First, we're talking about Bush and Kerry--not Clinton. At least Kerry went over and served in Vietnam. And I don't really think you can call what Bush did "serving".
Second, I DID lose collegues in the attack on the World Trade Center, so how dare you. Our company had a branch office on the 101st floor of Tower One and eleven of our people died that day. Do not attempt to preach to me about loss from a terrorist attack, because I know of such loss first hand. I have no problem going after the ACTUAL terrorists who attacked our country, or their followers, but there is no evidence that ANY of them were in Iraq. Until after we invaded.
Saddam Hussain was only a threat to his own people. Iraq under Saddam was not an Islamic fundamentalist stronghold. Before 9/11, the official position of the Bush Administration and Congress and the UN was that although the Iraquis were resisting inspections; the restrictions and inspections and sanctions HAD worked and Iraq DID NOT have WMDs. Once we were going after the terrorists in Afganistan, then it was just easier to go after Iraq--so W could go finish what his daddy started. BTW, W's administration includes Dick Cheaney, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld all of whom served under his daddy and had a score to settle with Hussain. It's a bonus that the corporate interests served by Bush are reaping the benefits of the "reconstruction" unilateral invasion. The irony is, during the first Gulf war, we were a part of a coillition of countries who responded to a unilateral invasion of Kuwait.
I would say that because 55 million people voted AGAINST W, that he doesn't have a "concensus". George Bush has NOT been given a mandate. He HAS NOT captured the hearts and minds of ALL of the American public. He THINKS he has, but he is mistaken.
Since this is MY LJ, and I wrote ONE paragraph about my disappointment--I wouldn't call that complaining "so much". And I did not call anyone a "moron" or an "idiot". When I typed my rant, I used an unfortunate turn of phrase "people I thought were intelligent", which I edited out. I should have said, "grossly misled".
The entire reasoning given for going into Iraq in the first place was "they have WMDs." We are not talking about North Korea (who DOES have them), or China (who ALSO does) or even Pakistan (scary thought, isn't it?). All of those countries HAVE WMDs and two out of three of those are run by "brutal dictators". To my way of thinking, it makes as much sense to invade those countries as it did to invade Iraq.
Our armed forces have not found Osama yet, because they are not looking for him. They are too busy dodging the car bombs and snipers in Iraq.
John Kerry condeding shows just how classy he is.
How can I be happy when our civil rights are being slowly eaten away? The so-called "Patriot" Act, gives the government the right to suspend Habeas Corpus if they suspect you of being a terrorist. They can put any type of behavior under the list of "suspect" activities, and then they can tap your phone, search your house, monitor your internet connection... That may sound like paranoia and conspiracy theory, but that is what the "Patriot" act does. What we are being told to do is "trust the government" they are only looking for terrorist activity. The right-wing "right-minded" high moral standards they pretend to represent (which are outlined by John Ashcroft) enables them to call all kinds of things you have the right to do "suspect behavior". They want you to think like they think. They believe their "morality" is the ONLY morality. For example, civil unions are now against the law.
Re: The Military
Second, I DID lose collegues in the attack on the World Trade Center, so how dare you. Our company had a branch office on the 101st floor of Tower One and eleven of our people died that day. Do not attempt to preach to me about loss from a terrorist attack, because I know of such loss first hand.
I have no problem going after the ACTUAL terrorists who attacked our country, or their followers, but there is no evidence that ANY of them were in Iraq. Until after we invaded.
Saddam Hussain was only a threat to his own people. Iraq under Saddam was not an Islamic fundamentalist stronghold. Before 9/11, the official position of the Bush Administration and Congress and the UN was that although the Iraquis were resisting inspections; the restrictions and inspections and sanctions HAD worked and Iraq DID NOT have WMDs. Once we were going after the terrorists in Afganistan, then it was just easier to go after Iraq--so W could go finish what his daddy started. BTW, W's administration includes Dick Cheaney, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld all of whom served under his daddy and had a score to settle with Hussain. It's a bonus that the corporate interests served by Bush are reaping the benefits of the "reconstruction" unilateral invasion. The irony is, during the first Gulf war, we were a part of a coillition of countries who responded to a unilateral invasion of Kuwait.
I would say that because 55 million people voted AGAINST W, that he doesn't have a "concensus". George Bush has NOT been given a mandate. He HAS NOT captured the hearts and minds of ALL of the American public. He THINKS he has, but he is mistaken.
Since this is MY LJ, and I wrote ONE paragraph about my disappointment--I wouldn't call that complaining "so much". And I did not call anyone a "moron" or an "idiot". When I typed my rant, I used an unfortunate turn of phrase "people I thought were intelligent", which I edited out. I should have said, "grossly misled".
The entire reasoning given for going into Iraq in the first place was "they have WMDs." We are not talking about North Korea (who DOES have them), or China (who ALSO does) or even Pakistan (scary thought, isn't it?). All of those countries HAVE WMDs and two out of three of those are run by "brutal dictators". To my way of thinking, it makes as much sense to invade those countries as it did to invade Iraq.
Our armed forces have not found Osama yet, because they are not looking for him. They are too busy dodging the car bombs and snipers in Iraq.
John Kerry condeding shows just how classy he is.
How can I be happy when our civil rights are being slowly eaten away? The so-called "Patriot" Act, gives the government the right to suspend Habeas Corpus if they suspect you of being a terrorist. They can put any type of behavior under the list of "suspect" activities, and then they can tap your phone, search your house, monitor your internet connection...
That may sound like paranoia and conspiracy theory, but that is what the "Patriot" act does. What we are being told to do is "trust the government" they are only looking for terrorist activity. The right-wing "right-minded" high moral standards they pretend to represent (which are outlined by John Ashcroft) enables them to call all kinds of things you have the right to do "suspect behavior". They want you to think like they think. They believe their "morality" is the ONLY morality. For example, civil unions are now against the law.
End of part the first...