Re: Kerry Hammered Vessticles Tonight ...........

I fully agree. however, they no logner seem to exist. Do you think Bush and co. would stop us from leveling Falluja if the polls didn't indicate it would be poorly recieved in the media? Do you think he would be offering amnesty to millions of criminals who illegally entered the US if it wasn't good in the polls? Bush is really no better or wrose than any other politician in the Age of Self Interest.

As noted, this is a very real possibility, I don't deny it.

Al, you are an intelligent man. Do you honestly think this is due to Bush? You might be able to make that claim right after Afghanistan, but not now.

Moreover, the terrorists aren't stupid. They attack in other nations with even less willpower (ex. Spain) and get them to withdraw and play appeasement games. It is also good for practice when they finally do decide to visit us again. Do you honestly think they aren't planning more attacks here?

That may be true today. But it wasn't several weeks/months ago. Besides which, our troops lives come before anyone else's desires (to me anyway). Either we are in this to win, or we are not. But then, I grew up with my dad's stories of viet Nam (things like standing orders not have weapons loaded until fired upon).

Lovely idea, fine by me. However, when murderers are targetting our troops with relative impunity, that means less and less to me. Simply put, I'm an American first, our needs outweigh the rest.

Why wasn't it?

You'll get no arguemet from me on that.

Or that.

Iraq is not Viet Nam no matter how much the Left would like it to be. And our troops in Iraq are not subject to the ROE of the Viet Nam war.

The terrorists are targeting Iraqi civilians, police, and military to a far greater extent. As for targeting our troops with relative impunity - the enemy always gets a vote in a war.

I agree. What we disagree on is what exactly are our needs.

I think we tried a peaceful solution in Fallujah at the request of the Iraqi government (they're our allies, remember?). It was a mistake, it didn't work, and we'll take it by force next time if necessary. See Sammarah.

I've already cited my opposition to many of Bush's domestic policies. The GWOT trumps everything else for me.

Yet you're still willing to give Kerry your vote. Amazing. Simply amazing....

He gets all the blame for the things that go wrong. It's only fair to give him credit for the things that have gone right.

He's the HMFIC, isn't he? It certainly isn't Kerry that's prevented any further attacks on us.

Exactly. Other nations. Not the US.

I don't doubt that they've been planning since 9-11 if not before. The bottom line is that they haven't done it again so far. We (the public) don't and can't know if any other specific attacks have *already* been prevented.

Maybe. It could also show that what Bush has done since then has been, on balance, effective.

So, Bush is responsible for all the Bad Things but gets no credit for the Good Things. Smacks of a double standard to me.

What that proves is that big government failed us on 9-11, and that it's the actions of individual free citizens that make the difference. I'm shocked, SHOCKED I say!

I don't read tea leaves. I read Kerry's record of opposition to defense and intelligence spending. I note his vote against the first Gulf War notwithstanding that it was approved by the UN and was supported by a broad coalition including France and Germany. Now he claims that he would support this Iraq war if the same conditions existed. The man twists in the wind and almost nobody notices....

I'd prefer an effective and hard-hitting offense, thanks. I'd prefer that we didn't get hit again rather than have to respond better to the next attack. I'd prefer less reliance on a big government that failed us before and more reliance on the initiative of individual citizens, and the dedicated members of our volunteer armed forces overseas.

Exactly. The TSA is a mindless boondoggle consisting of 90% or more eyewash.

I'd rather see the spending applied to the Department of Defense, mostly for an enlargement of the all-volunteer armed forces, with a good dose of bucks for more C-17s (maybe even re-opening the C-5 assembly line), C-130s, a new refueling tanker, and rapid 'drive-on, drive off' maritime assets.

I argue that Kerry would spend money in the wrong places, at the wrong times, for the wrong reasons.

Agreed. :(

Heh. Bush is every bit the spendthrift as Kerry, but at least he tosses some of the goodies to the DoD....

The problem is that in my view we're more liable to need the domestic security angle with Kerry in office.

I don't much like Ashcroft myself but that's beside the point. I'm still a one-issue voter and in my view Kerry is a big loser on that score.

I am somewhat sympathetic (most of my disagreement is that other issues are also important, I figure we are a great enough nation to take some hits in the short run but win in the long, just like all our other wars).

However, it is the Bush Admin. that fined airline companies when they targetted certain passengers right after the mass murders of Sept. 11. This has continued so that 80 year old grandmas are more likely to get extra attention than young males 16-45.

The Bush Admin. has order DHS to spend unknown amounts of money on making frontline law enforcement personnel smile. Meanwhile, empty the holding cells of illegals because we can't afford to hold them.

