Jump to content

Who would you vote for TODAY!  

36 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Hmmm?, not too many people voting here.

 

As of today, W may in fact be in deep dodo. After listening to national security advisor Condoleezza Rice's testimony I have come to the opinionated conclusion that there was a dereliction of duty. My opinion only. I would have thought she would have expressed at least a shred of an apology for the tragedy that occurred on 9/11. Any semblance of regret or an admission of human err was absent. How dare her to be so righteous.

 

Bush may be toast, but unfortunately Kerry is just the crumbs. Heaven help us.

 

lawrence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I had the opportunity to see all of it (the Rice testimony)... I had an appointment and missed much, but the 'replays' I saw later in the day were, in my opinion, nothing more than a bunch of pols (politicians) simply trying to exercise their own agenda. The Dems attacked, the Republicans trod more lightly.

 

What a crock these hearings are!!

 

How sad we simply HAD to turn the worse tragedy in US history into a politically motivated charade! Both parties should hang their heads in shame!

 

This whole thing has NOTHING to do with Bush, Kerry, Clinton, Bush I, Nixon or anyone else. The blame goes back DECADES and has EVERYTHING to do with budgets and bureaucracy and nothing to do with the Pols who were in office at the time except that every one of them lacked vision and foresight.

 

Everyone seems to forget that ALL Presidents and their toadies are TEMPS! Part time labor hired for the short term. The REAL employees are the life long civil servants.

 

For a long as I can remember, the FBI, Immigration, Secret Service, CIA, DIA, DSA and maybe some others not as well known, have fought like crazy to carve out their own turf. This even included local police departments! Each had to justify their budget. Each had to 'look good'. Secrets were NEVER shared under ANY administration. Nobody talked to anybody about anything because to do so might give another agency an upper hand that could come back later to bite them in the butt come budget time. Every administration since TRUMAN allowed and perhaps even tacitly encouraged this behavior.

 

I DID watch nearly every minute of these hearings except for Rice, and I have learned NOTHING that was not known a year ago... at least nothing of import.

 

Of COURSE 9-11 was avoidable, but nobody communicated because that was the way things were. People who certainly WOULD have done something never had all the info. Does anyone REALLY think Rice would have sat on her hands if she was presented with ALL the combined intel from all these agencies? I sure do not.

 

So Bush creates Homeland Security. A BRILLIANT idea that SHOULD have been done THIRTY years ago (or anytime since then by ANY President, regardless of party).

 

It FORCED all these agencies to communicate and share data, something that adequate leadership SHOULD have encouraged under every administration. Anybody know of ANY successful organization that does not engender and encourage teamwork??? I sure don't.

 

I don't particularly congratulate Bush on this. He did it because he was forced to do it and ONLY because 9-11 was on his watch. If Gore was President, HE'd have had to do it. Anybody would!

 

I am not thrilled with some of the loss of some of the individual freedoms or rights that we are facing, but I understand and support them. Things have changed since we forged a Constitution. Back then, the "right to bear arms' meant a flintlock and not an AK47 and meant you could protect family and home against those who would do you harm. Yes, things have changed.

 

An enlightened President of ANY party, would have seen how the world was changing... getting smaller, with a ton of goofy folks running around telling us theirs is the only way of life. ANY President could have created a forerunner to Homeland Security, and exercised leadership to encourage inter-agency communications and cooperation. They did not.

 

We were arrogant because we were 'untouchable and powerful'. We found out that we were actually very touchable and seemingly powerless. So maybe now we are fixing what was broken. I hope so.

 

Since I am on this rant, I think I’ll give my thoughts on Iraq. I HATE this situation! I wish we were out of there, but the US is the ‘big man’ of the world. Whether there were actually weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) or not does not bother me. Somebody had to do something and we did. Now we’re stuck. Sad.

 

I compare the US to a tall, powerful man walking down the street and seeing a young woman being sexually attacked.

 

That man has four choices that I can see. He can:

 

1. Participate in and enjoy the rape.

 

2. Just stand there and watch the rape.

 

3. Turn his back and walk safely away.

 

4. Use his power and strength to stop the rape, even at a risk to his own life.

 

(No, he can’t summon help because he is the biggest and the strongest, and there IS no world police department!)

 

It is a sad commentary that the world court of opinion criticizes the US for doing number four.

 

Was the correct solution number 1, 2, or 3? Geez, I don’t know. My gut tells me no. My gut tells me that the big strong country MUST come to the aid of others when there is such an obvious violation or human rights and conditions. WMD’s simply do not enter into it for me. Sadaam’s behavior was sufficient.

