush voter who
can calmly (or intelligently) talk about their decision, I thought I
would ask you. Not knowing anything about your demographics (age,
gender, locality, religious leanings, etc) for me adds interest. Note:
I am not a swing voter! I would consider it a minor miracle if you
could convince me to vote Bush over Kerry. It's just that you have
stated that you see Bush as "the lesser of two weevils" and I see
Kerry as such; I am very curious to know how it is you see it that
way. I'm not interested in this  becoming a pixilated shouting match;
these days I am very disturbed at how, in our culture, the ability to
carry on a simple dialogue has become so compromised. I am nothing if
not curious, especially when it comes to what appears to be a growing
cultural civil war in our country  . . . I'd like to discuss it with
you if you are willing .... (and I am also willing to pay a whopping
$2.50 for the opportunity!)

I appreciate your requesting my views, timespacette, but I have
retired my soapbox for a while. I've already managed to alienate,
infuriate, and otherwise agitate some of my GA colleagues by espousing
political views which some find to be incompatible with higher thought
processes. I don't want to sacrifice friendships for the sake of
ideology.

Now that you've opened this can of worms, I'm sure the "Comments"
field will provide a lively battleground, though. ;-)

~Pink

dang!
well ... 
for those wishing to comment, "battleground" is not what I had in mind . . .
anybody?

I am planning to vote for Bush for a few reasons. Bushes out take of
the family. He supports the structure and stability of it by trying to
create tax breaks for the family and stay at home moms. He is against
abortion. While some may say that it is back woods and close minded
not to support a womens right to choose I do not think that should
extend to babies after they have been concived. I also do think that
bush made a good decision about going into Iraq. What you don't see on
the news it that our military had found weapons of mass destructions.
In the form of Russian migs able to fire long range missle
capatibility. I don't think that is it eighther. I don't think saddam
was all innocent.

timespacette: Try this: It is generally agreed that as one grows
older, one grows in experience, and often in judgment and wisdom.
There are many old liberals and conservatives who have remained
unchanged in there political beliefs. There are very many who were
ardent liberals when young but turned conservative when older. But
there are very few who were conservative when young and turned liberal
in their later years.
  This is not to say everyone over 60 is wise, but as a general trend,
some wisdom accumulates in most persons as they age and they often
become political conservatives. Thus, Bush is the choice of the older
and wiser, Kerry the choice of the young who have much to learn.
monroe22

"What you don't see on the news it that our military had found weapons
of mass destructions."

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030320.html

Polls have also repeatedly found that much of the public thinks Saddam
contributed to the September 11 attacks. Forty-two percent of those
surveyed in a February New York Times/CBS poll said they believed
Saddam was "personally involved" in the September 11 attacks (down
from the 51 percent who believed so this September 2002). A January
Knight Ridder poll found that roughly one-fourth of the public believe
that President Bush has released evidence showing that Iraq helped
plan and fund the attacks. Yet no evidence has been presented by any
source to suggest that Saddam had any involvement whatsoever with the
September 11 hijackers.

Hello monroe22, 
In my experience, the reverse has been true. I personally know at
least twenty died-in-the-wool lifelong Republicans who are voting for
Kerry this November. By the same token I know exactly zero Democrats
who are voting for Bush, even in their ripe old age.  Still, you
haven't put forth exactly what it is that we who are actually not so
young, as you have assumed, have much to learn...

Dear inneedofaclue-ga,
It's interesting to see your user name is in-need-of-a-clue . . .
I've yet to see any real evidence that the typical working mom is
actually benefitting from Bush's tax breaks for the rich, aside from
the rhetorical "it's so because we say it's so" .
It looks like the Bush administration is still succeeding in
convincing some people that that there were weapons of mass
destruction, when the official report, which came out a few weeks ago,
as well as Bush's own top cabinet members have conceded otherwise;
where did you find information about Russian migs?  What do you think
the US should do about the other countries that definately DO have
WMD's?  (North Korea, Iran . . .)
Lastly, whoever said Saddam was "all innocent"?

I found this site for Republic Switchers interesting:
http://inprogress.typepad.com/republicanswitchers/

Personally, it'd take more then a minor miracle for me to vote for Bush!

I find it interesting that people keep trying to spin the Sadam and Al
Quada connection to mean Sadam helped in some way with 9/11.  If one
actually reads what the 9/11 commission said, and Ms. Rice said, they
did NOT claim that Sadam had a hand in 9/11.  They DO claim that Sadam
and Al Quada were friendly and cooperative. (which does not mean Sadam
was involved in 9/11)

While I disagree with Bush on a variety of issues (eg stem cell
research, some parts of the Patriot Act).  I do agree with his choices
of education, his strong stance and ACTION on fighting terrorism, and
his tax incentives. (no I'm not rich)  It would be a grave mistake to
abandon our consistency on the war on terror at this stage.