Michelle Malkin, Congressman Tancredo (R.- CO) are my heroes. They and Foxnews and Worldnetdaily (to a lesser degree) are about the only voices crying in the wind about the open borders (over which our enemies enter whether to bomb us, consume our limited health/education services, or whatever). Bush is just more quite than past Dems about this neglect.

I very highly recommend Malkin's and Tancredo's websites for more.

Right. We never I repeat never carried a weapon especialy a loaded weapon unless we were orderd to. That would be silly. What with all the RVN's there to protect us.

Not if we don't win the GWOT. Let's take care of that first - then we can get back to bickering over domestic priorities.

But this war isn't 'just like' all our other wars. Civilians are the focus of the Islamic terrorists. Perhaps 3000 wasn't too many for you. How many innocent lives snuffed out *would* be enough to convince you? 300,000? 3,000,000?

I don't disagree - I just prefer to focus on the bigger picture.

See above.

I read Michelle regularly. Has she announced her support for Kerry?

Get right back off that high horse. I had family die on Sept. 11 and my dad could easily have been in the section of the Pentagon that got hit, as it is, he lost co-workers.

I'm not saying any lost Americans lives are acceptable, in any way shape or form. What I am saying that as in every past war, we will take losses, and that we are strong enough to overcome despite it.

BTW: the vast majority of our wartime losses were among people who mere months before, in every war, were civilians. Just this time, we are all on the frontlines, not just the people in uniform.

I agree with Rudolph Guilianni's idea about policing/fighting crime. If you focus on the little things, you will get many of the big things as well. I know that under his philosophy the crime rate dropped. I imagine, it is because when you actually bother to arrest someone for vandalism, then find they have a warrent for murder, the small takes care of the big.

I doubt it. But as I note, I'm not a fan of his. I simply don't see Bush doing what is needed. Kerry at least still might. And, I'll take 'might' over 'won't'.

I didn't say the order was obeyed, only that it was posted.

Sorry, I didn't know (or forgot) that you lost family members on

That said, the attack on 9-11 was on all of us, and I still grieve for the lost lives of innocent Americans, each of which were fellow citizens. Their loss my not hurt me as deeply as your personal loss but they hurt nonetheless.

And what I'm saying is that we shouldn't *have* to overcome the loss of civilians murdered by terrorist thugs. If Americans must die in the defense of freedom let it be our gallant service men and women on the field of battle where at least they have a fighting chance and they're doing a job they've been trained to do.

Civilians haven't received military training, and specifically targeting them is unlawful under the Geneva Conventions. Not to mention morally reprehensible.

Law enforcement is *not* the key to winning the war against Islamic terrorists. Maybe I'm beginning to understand why you support Kerry.

A leopard doesn't change its spots. Here's part of Kerry's record:

- Called for UN control over US military deployments even before he became a Senator.

- Collaborated with the enemy by 'consulting' with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegations during the Paris peace talks while holding a Reserve commission in the US Navy.

- Gave the enemy valuable propaganda points by publicly accusing our servicement in Viet Nam of committing widespread atrocities.

- Evicserated investigations of American POWs possibly being held by North Vietnam and Cambodia after 1972.

- Supported Daniel Ortega's Communist regime in Nicaragua.

- Repeatedly voted for massive cuts in the defense and intelligence budgets.

- Voted against the first Gulf War even though it had UN approval and the Coalition *included* both France and Germany.

- Voted against a bill authorizing funding of the Iraq war, funds needed to provide equipment and material to our troops in contact with the enemy.

- Selected a junior senator as his running mate, a man with virtually no experience in government other than a yet-to-be-completed first term in office. A man who has *never* served in the US military in any shape or form whatsoever. This man is to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency??

- Dismissed our allies in Iraq as a coalition of the bribed and coerced while claiming that he could get new allies to come on board, 'allies' that have unquivically stated that they would under no conditions send forces to Iraq.

- Accused Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi of not understanding what's going on in his own country, the same Prime Minister with which he would have to work were Kerry to become President.

- Called for a 'Global Test' before taking pre-emptive military action against our enemies (sound familiar?)

- Failed to do his job as a United States senator. On Wednesday, the Senate voted overwhelmingly, 96 to 2, in favor of reorganizing the national intelligence community. Neither Senator Kerry nor his running mate could be bothered to be present for this important vote - not that they've been present in the Senate much at all over the past year.

BTW, the 'People's Daily', the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China, has endorsed Kerry for President.

This is the man to which you would entrust the security of the United States?

Well said Al; very well said!

-- -- " In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon

My home page:

Sam,

Please do me a favor and read this:

Read it all, including the 'against' comments.

Regards, Al