 

With strength and power comes responsibility. What would YOU personally think about the man above who chose number 1, 2, or 3?

 

Thirty-four years ago, a Canadian named Gordon Sinclair went on the radio and spoke about the United States. I listened to that broadcast again this morning and it hit me just as hard as when I first heard it. I suggest that it is worth listening to, and if you would like to do so, click here.

 

It might make you feel good again about being a citizen of the United States of America.

 

Ticogrande

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to vote for Uncle Walt, but I thought Mickey mouse might be a good choice for president. Just think about it. A make belive character running a country that goes to war for make belive reasons and then starts to belive its own fantasy. What's even better is he would be the first black president of the USA. Also we could finally be true to form and admit that the V.P. is truly GOOFY.

 

Wally :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weekend reading suggestions:

 

The Creature from Jekyll Island by Griffin

 

The Price of Loyalty by Suskind(?)

 

Worse than Watergate by J.W.Dean

 

The Great Depression edited by Shannon

 

Read 'em and weep. I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another book you may want to read. Took me 6 weeks on the waiting list to barrow this one from my local library.

 

"Against All Enemies, inside America's war on terror" by Richard A. Clarke.

 

Draw your own conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really haven't been following this topic. I spoke my thoughts at the beginining and they have not changed. I have a lot of issues with George Bushes policies but as of this time *he* has not called me a war criminal (among other names) and he never claimed that I spent my whole time in Viet Nam stoned. Unlike kerry, I served a whole (12 month) tour as an infantrymam with the 101st Airborne Div. Unlike kerry, I did not fake any of my medals (ribbons) and although I do not invoke my service with every breath I take, I'm proud of my service. IMHO john kerry should have be tried and convicted of treason for his dispicable actions after his return for his abbreviated tour of duty. For anyone to think this jerk derserves the title of CIC of the US military is an insult to all that *honorably* served.

Nuff said!

 

JV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting tidbit that may be relevant to this thread.

 

Draft 2005, pending legislation in the U.S. House and Senate (twin bills: S89 and HR 163) on deck and ready for implementation as early as Spring 2005. That's right, a draft; women will be included also. Limited deferments, forget about Canada this time. Well isn't that just wonderfull? Funny we never hear anything this in the national media. Oh, I forgot; this is an election year. Certainly wouldn't want to upset anyone.

 

Meanwhile, 7 of the U.S. Navy's aircraft carriers have recently been shipped out to sea, supposedly, for training exercises. Yeah, right.

 

I'm almost ready to go out and buy a TV, (with 120 mindless cable stations, of course), and get a prescription for some Prozac. Wake me up when it's over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All..

My major objective in moving back to Costa Rica aside from the obvious draws that CR has is the thought that the "terrorist" have created self perpetuating terror. That is all the news is about here. I remember a cartoon showing people running around looking up hollering "ohmygod there here, we're all gonna die !!!", and the bad guys are shown off to the side saying "mission accomplished, we have self sustaining terror".

I'm coming "home" as fast as I can get there.

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That man has four choices that I can see. He can:

 

1. Participate in and enjoy the rape.

 

2. Just stand there and watch the rape.

 

3. Turn his back and walk safely away.

 

4. Use his power and strength to stop the rape, even at a risk to his own life.

Hey TG,

 

You made a comparison between the US invasion of Iraq and a man walking down a street who comes across a woman being raped.

 

You made this analogy which I quote below:

 

"That man has four choices that I can see. He can:

 

1. Participate in and enjoy the rape.

 

2. Just stand there and watch the rape.

 

3. Turn his back and walk safely away.

 

4. Use his power and strength to stop the rape, even at a risk to his own life."

 

Well, I respectfully disagree with the logic of this analogy. First of all Iraq was not necessarily 'raping' anyone other than her own citizens. Not that Saddam was a saint, but you can't really believe that it is the duty of the USA to invade and destroy all morally repugnant regimes lest the USA be called complicit or cowardly. It is simply impractical and impossible not to mention incredibly presumptuous and arrogant for the USA on its own to monitor and invade the worlds' despots. Who will start with Bush and his regime by the way?

 

Nothing 'needed to be done' in Iraq. There was no immediate or gathering threat. An autocratic regime that indulged in corruption and persecution of minorities? Yes, but so has the US over the years.

