Looks like Putin understands terrorism

[Rich in Ohio]

CNN.com

 

 

While not giving an outright endorsement (which would of course be an ignorant thing to do like Malaysia's former prime minister ) Putin has at least hit the nail on the head, and in an indirect way, he has laid the cards right on the table for the American people. Here is one quote from the article that really sums it up:

 

 

 

"Any unbiased observer understands that attacks of international terrorist organizations in Iraq, especially nowadays, are targeted not only and not so much against the international coalition as against President Bush," Putin said.

 

"International terrorists have set as their goal inflicting the maximum damage to Bush, to prevent his election to a second term.

 

"If they succeed in doing that, they will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire anti-terror coalition," Putin said.

 

 

I think that Putin has said this better then just about anyone else. The fact that he has basically maintained his stance that he disagrees with the war in Iraq give even more credence to his remarks.

[Alaska Darin]

CNN.com

While not giving an outright endorsement (which would of course be an ignorant thing to do like Malaysia's former prime minister ) Putin has at least hit the nail on the head, and in an indirect way, he has laid the cards right on the table for the American people. Here is one quote from the article that really sums it up:

"Any unbiased observer understands that attacks of international terrorist organizations in Iraq, especially nowadays, are targeted not only and not so much against the international coalition as against President Bush," Putin said.

 

"International terrorists have set as their goal inflicting the maximum damage to Bush, to prevent his election to a second term.

 

"If they succeed in doing that, they will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire anti-terror coalition," Putin said.

I think that Putin has said this better then just about anyone else. The fact that he has basically maintained his stance that he disagrees with the war in Iraq give even more credence to his remarks.

74396[/snapback]

Guess that school incident had a fairly profound effect. Sad that it takes such tragedies to get "leaders" to lead.

[Rich in Ohio]

Guess that school incident had a fairly profound effect. Sad that it takes such tragedies to get "leaders" to lead.

74437[/snapback]

As long as they end up leading that can't be such a bad thing. Better late to the dance then not at all.

[blzrul]

So here's a seroius question, and be honest: If someone else, say Chiraq for example, made the same statements would you react the same? Or would you say that foreigner ought to keep their danged opinions to themselves and not meddle in our elections?

 

I think Putin may just be ticked off that Kerry's comments about loose nukes and Russia put his nose out of joint...but I guess only Putin knows his motives.

 

Nevertheless I think it's somewhat odd that he would make these statements and even odder that people who are normally suspcious of others' motives seem to want to take those statements at face value.

 

Note to moderator: this is not an attack, just a question.

[BuffaloBorn1960]

So here's a seroius question, and be honest:  If someone else, say Chiraq for example, made the same statements would you react the same?  Or would you say that foreigner ought to keep their danged opinions to themselves and not meddle in our elections?

 

I think Putin may just be ticked off that Kerry's comments about loose nukes and Russia put his nose out of joint...but I guess only Putin knows his motives.

 

Nevertheless I think it's somewhat odd that he would make these statements and even odder that people who are normally suspcious of others' motives seem to want to take those statements at face value.

 

Note to moderator:  this is not an attack, just a question.

75167[/snapback]

and the fact that Russia was such a strong member of the coalition sending all those troops... you probably feel he is just rationalizing their decision to support....oh wait.... nevermind....

[DC Tom]

So here's a seroius question, and be honest:  If someone else, say Chiraq for example, made the same statements would you react the same?  Or would you say that foreigner ought to keep their danged opinions to themselves and not meddle in our elections?

 

I think Putin may just be ticked off that Kerry's comments about loose nukes and Russia put his nose out of joint...but I guess only Putin knows his motives.

 

Nevertheless I think it's somewhat odd that he would make these statements and even odder that people who are normally suspcious of others' motives seem to want to take those statements at face value.

 

Note to moderator:  this is not an attack, just a question.