I find Kerry a well meaning, but grossly misguided polititian.  He is
willing to promise the public bread and circuses to get their vote. 
He wants to put more people feeding at the public trough of
beaurocracy. (more beaurocracy, more feeding of public programs)  For
a poresidential canidate to say on a major news program that "he is
for the Iraq war depending upon how it turns out" is like saying if I
knew the numbers for the lottery I could win it.

Also the dirty tricks just make my stomach turn.  Ms. Kerry claiming
Laura Bush has never had a real job or the disingenous statments about
Mr. Cheney's daughter. (no I don't care what her sexual preferences
are, not do I care what Mr. Kerry's children's sexual preferences are
- its not relevant to the job of president.)  There really isn't any
need for those things.  Or of course, the DNC compaining how Mr.
Cheney got a flu shot, pretty petty, but all geared to generate
emotive feelings that Mr. Cheney is "priviledged" and "taking
advantage".. (he qualifies under the guidelines, 69 and cardiac
patient)  Aslo Mr. Kerry keeps bringing up his Vietnam service and
then railing against those who question what he did, during and after
that war.  I am dissapointed the Democrats thought John Kerry was the
best man.

And one of the number one reasons is the DNC has embraced Michael
Moore, a propaganda film maker who spins more lies and deciets that
most polititians and that is hard to do.  Also DNC has embraced George
Soros, a major funder of 527 ads for the DNC.

I'm sure most people are familiar with it already, but I thought I'd
mention the Annenberg Political Fact Check site for anyone who hasn't
heard of it:
http://www.factcheck.org/

This is the site that Cheney mentioned during the VP debate (though he
said it wrong; he said factcheck.com which at the time was changed to
point to an anti-Bush site).  I have to say that recommending this
website is the best thing Cheney has ever done in office.

Anyway, I'm not big on trying to change anyone's opinion.  I think
that you should learn the issues yourself.  As a matter of fact, I
take the unpopular opinion that if you don't know the issues, you
*gasp* shouldn't vote.

http://www.isbushwired.com/

I have no time to respond at the moment; for the time being I just
came across an interesting site that helps people match their own
stance on the issues with those of both candidates:
http://www.presidentmatch.com/Main.jsp2?cp=main
It only takes a few minutes to complete all the questions and the
results are sometimes surprising...

> which at the time was changed to point to an anti-Bush site<

Whyisitso --

The website was redirected to an anti-Bush website sponsored by the
international finance expert, George Soros.  Here's what the Mormons
have to say:
http://nn.byu.edu/story.cfm/52805

Let's get this straight because no one ever said the vice-president
was bright, only that he dodged the draft SIX times during the Vietnam
War.  As factcheck.com com notes "Name Administration chose the
website of investor, philanthropist, and political activist Mr. George
Soros":
http://www.georgesoros.com/

Here's what the Annenberg Foundation has to say about the
vice-president's distortions:
http://www.factcheck.org/article272.html

So, you can vote for a decorated war hero or a pair of draft dodgers
-- who don't know which URL is on their side.

I had actually visited the site after the debates, when it was still
redirecting to the Soros site.  I didn't see any reason to mention it
by name, because all I was trying to do with my comment was tout the
factcheck.org site, which I've found very useful.

As for who I'm voting for, take a look at this great image:
http://www.freewayblogger.com/images/mojave4.jpg

A "bleeding heart conservative."  How touching.

When Bill Clinton tried to send a cruise missile after Osama bin
Laden, what was the Republicam response?  Oh, it's a "distraction" and
not serious:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_12-9-2004_pg7_5

One of my American friends has just mailed me:

As the electoral frenzy nears its awful climax this side of the pond,
I'm more and more reminded of H.L. Mencken's observation that the
process is "simply a battle of charlatans for the votes of idiots." 
Given that Idaho is a solidly Republican state and has too few
electoral college votes to make it count in a presidential election,
the reality is that it makes absolutely no difference whether I cast a
ballot or not. Such is Democracy!

My Comment:

Bring back the English Monarchy!

Wow, just think: King Charles the First of the Americas ...

And where would His Majesty's Royal Palace be?

Why, Seattle of course!

Just curious. I'm sorry that there are those who feel that the tax cut
didn't do anything for them. Please send it back. Oh, yes, you'll send
it back and doubly so next year if Kerry is elected. Hey, it's his
words.

OK, so Kerry was a decorated soldier. He wasn't a hero, and his
statements before Congress added to the negative sentiment that the
Vietnam veterans received upon returning from their tour.

But, is it worse to have an AWOL Warmongerer in power than a
Traitorous person who voted against the weapons that are protecting
our soldiers?

Still, how can two people see the same intelligence, make the same
decision, and one sticks with it and the other says, "You know, it was
a wrong thing to do and I'll do it better."

We don't need a panderer. We need a leader. We don't need someone
shooting guns that they wanted to tax or outlaw the sale of the
ammunition for.

