Apparently my perspectives as delineated in various posts, as well as comments here, became too complicated for some people to understand. And my pointers to non-partisan websites apparently really confused the already confused. So let me answer their question, “What were you thinking?” in the kind of simple terms they might be able to understand:
1. I link to non-partisan sites because I read about both sides and make my decisions based on who’s the bigger obfuscator. Bush wins by a mile. And so he loses my respect and anything else he might want to get from me. And those losers who thought I linked to those sites by mistake must be, well, let’s just say, shallow thinkers.
2. I have the deepest respect for the men and women of our armed forces who are prepared to defend this Constitutional democracy from attacks by other nations, groups, and individuals. I have the deepest compassion for those men and women of our armed forces who believed that they waged war on other soils for altruistic reasons and were mained and tortured for their bravery. I am afraid of those men and women of our armed forces who never learned to understand the difference between wars fought as a very last resort and wars fought for ego, oil, revenge, or any other reason based on self-serving lies and more lies — and who are not able to bring themselves to admit that military brainwashing only serves to turn them into fighting machines that can’t think for themselves when it comes to making moral decisions on the battlefield.
2. I do not want a president who
–a. believes that he is God’s co-pilot and an instrument of His will.
–b. insists that he will continue to pursue an unjust war against a country that never had the WMDs that were the reason he says he went to war in the first place
–c. will not admit he screwed up big time both nationally and internationally and internationally again.
–c. chooses the most manipulative and crooked advisors to lead him by the nose (or maybe even whisper in his ear)
–c. only could get Poland as the sole eastern European country to back up his stupid and exit-empty plan. (Even though I’m Polish and proud of it, I have to wonder: WHAT WERE THEY THINKING! It must have had a lot to do with money.)
So, even if I assume that the propaganda generated by each side cancels the other out, Kerry still comes out as the better presidential choice to:
— come up with carefully thought-out strategy to help fix the mess in Iraq and help get the country into a stable situation politically and economically
— rekindle the global respect and support we used to have for our efforts to do the above
— live his personal life by his religious beliefs BUT lead our country according to our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and democratic processes
— thoughtfully begin the long, difficult process of fixing what Bush has broken of the American infrastructure of due process, equal rights, personal choice, and economic possibilities, recognizing that everything is a trade off, and the goal is to find a balance so that no American feels disenfranchised, dismissesd, or ignored. This last one is going to be a long hard road because of the success of Bush’s single-minded, self-indulgent, and seriously misguided push toward his own peculiar vision of our country and its place in a global society
— implement a better and more effective system of protecting our country from attacks by terrorists, while at the same time, building coalitions to both help do that and increase our effectiveness as global peacebuilders rather than pre-emptive attackers
— make as one of his priorities efforts to dispel the polarization among Americans that Bush has successfully instituted with his short-term, narrow-minded, and disingenuous thinking and speaking processes
Now, we have to keep in mind that Kerry, as president, would have to lead within the context of the balance of powers provided by the Congress and the Supreme Court. As a lawyer, Kerry understands the importance of those checks and balances. Something Bush doesn’t seem to understand. What that means is, Kerry might hope and plan to do all sorts of great things, but he would not be an emperor, after all, and would not make unilateral decisions.
Well, you asked me, “What were you thinking???” Now you know.
You don’t have to follow my lead, boys. Just follow my links.
Kalilily Time
Just an old lady talking to herself
You forgot to put it in 72 point bold for them Elaine because it’s pretty damned obvious they’re blind as well as deaf.
Not blind not deaf but informed and well informed My friend
Yet I have proved my case, again you show no proof no Facts very well typed argument on your behalf but again you choose to stay blind to the information .
Read the report , its there for everyone to read , no one is hiding it from us . Like I typed you cannot argue the facts and I am in no way trying to change your view or the way you tend to look at things , just the facts are my concern, you have none . Your argument was well written but you tend to forget that with the President or with Mr. Kerry as president even when the Clintons where the big wigs , America was and will always be hated and envied worldwide no matter what Americans do . They hate us and that hasn`t been a secret ! Fact is you cannot blame the president for others countrys thought. Thats the way they beleive.
Unjust war? what was just so Unjust about freeing a country that was run by a terrorist dictatorship that by the way funded terorist for many years like the MUJAHADEEN , Saddam was no saint , he killed hundreds of thousand of kurds , Mass graves are still bieng discovered as we speak! His sons terorized many woman and abused them in so many ways, many newly married woman and if the husband spoke he was killed . This is in the history books this can be found on the history channel and the discovery channel . I guess also that Iraq never used WMD against Iran , and of course never invaded Kuwait and the iraq troops where never told to abuse women and burn houses down and steel, never happend its just so unjust .
Unjust , unjust would be to stand there and watch and not do a thing about it that is unjust
Did we forget what he did to the oil refineries , causing a major catostphic disaster , so please dont talk about unjust !