 

But anyway, following your logic, that something needed to be done, then how do you explain the US policy on North Korea? Which is: Hey you Japan and China and South Korea, could you please take care of this mad man threatening us with nuclear weapons he has already made with the help of our ally Pakistan's technology.

 

Avoiding Iraq is not a case of turning one's back on a woman being raped. You simply can't make such a linear parallel to a complex situation. There were diplomatic channels at work since the end of the first Gulf War. They were making progress apparently as Saddam indeed had no WMD.

 

On a final note, I find it interesting that anyone with any known connections to terrorists or any former-members of the Iraqi power structure would surely be bundled away for endless interrogations. Well how about our good friend Rummy? He and the Reagan admin had no problem whatsoever gassing Kurds.

 

Check it out:

 

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

 

 

Let's put an end to this disgrace called Bush. Throw out this blue-blood frat boy punk.

 

Cheers, Tokyo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

However, I can and DO make such a comparison, and the 911 hearings have pretty much validated my thoughts.

 

Saddam was/is an animal as were his two offspring. Something needed to be done and we did it. I care little about WMD. I suspect he did have them and they are now sitting in one of the neighboring countries. However, to me, that is not important. What IS important is that this man had the means and power to support terrorism against the US. Whether he did it before we invaded, during or would have after is reason enough.

 

To compare actions of prior administrations is not relevant. That was then. This is now. If we are to point fingers at prior administrations that failed to do their jobs, the list goes pretty much back to Eisenhower and is certainly not limited to Republicans OR Democrats.

 

Don't get me wrong... I am not a huge fan of George Bush... but once AGAIN I find myself in the position of having to decide which person will do the least damage while in office. As of now, Bush may get the vote simply because I see nothing of substance in Kerry. While senator, he pretty much mailed in his effort. He has missed nearly almost 60% of his votes while in office and he voted against the intelligence funding that well may have provided the sitting president with more accurate information and perhaps avoided or forewarned of numerous terrorist acts world wide. This is not the mark of someone I want as president. I appreciate some of Kerry's thoughts... (at least if I can keep track of them as they seem to change daily according to the polls or what he perceives will get him elected). At least Bush picks a position and stands by it.

 

Kerry reminds me of various politicians before and during the early years of WW2. He seems to favor appeasement rather than action. These terrorists do NOT want to negotiate. They CANNOT be appeased. They do NOT want to change US policy toward Israel or the Middle East. They do NOT want peace. They DO want to subject the US and the entire world to a theologic regime under the laws of Islam. This IS a war.

 

Personally, I was totally surprised at dubbya after 911. I too wondered if he 'had the stuff'. But this man has grown in office and has done a credible job under incredible circumstances. Surpisingly, he has managed an ecomomy that suffered a loss of over a TRILLION dollars, and this in only 4 years. Only the totally uninformed can blame him for the unemployment and economic problems immediately after 911. What OTHER country could suffer such an economic loss and survive?

 

I do not believe this is the time for another politician who has done, at best, a lackluster job as a senator, to run the country. I listen carefully to Kerry trying to understand exactly what is is he WILL do differently, but I hear nothing. I hear only the typical whiney complaints about what he thinks Bush does wrong. That is not leadership.

 

I doubt any of these comments will mean a lot to you. Your comment

 

Throw out this blue-blood frat boy punk.
Clear ly indicates your position... but personal attacks like that seem in vogue these days.

 

I am niether a Republican nor a Democrat. I have voted many times for both parties. I am NOT pleased with the current situation in Iraq. I wish we were out. I wish we had a better 'exit plan'. But we are there and we seem to be doing all we can to give back the power to the people of Iraq and get out. I see no reason to change the commander in chief unless and until I see a better option. So far, all I see is another empty suit. I am sure those who read this will think I AM a Republican... but that is wrong. I will AGAIN vote for the person who I feel will do the best job.

 

Finally... though you didn't mention this... as for all this war record thing. I just don't CARE. Vietnam was a horrible time. I lived during that time as a 18-25 year old. I supported the war, then I protested the war. Who cares??? What really counts is NOW, and I suspect the sitting President has all the experience necessary to run the armed forces for the next four years. If he didn't before... he sure as heck does now. MAYBE if Kerry had been a general with 20 years of wartime experince, I might feel differently, but a few months as a swift boat commander does NOT an experienced leader make.

 

TG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am closing this thread as of today!

 

Now that the conventions are over, I will shortly add a new Poll to see how people were affected by what they have heard from the candidates and their toadies.

 

Look for it soon in this Open Forum.

 

TG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.