We don't need a global test to determine how to protect our country.
We don't need a coalition of countries who are bought by our enemies.
We certainly don't need a coalition of countries that will cut and run
because a few of their own civilians got hurt or killed. We can't
establish better relationships with countries that are on our side
that have already been called bribed and coerced.

We don't need to raise minimum wage. It will kill jobs. Sure, there
are the low income people who need more income. Raising minimum wage
doesn't help much. It will close businesses. It will cost jobs. It
will also do nothing to get people out of minimum wage jobs.

People are concerned that their jobs our being outsourced overseas.
This isn't something about which a *President" can do anything. The
world economy is changing because of the Internet. There are new
skills and new job types that are waiting to be filled, here. They
require more education and may involve learning new investment
techniques. It's time to see growth in new areas, and spark a
revolution in small businesses again.

I have a simple question. If (as we've been told enough times by the
Democrats, and if it's said enough times, eventually it *has* to be
true!) we had a 5 Trillion dollar surplus and now have a 2 Trillion
dollar deficit in 4 years, really, what difference does it make with
regards to privatizing social security  and the 1.3Trillion dollar hit
(one time!) to make the switch?

Why is it the President's fault that the country lost jobs? Why is it
the President's fault that the country doesn't have enough flu shots?
"He had been warned that this was going to happen!" - OK, but that
still doesn't mean that the supply is going to magically appear
because the President snaps his fingers. It certainly isn't his fault
that one of the suppliers had a bad batch. It isn't his fault that
drug companies are afraid of lawsuits by the likes of John Edwards and
refuse to make the drugs in the states.

Why is it the President's fault that kids aren't getting a good
education? (Hint: It's because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can't control
municipalities and cities!)

Why is it that the Executive branch is being blamed by the legislative
branch for things that the legislative branch should be doing? Guess
what? If it was important for the Dems to get something into law, they
had ample opportunity when they weren't filibustering because they
didn't want to be recorded as a vote for or against if they weren't
going to win.  And, as their side said, nearly every spending bill put
on the President's desk was signed into law. You think they could have
figured out a way to have a few notches in their own belt.

It's also just amazing that the Democrats are doing everything in
their power to cause fear regarding the election and blame the
Republicans for the fear. It isn't Republicans who are trying to make
sure people vote whether they have ID or not (Vote early, Vote
often!). It isn't Republicans who are massing lawyers to contest every
vote. It isn't Republicans who are organizing to stand in lines to
intimidate others from voting.

I am voting because of my belief system. I am voting because I don't
want to pay more taxes, nor lose my current benefits. I am voting
because I *want* to stop judicial legislation. I am voting because
partial birth abortion is wrong. Always. (Gee, you think health of the
mother could have been determined months earlier?) I am voting because
the scare tactics "You will lose Social Security." "There will be a
draft." are baseless. I am voting because Clinton gets a pass on
getting a flu shot and Cheney gets smeared. I am voting because I hate
actors and singers thinking they know more about politics than I do.

This is a free comment.

"We don't need a global test to determine how to protect our country.
We don't need a coalition of countries who are bought by our enemies.
We certainly don't need a coalition of countries that will cut and run
because a few of their own civilians got hurt or killed."
Are you quoting the movie Hitler?

Just add "We don't need the existence of countries that don't think
like us and don't give us their vital resources for free"



"Why is it the President's fault that the country lost jobs? Why is it
the President's fault that the country doesn't have enough flu shots?...
Why is it the President's fault that kids aren't getting a good
education?"

Why you need a president if you think in that way?


Bush is a liar, he lied when whit the reasons of the war on Irak (the
comission said in ast weeks that there are no weapons of mass
destructions in Irak), Saddam had not contacts with Al Quaeda, etc.
If he lied on this to you and the rest of the world, he can lie about
anything, this is why you cannot vote him without compromise your own
inteligence.

Personally, being British, I could not give a darn about US domestic considerations

Bush scares the living daylights out of me, he has the political nouse
of Jimmy Carter and the most appalling presentation.

The fact that over 1% of Americans thinks that Iraq had anything to do
with 9/11 is pretty unbelievable, and the 'feeding frenzy' to
'rebuild' Iraq was disgusting.

Something has gone wrong with America, the days of cynical realpolitik
seem to have dissappeared and we are faced with a raging infant in
diapers.

If I were American I would put in a write-in vote for Putin (yes I know)

Edithcen said:
Just add "We don't need the existence of countries that don't think
like us and don't give us their vital resources for free"

Reply: 
Except why did we bother with Haiti? Haiti has nothing for us and yet
we provided troops and human services to help restore order. That
Haitian oil must be important.

I said:
"Why is it the President's fault that the country lost jobs? Why is it
the President's fault that the country doesn't have enough flu shots?...
Why is it the President's fault that kids aren't getting a good
education?"

You said:
Why you need a president if you think in that way?