HERE are some fun facts about terrorist in Iraq
Date Formed:
11/22/1974
Strength:
Group is active
Classification:
Nationalist/Separatist, Communist/Socialist
Last Attack:
Jan. 29, 1994
Financial Sources:
Government sponsorship from Syria, Libya, and Iraq
U.S. Terrorist Exclusion
List Designee:
No
Designated:
1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002
Watched:
No
Baker, Atef Abu (Abu Bakr)
Issa, Abdel Rahman (Abd-al-Rahman Isa)
l-Banna, Sabri
Isa, Zein
Musa, Tawfiq
Nijmeh, Luie H.
Nijmeh, Saif Alaslam Hussein
Palestine Liberation Organization
I think that you need to read the study conducted by PIPA, the Program for International Policy Attitudes (www.pipa.org)
They report
“EVEN AFTER THE FINAL REPORT OF CHARLES DULFER to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.”
Read the non-partisan PIPA report and find out just how Bush has duped you.
She says non partisan what that means is that they are actually pushing thier POLITICAL beleives and opinions by polling even though they the PIPA members have and are High money contributors to the John Kerry fund and money other Democratic politacal needs As I said before Read the Duelfer report . He made a statement to the Armed forces comittee I will post an email I recieved from Elaine , all I ask is that you read it all. then form an opinion:
#1 you havent read the Duelfer report ! Only what benifits you and your supporters, yes the report says there are now no WMD but just read the whole thing please then make a statement
#2 Has made donations to Mr .kerry from Dester william
DESTLER, WILLIAM
COLUMBIA,MD 21044
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND/PROVOST
7/29/2004
$250
Kerry, John
#3 HAS made well over 14,500 dollars in controbutions
Daniel Yankelovich
#4 the Tide foundation which recieves many of mula from none other than hienz kerry
#5 I have read the report from Duelfer , yes the entire thing and yea I have red the 9/11 commision report have you ?
#6 robert shapiro dont even get me started
I dont want to keep wasting my time by finding this info for you, have you done your homework!
These are the Brainiacs from this frim that just polls people based on thier Political ideas this is your rebuttal ? I will help you out ill attach the report for you .
here it is so read it all .
Mr. Duelfer: If I may, I would like to go through it just to
Edwards Parrots New York Times’ Fiction; ’60 Minutes’ Busted
The novice legislator who wants to be one heartbeat from the presidency either is too stupid to understand the phoniness of the New York Times’ latest fiction about Iraq or thinks the American people are too stupid to understand.
Or perhaps Democrat airhead apparent John Edwards is just doing his handlers’ bidding: the old Democrat trick of repeating a lie often enough until people believe it.
Story Continues Below
Edwards claimed today in Wilmington, Ohio: “These are exactly the kind of explosives terrorists want. They’re the dangerous weapons we wanted to keep from falling in the hands of terrorists. And now these explosives are out there, and we have no idea who’s got them. Dick Cheney calls that a remarkable success.”
He failed to mention that the pro-Democrat Times, whose recent endorsement of the Kerry-Edwards ticket was the nation’s most obvious redundancy since the coining of the term “liberal media bias,” refused to report reality, which even NBC reported: that the explosives were already missing from Al-Qaqaa when GIs got there a mere one day after Saddam Hussein’s fall.
Nor did the one-term senator or the Times note that that “news” dated from April 2003.
More Democrat Sleaze at ’60 Minutes’
Now the media scandal is growing with the revelation that pro-Democrat Viacom’s pro-Democrat CBS’s pro-Democrat “60 Minutes” had planned to report the old “news,” in the guise of new revelations, as an attack on the president Sunday, right before the election.
The Los Angeles Times reported today that “CBS was relegated to airing a report Monday evening, and ’60 Minutes’ merely got credit in the newspaper, which ran an unusual box noting that the article ‘was reported in cooperation with the CBS News program 60 Minutes. 60 Minutes first obtained information on the missing explosives.'”
“60 Minutes” executive producer Jeff Fager issued a statement saying that “our plan was to run the story on [Oct.] 31, but it became clear that it wouldn’t hold, so the decision was made for the Times to run it.”
Sen. John Kerry stepped up the Democrat-Times-CBS collusion Tuesday in Wisconsin, where he claimed, “Yesterday we learned that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives vanished from one of Iraq’s most sensitive military installations after the invasion.”
The Washington Dispatch noted today:
This story is in dispute and has been presented in a completely biased manner. It is easy to argue that this story was highlighted to assist John Kerry. It was at the center of his accusatory campaign rallies all day on Monday. But the missing elements of the story are astonishing. And again, just as with the fraudulent document story Dan Rather tries to heave at the president, the story is falling apart in record time.
By Monday night it was learned that NBC News had imbedded reporters with the 101st Airborne as they took over the facility on April 10, 2003. The conclusion of NBC, “the troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing.