farmerman wrote:Of what have we to worry? we always can blame it on cLINTON. Isnt that your point Joe?
Why do you guys always have to bring up Clinton?
Take the blame? Why of course every American that voted to put their state rep into congress should take the blame and hold their reps accountable.
Congress did vote to go to war. And John Kerry was one that voted yes, now he wants to take it back now that he has become the "Anti war candidate"
Tell me how someone that supports the military, supports tax cuts, believes the USA should be in charge of their country and military, not the UN, supports the patriot act, supports the ban on partial birth abortions, supports not allowing gay marriages, supports personal responsibility in their childs education and their lives, and many other things could possibly vote for Kerry? I cant because Kerry has no firm grasp on what he stands for. Im not willing to take that chance, not today, not yesterday and surely not in the future.
I honestly do not care if a presidential candidate serves in the military or not, unless they brag about their service or bash others that do serve in any capacity. Bush never called himself a hero. He never said he went to nam and got all these awards. he hasnt bashed the military at all. Kerry has. Most vets dont brag about their awards. Kerry didnt even complete a full tour in nam. He left 8 months early on a questionable purple heart awards. All Kerry would have to do to put that to rest is release that 201 file. The truths lie there.
Kerry is promising some very outrageuos things that can in no way happen. His heathcare promise alone cannot be done and that has been reported by many economists. That program under Kerry will cost 3 trillion dollars and not all US residents will be insured like he says.
He has shirked his duties in Congress for the last 20 years not doing much there, missing all types of sessions and votes, yet now all the sudden he is going to be the person that leads this country to something better? He had the power in congress if he would just show up to do it....
Another issue is minimum wage. Somthing he has harped on quite often. I remember back when I was young how minimum wage was and it hasnt come a long way in all these years and Kerry is just magically going to fix it?
And another issue? He said he will bring the troops home within his term? I can guarentee that will not happen, more will go... just wait and see. He stated he would bring them home in his first year as president. Funny we have 60,000 soldiers coming home in january-march 2005, that is true, but those soldiers are being replaced by another 60,000 soldiers... it would be nice if he actually stated facts about that.
And his talk about the lack of allies in Iraq. All one has to do is go back to desert storm and look at what allies were on the ground with us there. He likes to say we had more, but that isnt true either. Germany had 33 soldiers in Desert Storm, France had 250 and Russia had none. The Polish army in Iraq has 10 times that number there alone. We see that there were many kick backs to the UN oil for food program going to those countries that vetoed and didnt suupport this military action. They got oil and made much money from that deal. Now those same countries want a piece of the pie to rebuild. No sorry you cant have it both ways. Kerry wants more UN involvement in this country and I for one do not want to see our military or this country at the mercy of the UN. We provide 87% of the man power in terms of military along with the Brits and Aussies for those UN missions. 3 countries take that responsibility, what about the rest of those countries? If you have ever served on a UN Mission you might understand. For that alone I cannot support Kerry.
And for my last point. Wrong war wrong time? He wants to be Commander in Chief. He likes touting he is this big war hero, he bashes Bush for serving in the National Guard, he has bashed the reserve components a few times about "not really serving" in that capacity. But to this day he refuses to release his 201 file in its entirety to back what he is touting himself to be. Most civilians do not understand the information contained in a 201 file if they did they would insist he release those records. He voted to send troops to Iraq but voted against funding them. He has yet to step up to any military post and say thank you. He turned his back on the very people he sent to war and put the knife in their backs when he needed the "anti war candidate" slogan for his campaign. You can say he didnt vote to fund them because of things added to the authorization bill, but go look at his congressional record to see he never even cared to vote on issues 67% of the time.
You ask how I can support Bush? These are just a few reasons why, I know where Bush stands and Kerry changes every time the wind blows. And BTW before someone says it. This war is very close to home for me. My husband spent 13 months there and believes in the mission. I spent 11 months there in Desert Storm and have supported this mission since 87, not just on an election year. Kerry also supported this action during the Clinton Administration....
Too bad most people get their information about the war from the news and the party rhetoric, had they actually been there and done it they would see the media does not portray this war justly, nor do they report that the good actually outweighs the bad. Good news doesnt bring in ratings and cash just sensationalizing does.....
Knowing where Bush stands and wanting to stay on that course is beyond my understanding. Bush always opts for the actions that put our military in untenable situations, enriches his buddies at the expense of the nation, pushes domestic policies I can't stomach.
Armyvet, you are voting for Bush because you are a Republican and you agree with him. Good for you. But it has next to nothing to do with Kerry as you would follow the republican line on whoever the other candidate was.
I don't agree with Kerry's vote to authorize the president to use force, but he did not vote on a declaration of war. This war was Bush's initiative. If it goes well, he will get the credit. If it takes us all to hell, he should get the blame.
And welcome to A2K.
Thank you
But for the record I did not vote for bush sr the second term so you have it wrong..I didnt vote for clinton either. Im not a party hard liner.
John Kerry is a waffler on issues important to me, the democratic party supports issues I do not support. I may not agree with everything in the republican party but they do touch base on more issues than say the democrats do with me.
Seriously if Kerry didnt want to use force he should have voted NAY
that is too simple. You cant agree to go to war and vote yes then change your mind while soldiers are dying. He supported military actions in the 90's now he doesnt AFTER he voted yes to war... cant have it both ways
He didn't vote to go to war. He voted to give the president authority to make the decision.
Now that a lot of evidence has come out, he has said that the president made the wrong decision. Practically the only people who were in a position to see whether or not the evidence was solid was the president, and more importantly, his senior staff.
How hard is that to understand? FD said it right; if the war had gone extremely well, Bush would have gotten all the credit. It's not going well, so he deserves at least some of the blame.
Cycloptichorn
Armyvet35
Welcome to A2K and please allow me to personally thank you and your husband for serving our country.
Your opinions are quite rational and well expressed.
Hope to see more of you.
Thanks fin I am very happy to stumble across this site. The military is what you make of it, and I enjoyed it immensely, but 2 married people serving on active duty almost ruined our marriage and one of us had to give somewhere when the question of having kids came into play. When it became hard to be a wife, mom and soldier, I decided to do the right thing and get out since I couldnt put soldiering before everything else.
Freeduck, had this war gone perfectly in real life had it done on paper, would kerry and freinds have changed their position on where they stand on the war? Nothing in life ever goes as planned but also it isnt as bleak as the news media and party spin makes it out to be.
I am more likely to believe what my husband says about actually being on the ground with the 101st Airborne Division for 13 months in iraq than party rhetoric, no matter what side it is coming from. I guess after meeting my husband in second grade and marrying him my junior year in high school and staying married to him for 22 years, he seems a bit more reliable about the Facts. Or maybe my 11 month stint in desert storm seeing what was going on in country there because I was there and coming home and seeing the news and politicians paininting an entirely different picture that was far from reality, im a bit biased
But because I do not agree with you or Kerry , doesnt make me uninformed, ignorant to the facts, or a hard core party line republican. I do not listen to Rush or ORiely or fox news for my views. I make them with life experiances.
Although I disagree with who you're voting for, this
Armyvet35 wrote:I do not listen to Rush or ORiely or fox news for my views. I make them with life experiances.
makes me sooooo much more likely to listen to and appreciate what you have to say.
Enjoy the arguments. You'll have plenty of 'em on this site.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:FreeDuck wrote:Armyvet, you are voting for Bush because you are a Republican and you agree with him. Good for you. But it has next to nothing to do with Kerry as you would follow the republican line on whoever the other candidate was.
That pretty presumptive on your part FreeDuck - even if Armyvet hadn't explained she is not a GOP stalwart.
I would imagine that you extend the courtsey of free thought to those Democrats who despise George Bush, but perhaps not.
Considering that she listed off core Republican issues and echoed the party line on most of them, I don't think it's so presumptive. It has been presumed of me that I am a liberal democrat on this forum many times, though I've never voted democratic. I don't quibble because I will be voting democratic in this election, so in that context, the presumptions are correct. Though I certainly understand why she might be offended at being called a Republican
Quote:
This is somewhat disingenuous.
It is far more likely that John Kerry voted for the resolution, because he was running for President, and calculated that the American public would not take kindly to a Democratic candidate for President who had voted against the resolution - especially someone who also voted against the Gulf War resolution.
We are talking about a seasoned politician. Everyone in Washington (at the very least) knew that a vote for the resolution was a vote for war - barring some extraordinary and unexpected development. Kerry knew that he was voting for war. His attempt now to describe his vote as somehow having been conditional is dishonest.
As for Bush bearing the blame or taking the credit for Iraq, you're quite right. What is in question is whether or not the situation warrants blame or credit, and if so should it impact his effort to secure a second term.
You're entitled to your opinion re: Kerry. But if you were saying that I am being disingenuous you haven't shown that.
Armyvet35 wrote:Freeduck, had this war gone perfectly in real life had it done on paper, would kerry and freinds have changed their position on where they stand on the war? Nothing in life ever goes as planned but also it isnt as bleak as the news media and party spin makes it out to be.
Actually, I believe Kerry's stance is that he is not satisfied with the execution of the war. I've already said, I don't agree with him on this as I don't believe it ever should have been fought and I don't believe he should have voted to give Congress's authority to the executive branch.
Quote:
But because I do not agree with you or Kerry , doesnt make me uninformed, ignorant to the facts, or a hard core party line republican. I do not listen to Rush or ORiely or fox news for my views. I make them with life experiances.
I don't believe I indicated that you were ignorant or uninformed, though I did call you a Republican, and that is offensive so I apologize. The things that you are saying about Kerry, though, indicate that you might could use a few more sources of information.
Oops - that should be:
FreeDuck wrote:
Considering that she listed off core Republican issues and echoed the party line on most of them, I don't think it's so presumptive. It has been presumed of me that I am a liberal democrat on this forum many times, though I've never voted democratic. I don't quibble because I will be voting democratic in this election, so in that context, the presumptions are correct. Though I certainly understand why she might be offended at being called a Republican
It may not be presumptive of you to deduce that the lady is a Republican, but, notwithstanding what others may or may not have presumed of you, it is certainly presumptive, not to mention insulting, of you to assert that her objections to Kerry as a candidate are not born of conviction or that she would support
any candidate the GOP might advance.
I can't speak for her, but my bet is that if she took offense to your post it was due to its condescending tone and not any atrribution of party affiliation.
Freeduck wrote:You're entitled to your opinion re: Kerry. But if you were saying that I am being disingenuous you haven't shown that.
You're right. What I perceive as disingenuous may simply be true naivety. I have presumed that, given your rather cynical response to ArmyVet, you cannot be so wide-eyed an innocent as to believe that Kerry didn't fully understand that in casting his vote for the resolution, he was casting his vote for the war, or that the rhetorical gyrations he employs to allow himself to take both sides of any issue are really a manifestation of deeply nuanced thinking.
But then I'm not attempting to show that you are disingenuous. I'm leaving that to you.
Free the sources you are referring to? Ones approved by the democratic party or those backed by media outlets and public opinions? Or just those that you and other Kerry supporters deem credible? *wink
No thanks .....Ill form my own opinions on the matter
Quote:I can't speak for her, but my bet is that if she took offense to your post it was due to its condescending tone and not any atrribution of party affiliation.
I imagine you know a condescending tone when you see one, being someone who posts consistently in the very same tone, only a little more insultingly.
FreeDuck wrote:Quote:I can't speak for her, but my bet is that if she took offense to your post it was due to its condescending tone and not any atrribution of party affiliation.
I imagine you know a condescending tone when you see one, being someone who posts consistently in the very same tone, only a little more insultingly.
Stings does it?
I make no pretense of my condescension or insults, and regardless, they make yours no less so.
You know the old saying, If you can't stand the heat....
Armyvet35 wrote:Free the sources you are referring to? Ones approved by the democratic party or those backed by media outlets and public opinions? Or just those that you and other Kerry supporters deem credible? *wink
No thanks .....Ill form my own opinions on the matter
As will I, after I have checked multiple sources, from multiple backgrounds.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
You know the old saying, If you can't stand the heat....
...set the kitchen on fire?
Just send Bush back to Crawford. I will be willing to try to organize a move to let Republicans field a credible candidate in his stead.