I reply:
Because you obviously have no concept of what the Executive branch of
the Federal government is supposed to be. The President's duty is to
uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Flu shots,
education, and employment are not Constitutional issues. In fact, they
should be *STATE* and Local issues. The Executive branch is Law
Enforcement. The Legislative Branck makes laws. If there is anyone to
blame for job loss, it is the Legislative Branch (Senators and
Representatives). Except for Executive order (bad idea, because that
is what the separation of powers is all about!), the President needs
to not be involved with issues that should be handled at the city or
state levels.


You say:
Bush is a liar, he lied when whit the reasons of the war on Irak (the
comission said in ast weeks that there are no weapons of mass
destructions in Irak), Saddam had not contacts with Al Quaeda, etc.
If he lied on this to you and the rest of the world, he can lie about
anything, this is why you cannot vote him without compromise your own
inteligence.

I reply:
Bush and Kerry received the same intelligence. Bush and Kerry reached
the same conclusion. When Bush acted according to the authorized use
of force Kerry voted for, Kery voted against the resources necessary
to fulfill the goal, then Kerry is on the warpath that the troops are
unprepared and ill equipped. I wonder how that can be reconciled. If
Bush lied, then so did Kerry. It's only lying if it was known to be
false ahead of time. Since there is no PROOF that this was known ahead
of time, the worst that you can say is that Bush (and Kerry!) made a
mistake based upon the same intelligence. Hindsight is 20/20, and
findings of new facts after the decisions had been made on both sides
doesn't make the first decision a lie. It at most made it an incorrect
choice. It probably doesn't matter to any Kerry supporters that
biological WMDs are easily reproduceable after sanctions were to be
lifted in Iraq and that Sadaam himself used WMDs on his own people. It
doesn't seem to also matter that the coalition Kerry wants is with
countries who were involved with the UN oil for food scandal.

We also need to stop being so environmentally conscious that we can't
supply our own fuel needs. It's time for America to do some offshore
drilling and protected habitat drilling for our own oil. Likewise we
should need to push for alternative fuel resources and give real
incentives to car buyers to make the choice to buy cleaner fueled cars
not based upon price. If we keep arguing about it, it's not going to
change. Again, this is a Legislative issue, NOT an Executive issue.

I doubt my intelligence is compromised any more than yours. I just
choose to express my comments without anger and without much
misspellings.

Dear crythias-ga,
I would venture to guess that your combined annual income is over
$200,000?   I was just waiting for the rhetorical rant to arrive . . .
all well articulated, thanks.  I just have a few questions for you:

Does it not bother you . . . 

that the Bush family has been in the pockets of the Saudi's for generations?
(see:  http://www.houseofbush.com/index.php)

that fifteen out of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were of Saudi origin;
and that it has been well documented that huge amounts of money had
been funnelled from Saudi royal family to al Queda?
(see: http://www.interlinkbooks.com/BooksN/New_Pearl_Harbor.html)

that the Bush administration has paid only lip service to the American
public and the 9/11 victim's families with an underfunded and biased
investigation   (initially Bush didn't want a commission at all, then
he allocated only $3 million.  Eventually, under pressure, they anted
up to $15 million to investigate the most significant catastrophe the
US has sustained in recent history, as apposed to, say, $50 million
allowed for the Columbia Space shuttle investigation, or . . .. . . .
get this . . .  $78 million in taxpayer money to investigate the
Clinton/Lewinsky scandal)  I mean, really . . . . what is wrong with
this picture?

that well before 9/11, the doctrine called the Project for the New
American Century (which informs the whole thrust of the Bush
administration) acknowledged that "what we need is a new Pearl Harbor"
to kick the military and other industries into gear with the full
emotional backing of the American public (see:
http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759, as well as the book The New
Pearl Harbor by David R. Griffin)

that, as we watch in of horror of kidnappers beheading their captives
on the evening news, the Saudi Arabian royal family makes it a
practice to have a public beheading every Friday night ...
(see:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/25/world/main626196.shtml)
  As much as people despise Michael Moore for his spin (I agree, he's
over the top), he did manage to show us real footage of one of these
public beheadings in Fahrenheit 9/11.

Can we as a nation afford to have a President who was affectionately
called "Bandar Bush" by the mafia of the middle east?  Where are our
upstanding democratic values in light of all this?

Can we afford to have a President who "is the worst environmental
president we've had in American history" (see:
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/20124/  ) according to
nonpartisan environmentalist Robert Kennedy Jr.

