I'm willing to take the blame, are you?

But, yes, I'll vote for the president and view that vote as an expression of hope.

Regardless of how my vote is ultimately counted, I've been feeling optimistic about the recent elections in Afghanistan and the upcoming elections in Iraq. How wonderful and how exciting for the people of those countries!

Say that John Kerry does indeed get elected. He's said that he'll keep his promise (it's on his website) to fight the war on terror and not cut and run in Iraq.

He also promises he'll get us out of the "wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Is it realistic to think he can do both?

I think his constituency is counting on him to get us out, but a large group - his fundraisers and activists have been promised he'll be strong on terror.... Aren't I at least being realistic to wonder how Kerry would effectively fight the war on terror yet satisfy his peace-at-any-cost constituency?

Unfortunately...no matter who is elected next month...that person will be straddled with handling the incredible mess the machinations and ineptitude of George Bush and his administration have wrought on this nation and the world.

I'm not going to take the blame...no matter what.

And I think it is time we all come to the realization that the leader of this nation and the leaders of other free-world nations will be severely handcuffed for decades to come by what this motley crew has managed in such a short time.

JustWonders wrote:

But, yes, I'll vote for the president and view that vote as an expression of hope.

Hope for what? That's what I don't understand about Bush voters.

Hope because although most here are nearly twice my age, I've been hearing for years the promises of politicians to bring peace to the ME. I see free elections there as a hopeful start to the peace process.

Quote:

Regardless of how my vote is ultimately counted, I've been feeling optimistic about the recent elections in Afghanistan and the upcoming elections in Iraq. How wonderful and how exciting for the people of those countries!

But, if that is something to be proud of, the spreading of the ability to vote, who is next? If that is what makes one proud of Bush, and makes you want to vote for him, then it would have to follow that you want him to continue invading countries around the globe that do not allow voting. Where does it stop? (Note that I did not say Democracy since the people on the ballot are being chosen strategically by the current US administration. Elections in January, but there is no campaigning going on and only one person I know of that is running.)

There's a group of young people in Iran who have formed an underground to fight for the same free elections that will be going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. Reading about their bravery and determination make me optimistic. Rather than wallow in despair over their plight of repression, they are showing extraordinary courage to change it, at great peril to themselves, and I don't doubt for a second that a large part of it is seeing the emerging democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quote:

Say that John Kerry does indeed get elected. He's said that he'll keep his promise (it's on his website) to fight the war on terror and not cut and run in Iraq.

He also promises he'll get us out of the "wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Is it realistic to think he can do both?

Yes. There was a report out a month or so ago saying a huge majority of the money allocated for training, infrustructure, and general rebuilding has yet to be spent. The money is already allocated. Spend it. Kerry has said he will do so by training the Iraqi's to defend themselves at a faster rate. This should have already been further along than it is.

Also, part of the coalition building that Kerry speaks of includes allowing other countries to partake in the rebuilding. Get the manpower into Iraq from around the world and get the roads, schools, waterlines, electric grids, etc built and operational quickly. The childish playground tactics of not allowing others to play cause they wouldn't do so by your rules, has to stop. That doesn't build good will, Iraq, or peace. This seems so clearly adult and mature to me that I have real trouble getting my mind around Bush and his supporters concept that you can't play now cause you didn't want to when we started. Guess what. They were right. There were no WMD's or reason to rush to war. Be a man. Admit it, say you're sorry and ask for help. (That last part is addressed to Bush, not you.)

We'll have to disagree on this. I'm in complete agreement with the administration's aversion to awarding contracts to those countries who actively opposed us. Repairing the infrastructure in Iraq (that mess caused by the corrupt regime of Saddam) will take time, but will be accomplished. Talk to some soldiers who are there, don't rely solely on the negatives being reported on a daily basis. No, there were no WMD found and thank God for that. After 12 years of failed UN resolutions, we acted. We probably won't ever agree on the validity of this. As for the coalition Kerry speaks of, he's thinking France and Germany. Won't happen as they've both said clearly. (Thank you, Germany, for your help in Afghanistan). France...well, it's soon to be abundantly clear why they chose the route they did.

Quote:

I think his constituency is counting on him to get us out, but a large group - his fundraisers and activists have been promised he'll be strong on terror.... Aren't I at least being realistic to wonder how Kerry would effectively fight the war on terror yet satisfy his peace-at-any-cost constituency?

I guess this is another conceptual view I have trouble understanding. The war in Iraq is NOT part of the war on terror. There's no connection. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have all said so finally. So, yes, we can get out of Iraq after doing the hard work necessary there to amend ourselves AND be strong on terror where it actually exists. With over 60 countries, including the US, having terrorist cells, we had best get to work building back the trust and diplomacy we have lost around the world by going into Iraq preemtively with false and deceptive information.

I think every diplomatic avenue was exhausted prior to the preemptive strike on Iraq. To say the war in Iraq isn't part of the war on terror is only believable if you think Osama was/is the only member of Al Quaeda.

I don't think diplomacy nor negotiations work with terrorists. You disagree. Look at Libya. I think they got the message.

http://seacoastnh.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=403

The above link was a story about some elderly lady who was abducted by UFO's? (???)

I, too, am not trying to start an argument. I just really don't understand how Bush supporters think. Maybe its a left brain / right brain thing.

When John Kerry enters the White House next January, it will be because of me and my vote. I think he will make a tremendous difference for the strength, both political and moral, for this nation, but should he fail to live up to his promises, should he fail to find ways of uniting the opposition to terror throughout the world while building a vibrant economy here at home, it will fall to me to take the blame. After all it was my vote that put him in office.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I pledge to accept the blame for any mis-steps, errors or out-right goofs made by my President, John Kerry. If he screws up any of ya'll can email me and say "See what you've caused?" or even "See what you've done, you dolt??" and I will be properly chagrined and not overly defensive and certainly not react in righteous indignation and call you bad names. Because I will know it's my fault and I will take the blame.

Now what I would like to know is how many Bush supporters are willing to take the same pledge?

Joe