Dems want a war hero, but despise war?

Dean is NOT typical of the Democratic Party. He represents one element of that party, purely and simply. The fact is that the majority of Democrats did not vote for him in the primary. Let us not paint the Democrats as we want them to be.
He is no more typical of the Democratic Party than are Buchanan, Juliani, Novak orGingrich typical of the Republican Party.
For a party to succed in the two party political system we have in the USA, each party MUST of necessity contain a diversity of opinions.

The reason that we want a "warrior" is because we at war with those that attacked us on 9/11. We want somebody that is smart enough to able balance security,diplomacy, freedom and civil liberties as needed and that ain't bush.

[such as not penalizing all Muslims and Middle Eastern people for actions they had no hand in. Do not just pick people out at an airport who happen to be of one or both of those characteristics to be questioned based only because of that.]

Iraq is not part of 9/11 and is not in connection with the war on terror. What is meant by that term is more than just fighting in countries. It has to be because terrorist are everywhere. We need someone who comprehends that fact.

Kerry was mislead along with the rest of us, it is confusing that he says he would still vote the same way. However, I put that down to politics and just let it slide because in the overall picture, it is either going to be Kerry or Bush and Kerry is way better than Bush and I honestly believe he will be able to lead our country in a positive direction on all fronts.

Hmmmm... See, I think they should stop every single middle eastern person entering america and have them prove their identity, and prove where and who they are visiting and all information should be followed up on. This should happen until such a time as no more arab people are blowing themselves and other people up.

I take it you are joking and are trying to say that I am somehow stretching the abuse of civil liberties for Muslim/Arabs since 9/11? I disagree.

No, I am actually serious. Until such time as the average suicide bomber is no longer arab, we should be more cautious and serious about racial profiling.

Oh, well in that case. Racial profiling has the potential to ignore the bad guys and using up resources that could be better spent on acutally investigating and following real leads. (forgot the name of that in my original post )

Racial profiling = letting the terrorists win.

Can't you see that McG? If our society becomes as crappy as theirs is, they've won without firing a shot.

Cycloptichorn

Racial profiling = saving lives by targetting the people that seem to be transpiring the aggression. When more suicide bobers have orange hair and freckles, I say we switch to profiling those people. Until such time, I am not opposed to profiling Arabs or anyone coming from suspect countries.

I don't care what definition is, number one it is wrong and number two I don't see it working long if at all so the money and resources would be better spent elsewhere. Like I said before, in actual investigating and following up on leads.

Those orange headed freckled faced terrorist would just dye their hair and wear make-up.

Besides racial profiling is not the only injustice that has been committed since 9/11. Locking people up and calling them "enemy combatants" without charge and without access to lawyers is another civil injustice that can be laid on the administration shoulders. I am not talking about those after the Afghanistan war but right after 9/11 when Ashcroft rounded up all those "suspects" like herds of cattle and held them without charge for a long time and deported some of them on flimsy at best excuses.

There is no need to defend that action, I have heard it all before and I still disagree.

Revel - Profiling is PART of investigtion.

How can you describe the perpetrator without creating a PROFILE.

Seems like common sense to me that profiling is necessary AND legal.

I won't let political correctness endanger the welfare of my family. Every single person coming into America of middle eastern descent or from countries suspected of having ties with terrorism should be investigated. All visa's should be checked for validity as well.

I've met a couple of reheaded, freckle faced Palestinians, though I confess I don't know whether they were suicide bombers. McG, I see where you're coming from, but do you know how many Arabs there are in the world? Neither do I, but it's a LOT. And a lot of them have been visiting, living, working, and becoming citizens of this country for a long time now. Stopping every single one is just making the proverbial haystack bigger.

Red headed freckle faced terrorists!?