Most of what you went over is simply election year political
side-swiping designed to distract and sway the short-sighted among us
to vote one way or another.  Many of these issues, including partial
birth abortion, are important to all of us and not to be ignored, but
my question is this: can we as voters afford to ignore these larger
and extremely disturbing implications in order to preserve our
precious tax cuts and our "American way o' life"?

cynthias-ga
you say <We also need to stop being so environmentally conscious that we can't
supply our own fuel needs. It's time for America to do some offshore
drilling and protected habitat drilling for our own oil. Likewise we
should need to push for alternative fuel resources and give real
incentives to car buyers to make the choice to buy cleaner fueled cars
not based upon price. If we keep arguing about it, it's not going to
change. Again, this is a Legislative issue, NOT an Executive issue.>

Do you really think GWB is going to push for alternative fuels?  Do
you know the history of the pre-9/11 attempts to put a pipeline
through Afghanistan?  Do you think the Iraq war was actually about
Saddam's bad set of ethics?  You're right, it should be a Legislative
issue, but is a Republican dominated congress going to legislate for
alternative fuels?  You say it is "NOT an Executive issue" yet the
Executive branch of our government manipulates each step of the way in
the Middle East for the sake of big oil and other corporate interests.

"I just choose to express my comments without anger and without much misspellings."

Hmmm.  I could say something here, but I won't.

This month, there have been about 87 attacks on American forces each day.

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html

Letters from Baghdad:
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_12558.shtml

http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/article.php?id=721

Personally, I think that any soldier who serves his country in combat
is a hero.  It never fails to amaze me that the same people who adorn
their SUVs with "support our troops" bumper stickers can flat-out
disrepect the service of a decorated veteran.  If his service is
respectable enough for McCain, it's certainly respectable enough for
me.

It saddens me that we are so frequently unable to engage in
intelligent debate in this country.  The presidential debates were a
joke.  People on both sides blindly support their candidates,
repeating the sound bites latched onto by their parties.  How many
times do we have to hear "flip flopped," "global test," "wrong war,
wrong place, wrong time," etc?

What will it take to convince people that watching Fahrenheit 9/11
doesn't make you an activist?

What can we do to get people to start thinking on their own?

Ok,

And now for the difficult question

How to get out of the mess, preferably saving face ?

Thank you Daytrader for the link . . . and hyperlinks . . .
especially this image: http://photomatt.net/2004/04/07/mosaic/
If you click on any one of the small pictures in the mosaic and take
the time to let it load, you can see clearly the faces of all our
service men and women who died in Iraq.  And for what?

heard on late night tv:
Q. What is the difference between the Viet Nam war and the war in Iraq?
A. George Bush had a plan to get out of the Viet Nam war . . .

timespacette-ga, kindly spell my name correctly when addressing me. I
will obligingly and kindly return the favor. (I am not female, for
one.)

My income: no, but if Kerry wants to return to Clinton-era tax levels,
I might as well be.

Does the Saudi issue bother me? Yes. By implication I am assuming that
France and Germany are more friendly allies than the Saudis. By
implication I am also assuming that the exports we receive from France
and Germany are more critical to the welfare of our country than that
of Saudi Arabia.

Respectfully, how many beheadings have we seen? I guarantee it isn't
150, or 100, or even 50 or 25... (that would be one Friday a week for
half a year!) Is it distasteful to the American public? -Yes. But it's
not Bush who's beheading anyone. Soldiers are meant to be in harm's
way. That is what they train for. Although I am personally saddened by
the loss of anyone, there were several times in our country where as
many of our own soldiers died in one day as did the entire session of
this conflict. More people die of murders and car crashes and such
each day in our own country. Yes, I'm insensitive. I believe soldiers
should be willing to give the ultimate sacrifice ... or not be
soldiers.

And, respectfully, which part of my sentence "I just choose to express
my comments without anger and without much misspellings." do you
personally find worth (not) commenting? Do you feel that I was angry
or that I did not use spell check?

You said: "but is a Republican dominated congress going to legislate for
alternative fuels"

I reply: That is an interesting question. The Republicans certainly
can't legislate for local obtaining of normal fuels, because the
Democrats will filibuster because it's bad for environment. I don't
have a good answer for you. I don't believe that either side is
willing to do much on this issue. Both sides have had the power but
not the ability to do this. It needs to be one of *the* priorities of
this election and I'm afraid it doesn't seem to be important to either
candidate or party.

Of the things that are important to *me*, I want a President that
holds much the same values as I do, and holds them all the time.
Honestly, nobody would have picked Kerry out of a hat to start this
Presidential race. It's just unfortunate that the lot of the Democrats
had to fall on him to hold the party in a strange "I'll do the same
thing but different/better than the President" method. My opinion?
Senator Kerry had the chance to make his views known in the 20 years
he has been in the Senate. And, actually he has. Now just happens to
be different but the same.

And next they will send in th Black Watch

Followed by the Gurkhalii

I object to our trained thugs engaging in pointless combat.

Hey, whyisitso-ga, :) I agree with your statement. Should I agree,
then, that Kerry who was decorated is a hero, but who testified that
he and all levels of officers committed warcrimes, is still a hero?