75167[/snapback]

 

Personally...no. Because I loathe Chirac, but have no strongly held opinion either way about Putin. And because I realize that "Iraq" and "terrorism" are not always related issues to all people, so that Putin may still disagree with the Iraq adventure while assisting the US in the global anti-terrorism effort, as he has been doing for three years now.

[Mike in Syracuse]

It's interesting that he's finally chiming in now. Perhaps all that nuclear material floating around his country has got him a bit nervous.

 

If Bin Laden or Al Zarquari gets their hands on nuclear material, 9/11 will look like freaking day in the park.

[spidey]

CNN.com

While not giving an outright endorsement (which would of course be an ignorant thing to do like Malaysia's former prime minister ) Putin has at least hit the nail on the head, and in an indirect way, he has laid the cards right on the table for the American people. Here is one quote from the article that really sums it up:

"Any unbiased observer understands that attacks of international terrorist organizations in Iraq, especially nowadays, are targeted not only and not so much against the international coalition as against President Bush," Putin said.

 

"International terrorists have set as their goal inflicting the maximum damage to Bush, to prevent his election to a second term.

 

"If they succeed in doing that, they will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire anti-terror coalition," Putin said.

I think that Putin has said this better then just about anyone else. The fact that he has basically maintained his stance that he disagrees with the war in Iraq give even more credence to his remarks.

74396[/snapback]

So keep believing that if Bush loses the election that the terrorists have won. Damn we might need to start drawing up the surrender papers. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

[Alaska Darin]

So keep believing that if Bush loses the election that the terrorists have won.  Damn we might need to start drawing up the surrender papers. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

75240[/snapback]

We French?

[spidey]

We French?

75243[/snapback]

No we the USA. We need to start drawing up those surrender papers to the terrorists just in case Kerry wins.

[Mike in Syracuse]

We French?

75243[/snapback]

 

Wouldn't that be "we we French"?

 

Do they actaully draw up papers or just drop their weapons and run.

[Rich in Ohio]

So keep believing that if Bush loses the election that the terrorists have won.  Damn we might need to start drawing up the surrender papers. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

75240[/snapback]

 

 

Not a surrender pal, just a easier avenue of attack for those who hate us.

 

It is really rather simple.......the terrorists would like nothing more then to have GWB out, and someone like kerry in. That is more a a matter of GWB is willing to deal with the threat, and those on the left will not. Oh yea, of course if we are attacked while someone like kerry is in office we will no doubt respond, but the big difference is..that is where it will stop. Perhaps a few cruise missles, or a few B-52 runs, but that is about it. You don't have to look too far back into history to see that.

 

On the other hand, GWB and friends will indeed take the fight to the enemy on THEIR turf. In fact we are doing that right now.

 

 

Just decide for yourself, how you and your family will feel more safe.

[_BiB_]

Not a surrender pal, just a easier avenue of attack for those who hate us.

 

It is really rather simple.......the terrorists would like nothing more then to have GWB out, and someone like kerry in. That is more a a matter of GWB is willing to deal with the threat, and those on the left will not. Oh yea, of course if we are attacked while someone like kerry is in office we will no doubt respond, but the big difference is..that is where it will stop. Perhaps a few cruise missles, or a few B-52 runs, but that is about it. You don't have to look too far back into history to see that.

 

On the other hand, GWB and friends will indeed take the fight to the enemy on THEIR turf. In fact we are doing that right now.

Just decide for yourself, how you and your family will feel more safe.

75318[/snapback]

 

Well said. They don't read anything not on a Kerry site, and they damn sure haven't read me.

 

But then again, I'm just a know it all wanna be.

[spidey]

Not a surrender pal, just a easier avenue of attack for those who hate us.

 

It is really rather simple.......the terrorists would like nothing more then to have GWB out, and someone like kerry in. That is more a a matter of GWB is willing to deal with the threat, and those on the left will not. Oh yea, of course if we are attacked while someone like kerry is in office we will no doubt respond, but the big difference is..that is where it will stop. Perhaps a few cruise missles, or a few B-52 runs, but that is about it. You don't have to look too far back into history to see that.