In the past 10 years, within the US, we have had two devastating terror attacks: the first, bombing the Federal Building in Ocklahoma; the second,
crashing to planes into the Twin buildings in NYC.
The first bombing was carried out by a wholesome true blue western lighthaired American
boy (he might have had blue eyes; he was a former vet); the second was carried out by a group of arab terrorists belonging to a larger group called
Al Qaeda.
In the first instance, on the first day following the attack the Arab muslims were blamed, until
the truth about Timothy McVeigh was revealed.
In the second instance, we concentrated all our military might on Iraq, a country which had NO
connection to the second attack mentioned above,
and which was no threat to us (as revealed after our entry and occupation.) Over 1000 of our men
were killed; 7000 injured of which 4000 lost limbs;
30000 plus innocent Iraqis were killed. And the killing ist still going on, entertaining millions around the world on tv with blood and gory.
I'd say we have bumbled magnificently. We couldn't bumble better if we tried.

Don't forget the earlier attack on the WTC done by arab terrorists, or the attack on the USS Cole by arab terrorists, or the continuous suicide bombings being done by arab terrorists, or the shootings of school children by arab terrorists, or the continued attacks on Israel by arab terrorists.

Also, we concentrated our military might on Afghanistan and while we were there, we took care of some other unfinished business in the neighborhood.

We are not Israel.

The middle east conflict is not part of our war on terror.

I repeat to single out a group of people based on nothing except who they are and where they come is wrong and not very profitable for the purpose it is intended for.

I think we are at the point to agreeing to disagree.

I believe we are not approaching the war on terror the appropriate way. If we were groups like Hamas would no longer exist as they are terror organizations.

MGC, I am not going to go there with you except to say I think the Palestinians have had a bad rap and have been occupied for too long. Israel and Palestine should go back to the pre Arab/Israel war boundries and the Palestinians should be free. I know your views on this and on this subject as well, we should agree to disagree.

I repeat, Israel is not the United States and Hamas are not our terrorist.

woiyo wrote: "Well, the Democratic stratagy of their Candidate, Kerry, is as confusing as your original post. He has not taken a firm position relative to the Iraqi conflict as his voting record and recent statements suggest."

Wrong, wrong, and ... wrong.

He has most certainly taken a firm position re Iraq. He like many of us believed our president when he told us the threat from Iraq was "imminent". In such a case, re Iraq or any other country, Kerry is willing to respond with immediate military action to defend the US. When the threat is NOT imminent, as it turned out to be with Iraq, he would use diplomatic avenues and mutlinational alliances to determine the wisest and most practical course. Nothing confusing there.

Bush's rash, arrogant, unilateral, unjustified pre-emptive invasion has left us less safe from real terrorism by alienating us from our allies and fueling the ranks of our enemies.

Unwise. Impractical. Counter-productive.

McGentrix, you are quite proficient at citing all the Arab terrorist attacks on us. There have been many attacks, as well, on Europe.
What you ignore is that terrorism has been with us as long as our history.
What you also fail to do is to ask WHY are the Arabs so inflamed against us and the rest of the western world.
The answer is simply that for 200 years the west has dominated and partitioned this part of the world,occupied vast tracts of their lands, deposed and chosen many of their leaders, and failed to understand their culture, and what we owe them in terms of our civilisation.
Yes, they hate us. Their own backwardness and the poverty of so many of them have not helped, but rather tended to breed many angry hostile and aggressive individuals, who have joined terrorist groups. We have been so stupid as to continue this bad dialogue, and so stupid as to send ambassadors and intelligence people into their lands who understand neither their culture nor speak their language.
They have reached the point where they do not want to deal much with Europeans or European type faces. For that reason, the Palestinians will probably will not accept the Israelis (even with a
separate state for each Palestine and Israel), nor will the Iraqis accept us as occupiers, even when we bring the gift of "democracy" into their country.
Israel is a thorn in their flesh. We have become the same.
The ONLY solution is for us to be less dependent upon Arab oil. Carter, wearing sweaters around the house at 68 degree temperature, tried to tell us that some years ago; we didn't listen. We resumed buying bigger and bigger cars, using more oil with each years. We would be better off investing the billions we have spent in this war on alternative modes of energy, and trying to render nuclear waste not dangerous. What the solution for Israel is, I do not know; it is a sad dilemma for them.