I'll credit him with getting the medals free and clear. I'll credit
Kerry with the appropriate awarding, because I trust snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

I don't have any affiliation with the following link, but I feel it
might be important to understand the context of the feeling of
dissention by those who mmight not agree with Kerry being a hero.
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Testimony

Specifically (Senator Kerry speaking):
"WINTER SOLDIER INVESTIGATION

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that
several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over
150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans
testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated
incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full
awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in
Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were
reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the
absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off
ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of
Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and
generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the
normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging
which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

War is tough. It is dirty and nasty. It makes ordinary people do
abnormal things. This testimony, though, was being brought forth
during a time of war. It is considered by many Vietnam Veterans to be
a cause of aid and comfort to the enemy combatant. It is time to name
names and punish criminals. Such a broad statement as "not isolated
incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full
awareness of officers at all levels of command." needs to be
qualified. It needs to have real names attached to real deeds.
Otherwise, it's just gossip.

Respectfully, I have to add that I don't believe military service is
especially a plus with respect to being President. It certainly wasn't
an issue for Bill Clinton. It didn't help General Clark. I don't see
how less than one year of combat has any bearing on fitness to serve
as President. If anything both sides should just chill on the Vietnam
issue. I will say this unqualified: Kerry obtained his medals
legitimately and served honorably. Thank you for your service, Mr.
Kerry. That he was so vocal about the problems after he got out, and
threw (his? some?) medals over a fence doesn't help his case about
being a good soldier, let alone a hero. I reserve the right to choose
my heroes. Honorable discharge and medals alone don't obligate me to
use the word, "Hero."

Hello crythias-ga, 
Sorry for the gender slip; it was hasty of me . . . notice the first
time round I got it right! ...

I am having a hard time understanding your train of thought:

"My income: no, but if Kerry wants to return to Clinton-era tax levels,
I might as well be."  
Might as well be what . . .  . rich?

"Respectfully, how many beheadings have we seen? "
Do you mean the Friday night beheadings in Saudi Arabia?  Or those of
the kidnappers captives?

"My opinion?  Senator Kerry had the chance to make his views known in the 20 years
he has been in the Senate. And, actually he has. Now just happens to
be different but the same."
Not following you here.

"And, respectfully, which part of my sentence "I just choose to express
my comments without anger and without much misspellings." do you
personally find worth (not) commenting? Do you feel that I was angry
or that I did not use spell check?"

It's beside the point of our discussion, but as Mark Twain once said
"people think it is the noise which fighting cats make that is so
aggravating, but it ain't so; it is the sickening grammar that they
use  . . ." 

cheers!

Here's a good reason NOT to vote for Bush ...

Bet on Kerry and get better odds:

http://mybetting.oddschecker.com/mybetting/mode/o/card/cc8859x/odds/243698x/sid/377975

timespacette-ga:
Hee :). (Grinning at last comment first).

I make a decent living. I don't make $200,000/year. However, I am in a
25% tax bracket. I'm concerned that my tax rate will increase under
Kerry. I doubt it will go to 35%, though.

Beheadings: I read quickly and was confused between two points you
brought up in "that, as we watch in of horror of kidnappers beheading
their captives on the evening news, the Saudi Arabian royal family
makes it a practice to have a public beheading every Friday night ..."
Saudis: 52 in a year. It's their way of carrying out the death
penalty. I don't know how relevant the Saudi's public criminal
punishment methods are to the point of this entire topic. There are a
lot of countries who exports affect America's way of life (China, for
one) whose public social policies are considered by some (most?) to be
against human rights.

Different, but the same: OK, empty rhetoric from me. It seems to have
been pre-emptively suggested in this thread that it is unfair to use
Republicans' repetition of Kerry's lines of "wrong war, wrong place,
wrong time", "I voted for the [money] before I voted against it",
Kerry's voting for the use of force. Kerry saying he has always had
one policy. So, I wasn't going to do it. There are other topics to
tackle. At least, up until this point I didn't say anything about
Farenheit 9/11, Michael Moore, moveon.org, etc., nor did I anything to
suggest (pre-emptively) that certain topics should be off the table in
discussion.

Here's a bone to throw for your side. The title is encouraging for
you, but the content is very evenly displayed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6678-2004Aug16.html
It's not "news", just commentary.

I'll agree with poor execution. OTOH, Real elections were brought to
Afghanistan. We're on track to do the same in Iraq.

Back to the comment about grammar: Heh :) the only thing I can figure
out is that I used the word "much" instead of "many", which,
respectfully, isn't the most egregious error I could have made. I find
it funny that you put this in the context of "sickening grammar" when
my original statement was based upon... Oh, never mind. :) See, the
difference is I chose my wording on purpose, not because of ignorance,
but because of my intended style of speech. The replacement words I
could have used (to me) incurred a different tone than that which I
was intending.

I hope someone notices that I at least agreed on some points with the
other viewpoint. Agreement on certain points doesn't necessarily
change my opinion on the core issues, however.

I meant to say "whose exports" above. Just so if anyone's checking...