 

On the other hand, GWB and friends will indeed take the fight to the enemy on THEIR turf. In fact we are doing that right now.

Just decide for yourself, how you and your family will feel more safe.

75318[/snapback]

So Richio please give me specific examples of what Kerry has said he would do that somehow will make it easier for the attacks to occur? Would his plan to secure the Mexican borders, do more prtection of ports and nuclear facilities somehow increase terrorist attacks? Would his plans to get more involvement by Iraqi and other allies engaged in the rebuilding process somehow make it easier for "those who hate us to attack us"?

 

So looking back in History when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor wasnt a democrat in power? Was it not a democrat that helped endWW2 earlier? Was a democrat not in office when "attacks" occured in Vietnam that escalated our involvement?

 

Maybe you are just saying that 9/11 would have never happened if Clinton would have invaded someone after the attacks on the embassy and the Cole? So who was he going to invade? Plus I am sure if Clinton did more that sent a cruise missles and invaded with false pretenses the right would have been leveling another impeachment charge upon him.

[_BiB_]

So Richio please give me specific examples of what Kerry has said he would do that somehow will make it easier for the attacks to occur?  Would his plan to secure the Mexican borders, do more prtection of ports and nuclear facilities somehow increase terrorist attacks?  Would his plans to get more involvement by Iraqi and other allies engaged in the rebuilding process somehow make it easier for "those who hate us to attack us"?

 

So looking back in History when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor wasnt a democrat in power?  Was it not a democrat that helped endWW2 earlier?  Was a democrat not in office when "attacks" occured in Vietnam that escalated our involvement?

 

Maybe you are just saying that 9/11 would have never happened if Clinton would have invaded someone after the attacks on the embassy and the Cole?  So who was he going to invade?  Plus I am sure if Clinton did more that sent a cruise missles and invaded with false pretenses the right would have been leveling another impeachment charge upon him.

75357[/snapback]

 

This has been covered, in detail, 20 or 30 times. Every single time someone brings up a factual, basically neutral informative post-the libs scurry like cockroaches in the sunlight, only to start the same rhetoric in another thread.

 

If you don't like what I have to say on the subject, do some homework and refute me. Not my thread, but this has been explained about a dozen times. And, about a dozen times it was the end of the thread.

 

I've said before-if you want to vote for Kerry on economy? Health care? Gay rights? I have no knowledge nor do I have an opinion. Vote for Kerry on Defense? Please, please, read some independant sources.

[Rich in Ohio]

This has been covered, in detail, 20 or 30 times. Every single time someone brings up a factual, basically neutral informative post-the libs scurry like cockroaches in the sunlight, only to start the same rhetoric in another thread.

 

If you don't like what I have to say on the subject, do some homework and refute me. Not my thread, but this has been explained about a dozen times. And, about a dozen times it was the end of the thread.

 

I've said before-if you want to vote for Kerry on economy? Health care? Gay rights? I have no knowledge nor do I have an opinion. Vote for Kerry on Defense? Please, please, read some independant sources.

75368[/snapback]

 

 

Well said to spidey pal. I almost allowed myself to waste another 10 minutes expalining it, only to have them flame me, and run off to another thread and raise hell again.

 

The point is, they do not get it, they can not get it, and they will not get it. It takes a strong will, and determined spirit to stay the course and get this job done. It will not be completed in GWB next 4 years, and the same issue will be the focal point then as it is now. We are in a beginning stages of a long and difficult war. I am glad that GOD is on our side, and we will win the day as long as we have someone who understands this evil for what it is.

 

 

GOD Bless America

[_BiB_]

I don't know that God is on our side. I often think that he has all but given up on the shooting match. He gave us free will, and look what we've collectively done with it.