<<sigh>>

I went to see a film last night entitled 'Hijacking Catastrophe'
(narrated by Julian Bond)
see: http://www.hijackingcatastrophe.org/index.php?module=ContentExpress&file=index&func=display&ceid=2&meid=5

Anyone who votes for Bush should be accountable to the idealogy
contained in the doctrine called the Project for the New American
Century.  If you are not familiar with this, you have no claim on
calling yourself an informed voter!

Here's their official website: 
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Here's commentary on it from William Rivers Pitt:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

Basically, if you beleive America should strive toward total world
domination, then George is your man.  If you think this might be just
a tad extreme, better think twice . . .

Let us pray.

Here's another interesting piece:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1023-23.htm

Here's just an exerpt (the site has live links):

SECRECY 

96. The Bush Administration refuses to release twenty-seven pages of a
Congressional report that reportedly detail the Saudi Arabian
government's connections to the 9/11 hijackers.

Source: philly.com 

97. Last year the Bush Administration spent $6.5 billion creating 14
million new classified documents and securing old secrets--the highest
level of spending in ten years.

Source: openthegovernment.org 

98. The Bush Administration spent $120 classifying documents for every
$1 it spent declassifying documents.

Source: openthegovernment.org 

99. The Bush Administration has spent millions of dollars and defied
numerous court orders to conceal from the public who participated in
Vice President Cheney's 2001 energy task force.

Source: Washington Post 

100. The Bush Administration--reversing years of bipartisan
tradition--refuses to answer requests from Democratic members of
Congress about how the White House is spending taxpayer money.

Source: Washington Post

:) I guess I could equally make the broad claim that anyone who votes
for Kerry carries the burden of allowing partial birth abortion to
continue. And should be held accountable for allowing it to happen.

If I were to use your tone of such a large stroke of a brush, it would
be that all Democrats are intending to make the United States a
government run socialist system. (Federal Government controls
everything: Health Care, Employment, Education, Insurance, retirment,
housing, Welfare).

I *like* PNAC's Statement of Principles. 
"Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its
power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global
leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America
has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia,
and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite
challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th
century should have taught us that it is important to shape
circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they
become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to
embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their
consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

    ? we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to
carry out our global
    responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

    ? we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to
challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

    ? we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

    ? we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in
preserving and extending an international order friendly to our
security, our prosperity, and our principles."

I don't think the VERY biased commentary has a lot of accuracies, but
I understand why you like it.

I'm not interested in continuing this discussion. I must assume that
you accept my points as valid and/or inconsequential to your choice,
since you have offered no refutation, but would rather change the
subject.

I meant to say, I DO think the commentary is full of inaccuracies... 

Meant to type retirement instead of retirment.

I'm not certain that either side is willing to divulge everything that
happens during the Presidency. Travelgate, anyone?

If anything, I'd want to know why the statements you are making are
relevant to my choice of President. Classifying documents isn't enough
of a reason. It's an observance of events. I guess it is by
implication that Bush is hiding something. But... what is it? Do you
know? Or are you simply angry that something's being hidden and you
don't know what it is?

Do you think that Kerry will declassify everything? He should start
with his own service records. He has released all records that he has
requested. Got it. I guess that means there isn't anything more to
see, now.

crythias-ga,
I guess this is where we finally part ways.
I feel that the arrogance of the Bush foreign policy is absolutely reprensible.
Aside from assuming that the American way is the best (and tacitly
implying that other cultures are somehow second rate) the long range
view of this policy is untenable:

see:  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002069706_planet22.html
(note: this is a traditionally conservative newspaper)

If 'Americanism' spreads throughout the world, our children and
grandchildren are basically doomed.

Do you care?  If you value human life so much, why not take this into
consideration?  Or is it that, like George, you believe in armageddon
and preserving the earth doesn't matter anyway?
 
Here's an exerpt from an email message I received from a Vietnam vet:
(speaking of Iraq and this foreign policy in general)

" it's the same story... lack of
historical knowledge, no understanding of the local
people and their customs, a lack of respect for those
people and their customs, inability to understand the
language, unachievable goals (ie bring "democracy" and
"freedom" to essentially tribal peoples), lack of
proper training and equipment for the outnumbered
forces, not enough forces to accomplish the job,
stupid dangerous missions to "pacify" the areas where
we are hated, creating more enemy soldiers by our
military blundering(ask yourself...Are there more or
less terrorists today than on this date one year
ago?), huge profits being made by big US companies
while the rich kids stay home and the poor kids
die...I could go on and on.."

I would take half my day 'refuting' what you had to say, but it's like
rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, sorry.

Simple comment now that it's all over - about the "warmongering" since
I've been watching the spirited discussion over the past month or
so...

How long has the N/S Korean Situation been going on, how long have we
had our troops there to watch N Korea and prevent a war, and how much
has it cost?

Does anyone realize that Iraq might've lingered on for more than a
half century as N/S Korea did?