 

Spidey, sorry if that comes out too strong. It has been covered quite a bit in this forum. One of the key things to take into consideration is that this is an overall campaign. Iraq is a part of it-not a separate issue. If the search thingy works, pull up some of my posts on the goals of Al Qaida and the strategies required to defeat them, the roles of alliances, etc.. I thought my posts might be useful to some, as they don't come from the media or a campaign website. Unfortunately I guess that limits my credibility as after all no one can believe anything that doesn't come from Fox or CNN. That's why I also advocate independant study. If anyone actually cares about the issues other than to have something to argue about-take mine or anyone elses posts and run some search strings on the content. You might find it to be a good distance away from what either candidate is saying. You have a democratic candidate out there muddying the waters with "we didn't go after Al Qaida" which is absolutely untrue, and the incumbent who can't say much that is truthfull because it will sound horrible to the average voter.

[Evil Bastard]

It's interesting that he's finally chiming in now.  Perhaps all that nuclear material floating around his country has got him a bit nervous.

 

If Bin Laden or Al Zarquari gets their hands on nuclear material, 9/11 will look like freaking day in the park.

75197[/snapback]

 

Actually, he chimed in before. The soundbite generation was occupied with other things. Can't overload the brain with more than one or two topics at a time.

[VABills]

It's interesting that he's finally chiming in now.  Perhaps all that nuclear material floating around his country has got him a bit nervous.

 

If Bin Laden or Al Zarquari gets their hands on nuclear material, 9/11 will look like freaking day in the park.

75197[/snapback]

Oh so that how Kerry will make 9/11 seem like a nuisance. he will help the terrorists do a couple of big things and the 9/11, and Oklahoma city will seem minor in comparison.

[PastaJoe]

Nice that a person like Putin who is reducing democracy in his own country by closing down media outlets that criticize his policies is supporting Bush. Of course there are plenty of people in our own country that would like to do the same if given the chance.

[Alaska Darin]

Nice that a person like Putin who is reducing democracy in his own country by closing down media outlets that criticize his policies is supporting Bush. Of course there are plenty of people in our own country that would like to do the same if given the chance.

75927[/snapback]

You're including all the paranoid liberals who take shots at Fox News in that, I'm sure.

[PastaJoe]

There's a difference between criticizing the skewed reporting of a media outlet and trying to silence them. I don't know many liberals that think a media outlet should be shut down.

[Alaska Darin]

There's a difference between criticizing the skewed reporting of a media outlet and trying to silence them.  I don't know many liberals that think a media outlet should be shut down.

75947[/snapback]

Oh, OK. Whew. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

I forgot: All liberals good. All conservatives bad. Silly me.

 

Just like those liberals who burn down houses and torch SUVs at dealerships are just protesting.

 

Do you bump into a lot of stevestojan with those Seattle Slew blinders you have on?

[erynthered]

13 hours ago..........

 

 

Vladimir Putin waded into the American election campaign in support of George Bush yesterday, declaring that if the president lost, it would lead to the "spread of terrorism" around the world.

[blzrul]

13 hours ago..........

75960[/snapback]

So how does that explain the recently-reported (like yesterday) proposed alliance between Al Qaeda and AlZawackywhatever?

 

And while we're at it, if the terrorists were so afraid of GWB it didn't show on 9/11.

 

And they don't appear too scared in Fallajah...or Baghdad...

 

We need to remember that "keeping terror off our shores" is what allowed it to prosper to the state where it was ABLE to reach our shores. The Adminstration has admitted that incidents of terror have INCREASED over last year.

[Thurman's Helmet]

And while we're at it, if the terrorists were so afraid of GWB it didn't show on 9/11.

 

 

 

9/11 was planned under Clinton's watch simply because the terrorists were emboldend by the US' lack of serious response to prior attacks and the "cutting and running" we were doing a la Somalia under difficult conditions. They felt that we didnt have the stomach for this kind of fight and felt they could get away with something like 9/11. They obviously underestimated Bush's resolve over this and yet they are getting the exact response they hoped for under the left who are doing everything they can to undermine the guy who's trying to protect them from these scumbags.

 

But Kerry has a plan.