Thanks President Bush - for initiating an end to this so that my
children don't have to patrol the "No Fly Zone" as I did during more
than 20 deployments of 1 to 3 months at a time - over an 8 year period
(by the way, the majority during a democratic presidency).

TimeSpacette,

You may not know of any Democrats personally who voted for Bush, but
there are some prominent ones. Like Zell Miller and Former NYC Mayor
Ed Koch. The latter is certainly no conservative. I have not heard of
any prominent Republicans who voted for Kerry. This is more telling.

I can understand why you haven't found anyone who can articulate a
good position for voting for Bush, especially when you have comments
like this:

"I am planning to vote for Bush for a few reasons. Bushes out take of
the family. He supports the structure and stability of it by trying to
create tax breaks for the family and stay at home moms. He is against
abortion. While some may say that it is back woods and close minded
not to support a womens right to choose I do not think that should
extend to babies after they have been concived. I also do think that
bush made a good decision about going into Iraq. What you don't see on
the news it that our military had found weapons of mass destructions.
In the form of Russian migs able to fire long range missle
capatibility. I don't think that is it eighther. I don't think saddam
was all innocent." 

This comment is laden with obvious misspellings and grammatical
errors. It doesn't lend to his intelligence.

P.S. Read these articles articulated by Kotch and maybe that will give
you a good idea why some Americans voted for Bush.

http://www.forward.com/issues/2004/04.01.09/oped1.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/1177308/posts

"So, you can vote for a decorated war hero or a pair of draft dodgers"

This is a very un-intelligent response. A war record has no bearing on
if a President will perfom successfully while in office. Let me point
to Grants administration.

Also, can I assume that you did not support Clinton because of his
status as a blatant draft dodger?

Timespacette,

If you have a problem understanding why anyone would vote for Bush it
is probably because you regurgitate statements like the following:

"If 'Americanism' spreads throughout the world, our children and
grandchildren are basically doomed."

If you belive this, then that means you believe American philosophy is
essentially bad; dare I say evil? Most Americans, unlike yourself,
have the opposite point of view. I would venture to say that you did
not vote for Kerry, but instead voted against Bush.

My Stats:

I'm in debt over $40,000 dollars do to College loans. Every year Bush
has been in office I have recieve $500 more from my tax refund check(I
use to owe money durring the Clinton years). I make less than $300
dollars a month, as I am a Peace Corps volunteer. I've never earned
more than $20,000 a year. When I lived with my parents, they provided
room and board only. I bought my own car, insurance, and University
education, among other things. I grew up in the San Francisco bay
area, a bastion for liberals, and have noticed the good and bad of
this philosophy.

If you are worried that Americanism is spreading, you should be. I
have read articles in Newsweek(European version) that points to
countries, including Sweden, that are reforming to become less
socialistic. This is in response to the success of Irelands economic
reforms that I believe carry a tone of Americanism underneath them.
Britian certainly carries a hand in designing American philosiphy as
our roots were born from theirs, much like Christianity stemmed from
Judaism, and Bhudism from Hinduism.

I am not a Republican, but an independant. I am an environmentalist
and plan to enter a career that promotes sustainability of the worlds
resources. I am stongly opposed to the party system that promotes
anti-intellectual actions and is dominated by two parties who have
monopolized our democracy. I would have voted for Nader if the
Democrats allowed him on the ballot in California. Not because I agree
with him, but as a protest vote against the party system. He was the
only independant on the ballot.

I believe that American philosophy is essentially good and that our
citizens reap the bennefits of it. No, it's not perfect, but it's the
best thing we've got so far. It's a proccess in need of moderate and
healthy progress to nurture its growth. It requires gardians to
protect it from those who wish to cut it at its roots.

The roots of American Philosophy are made of gold and are the envy of
not all, but many. I know you may not hear this much in the United
States, but living in eastern Europe, I have seen young people adorned
with the American flag. Even in France and Germany I have seen it. I
didn't understand why at first, but they told me that it represents
hope and dreams of the future. What a powerful symbol that is.

I voted for Bush eventhough I only agree with him half the time
because he is unwaivering in his support and determination to protect
the golden roots of American philosophy which have been attacked by
terrorists. You want social reform! You want green friendly
capitalism! Don't even think about that if our enemies cut us at the
roots. It is their goal to destroy the dreams and hope that the
American flag represent and take us back to the middle ages. There is
no domestic policy with out a strong foreign policy to defend it. I am
young, but am not willing to sit around and wait for my perfect
canidate to run for office. I need to support the candidate who more
closely reflects my point of view on the issues and weighted towards
the issues that are most important. I didn't vote for Kerry because he
is unable or unwilling to define himself in a concrete way.

If you do not understand after reading this why a young, agnostic,
environmentalist, San Franciscan, working class, Peace Corps
volunteer, would vote for Bush; you never will and should stop your
search.