[erynthered]

Apparently, Putin seems to think it would. He may also have a little bit more information then you when it comes to global terror. As far as his opinon goes? I agree with him. Maybe it was Kerry's coment about "Fighting a more sensitive war on Terror" that got him. Dont know.......... Or maybe because he doesnt trust him, dont know.

[PastaJoe]

Maybe it was Kerry's coment about "Fighting a more sensitive war on Terror" that got him. Dont know.......... Or maybe because he doesnt trust him, dont know.

 

It's because Putin knows that Bush will continue to turn a blind eye to his crackdown on civil rights and political opposition, as he does with Musarref in Pakistan, the Saudi royalty, and Sharon's treatment of Palestinians.

[erynthered]

It's because Putin knows that Bush will continue to turn a blind eye to his crackdown on civil rights and political opposition, as he does with Musarref in Pakistan, the Saudi royalty, and Sharon's treatment of Palestinians.

76125[/snapback]

 

Has nothing to do with the 300 or so children killed by terrorists in Russia either.

[PastaJoe]

Putin's tactics started way before the children were attacked. And it is simplistic to lump in the Chechan seperatists or Basque seperatists in Spain or Palestinians with Al-Quada terrorists. Most of those groups have grievances within their countries and do not target the United States, and each requires different political solutions to resolve their grievances, as was the case in Northern Ireland. Putin seeks political and international cover by lumping in the Chechen conflict with world terrorism. What about the heavy handed tactics the Russians use on Chechens? It doesn't excuse the Chechen response, but the Russians have also have blood on their hands.

[erynthered]

And it is not simplistic to lump in Musarref in Pakistan, the Saudi royalty, and Sharon's treatment of Palestinians.

 

How ironic.

[PastaJoe]

It is not ironic that the Bush adminstration has turned a blind eye to all of those leaders and how they treat their citizens and their rights, while at the same time we're told that we should be spreading democracy in Iraq and across the world. Putin stole the last election by supressing opposition media and even jailing opponents, Musharef came to power in a military coup, the Saudis don't have elections for their head of state, and the Palestinians can't even get their own country to have elections. So much for spreading democracy.

[DC Tom]

It is not ironic that the Bush adminstration has turned a blind eye to all of those leaders and how they treat their citizens and their rights, while at the same time we're told that we should be spreading democracy in Iraq and across the world. Putin stole the last election by supressing opposition media and even jailing opponents, Musharef came to power in a military coup, the Saudis don't have elections for their head of state, and the Palestinians can't even get their own country to have elections. So much for spreading democracy.

76188[/snapback]

 

Not at all. "Spreading democracy" is just a marketing slogan. "Countering the spread of terrorism" is the goal. And propping up regimes like the Saudis or Musharraf is a necessary - even vital - part of that goal. Because believe me, however undesirable either might be, you don't want the alternative.

[PastaJoe]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, it just depends on your perspective. Keep supporting governments that suppress human and civil rights and you're just growing the next generation of frustrated people that have nothing to lose and everything to gain from terrorist activity.

[erynthered]

It is not ironic that the Bush adminstration has turned a blind eye to all of those leaders and how they treat their citizens and their rights, while at the same time we're told that we should be spreading democracy in Iraq and across the world. Putin stole the last election by supressing opposition media and even jailing opponents, Musharef came to power in a military coup, the Saudis don't have elections for their head of state, and the Palestinians can't even get their own country to have elections. So much for spreading democracy.

76188[/snapback]

 

 

Joe, I hope you dont things happen as quick as turning on a light switch. Because thats they way I'm reading your post. You cant deal with everyone the same way.

I'm not going to defend Bush or nail Kerry to the wall here right now. My post said that Putin would endorse Bush. I thought and still think its a nice endorsement. But it has no meaning in this election. Just like Arafat endorsing Kerry. Its moot, but I thought it interesting and I was repling to the original topic of the thread, where as you went some where else, then did a circle.

[DC Tom]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, it just depends on your perspective.  Keep supporting governments that suppress human and civil rights and you're just growing the next generation of frustrated people that have nothing to lose and everything to gain from terrorist activity.

76212[/snapback]

 

Yep. Largely the same thing created the Taliban and al Qaeda (lack of foresight and "blowback"). Ten years from now, some president is going to have to clean up the !@#$ed-up decisions perpetrated now wrt Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Ten years after THAT, some other president is going to have to clean up HIS !@#$ed-up decisions.

 

Problem being, though, that the policy towards Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is probably the right one given the immediate crisis (i.e. reactionary Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, and the risk of them either getting control of the Persian Gulf if Saudi Arabia falls, or getting control of nukes if Pakistan falls.) If you have a better idea than propping up the current regimes as bulwarks against $120/barrel oil and a completely bankrupt economy, or downtown Dallas being relocated to Alabama as tiny little radioactive particles, I'm all ears.

[Bill from NYC]

So here's a seroius question, and be honest:  If someone else, say Chiraq for example, made the same statements would you react the same?  Or would you say that foreigner ought to keep their danged opinions to themselves and not meddle in our elections?

 

I think Putin may just be ticked off that Kerry's comments about loose nukes and Russia put his nose out of joint...but I guess only Putin knows his motives.

 

Nevertheless I think it's somewhat odd that he would make these statements and even odder that people who are normally suspcious of others' motives seem to want to take those statements at face value.

 

Note to moderator:  this is not an attack, just a question.

75167[/snapback]

 

Debbie, Debbie, Debbie. Are you serious? You are telling us that you cannot see the difference?

 

Russia is knee deep in Islamic Fundamentalist scum. Chirac is knee deep in corruption that came from Saddam oil money.

 

Right now, France is not the target. They are the darlings of the Islamic Fundamentalist movement. They work against the USA and the fight vs. terrorism, and Jews are getting their asses kicked in France to boot. What could be better to a scumbag Islamic terrorist, right? Btw, their day will come. Terrorist scumbags hate the west, and this love affair will be fleeting at best under any conditions.

 

This is nothing new. Putin was on national TV speaking with Barbara Walters after 9/11. He stated that Clinton ignored his warnings about these scumbags, and even had a snide remark about Hillary! Are you telling us that you forgot this?

 

Deb, Putin has problems. He is facing hard line commies, a more powerful "mafia" than America has ever seen, Islamic scum, and horrible poverty. Many of the most beautiful women in his country can be seen on the internet, "searching for a man between 24 and 65," desperately trying to vacate their country. Now, this scum is killing their children in schools.

 

The LAST thing he needs is a waffling, pansy ass weakling to be the President of the United States. He needs someone committed to fighting terror across the globe.

[nobody]

Putin is using the "war on terrorism" as a way to take total power in Russia. He is creating a totalitarian state under the guise of fighting terrorism. What is going on in Russia really is a civil war with Chechnya, or however it is spelled. Of course it is based in religion.

 

Just imagine if some southern states tried to cecede from the US nowadays.

[spidey]

9/11 was planned under Clinton's watch

76107[/snapback]

I just love how some fail to acknowledge that GWB was running the country on 9/11. I also love how they claim that if Kerry is elected we will be attacked again. So the terrorists were so afraid of W that they decided to go ahead with the plan 9 months after he took office?

 

What you folks fail to see is that Clinton did go after Osama and friends after the Cole but the intelligence community never could pinpoint him or when they did they had no assets in the area to take him out. Invasion of afghanistan or Iraq after the Cole would have caused the republicans and most of the american public to go nuts. This type of action would have been unjustified just as the invasion of Iraq this time around was.

[_BiB_]

I just love how some fail to acknowledge that GWB was running the country on 9/11.  I also love how they claim that if Kerry is elected we will be attacked again.  So the terrorists were so afraid of W that they decided to go ahead with the plan 9 months after he took office?

 

What you folks fail to see is that Clinton did go after Osama and friends after the Cole but the intelligence community never could pinpoint him or when they did they had no assets in the area to take him out.    Invasion of afghanistan or Iraq after the Cole would have caused the republicans and most of the american public to go nuts.  This type of action would have been unjustified just as the invasion of Iraq this time around was.

76489[/snapback]

 

Just in general terms. This is totally non-partisan.

 

stevestojan moves so slow in Government that it takes probably two years to even get something started. Any new administration is dealing with the programs and policies of the old because it takes time to get things staffed and implemented.

 

I personally acknowledge that Bush was in office 9/11. I further acknowledge that his gang, as well as the gang who actually does things no matter who is president were flat on their ass. 9/11 has promulgated a complete revision of the Defense Department, and other agencies. It's building on things started under the Former Bush and Clinton administrations and interjecting many new concepts of their own.

 

Whether it sounds partisan or not, I'm really being objective here, is that current policies and strategies-as well as organizational efforts and changes in how we do almost EVERYTHING are generally sound, and effective. Nothing is perfect. There will always be something wrong. Is the situation in Iraq screwed up? Sure it is. But the decision to be there taken in context with the overall was the right one. It's been echoed by many that even the best of plans go out the window once the first bullet is fired. Oddly enough, in terms of fighting "The War on Terror", the Iraq situation is working out to our advantage. Doesn't do a lot for the Iraqis though.

 

I have no way of convincing you, or anyone else on a message board that things are actually a lot better than they appear to be. My problem is since it takes literally years to make changes, and we are going the right way in terms of the overall "war", this is a piss poor time to start over. Most of you opine on the stuff. I do it for a living. What I mean by that is I'd love to sit around the fire and Kumbaya, but that's not the reality. Do I think we should have done things different? Of course I do. Me and about 30,000 other people who understand hindsight. We're going to be in Iraq until Iraq is stable and an ally. Period. Anything else is stupidity, and a waste of billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

If it takes a year, fine. If it takes 20, that's fine too. Not preferred, but fine, as long as it gets done.

 

That said, we really ain't doing bad. Senator Kerry-I hope-is aware of the realities and is just pandering soundbites to the electorate. Since 99% of the electorate doesn't have a clue as to what is really going on it doesn't matter. He's going to have to play some of the same games should he get elected. What's bad for him is they will be in direct contradiction to his promises. Maybe he hopes no one will notice, I would suspect more of a "blame Bush" type of approach. But, whatever.

 

Within the DoD, Kerry's "ideas" are probably much more known than what one gets from the mainstream media. Fortunately, some of his ideas will take a Congressional vote to change. But you never know.

 

There's no changing how people in their own hearts view things. An example is bringing in "Our Allies" (euphanism for the UN) to settle up the problems. Believe me, they are drooling at the thought. Bush basically says "if they agree, they agree, if they don't they don't". Some of you prefer the former, some the latter.

 

One has to decide what is in the best interest of the United States of America. We are the only remaining Superpower. The rules are different for us. Many, many questions. how about this one? Does Al Qaida, North Korea or Iran prefer an America that plays resolution time at the UN? Or do they prefer an America that will just go out and do?

 

I don't know that voting for Kerry will result in another attack anymore than I know if voting for Bush will. Welcome to the chess game. Great arguments for both. I'm frankly surprised in some ways we haven't had another yet. I could say that we have crippled Al Qaida enough that they are probably not capable right now, but those on the left would call that partisan. This also doesn't mean that they can't come up with something for later. I do know that statedpolicies will, 10 years from now, as far as Americas best interests are concerned give advantage Bush.

 

Why are some folks so concerned with whether the guy on the street in France or Jordan likes us? News Flash! They have NEVER liked us. We've given them something real visible to B word about. And the happy media pollers are only too happy to oblige. The key thing is that the governments are working with us, and us with them. That's what's important. France doesn't want to send Troops to Iraq? If it were in their own interest to do so, they would. The French, under Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative have also intercepted and interdicted WMD technology being proliferated by their own people.

 

Whatever, just trying to put some kind of perspective on things that isn't a spin.