US mid-term elections

[GMichael]

GMichael,

I am not sure who you might be talking about. After 9/11, the country was more united than it has been in my 35 years. I know of no one who suggested we go to Iraq rather than after Osama. The story couldn't be straighter. There will alway be fringe wackos, but it occurs on the right as well as the left.

More united than in my 46 years too. But there were plenty of nay-sayers a few months later when we were in after Bin. The papers were filled with editorials about how we should be after Sadam instead. That was just the beginning of the slide. Bush went from some 90+% approval to 60 something in about a year. But when it looked like it would cost him the election, he kept on the same path as he promised he would. Seems to me that if he wanted to cinch the election he would have flip-flopped as is normally the case with most politicians. So now he's still on coarse with the same agenda. Right or wrong (most likely wrong) he's at least doing what he said he would. And I don't agree with almost all of his choices, here and on other fronts as well. He makes a lot of mistakes. But I'd rather have him in there than Bill or Kerry or Hilary or, .......

Wackos in the middle too. Don't leave us out.

[SRO]

GMichael,

I have to say that I do not remember the editorials. I will accept that they were there, but are you sure they from anti-Bushies. Could it have been the Neo-cons already building the non-existant threat of Iraq.

[SRO]

OK, he didn't lie or flip flop. He changed his mind. If it takes a national tragedy to change his mind, he's thicker than I thought.

If we set a timetable ( even a fluid one ) then the Iraqi government will have to step up the training of their own police and military forces. This is what is claimed to need to happen to get our troops out of there. It is only the Republican party and it's fawning right wing media that claims the Democrats want to cut and run. To their followers, I say turn off Rush and Foxnews and join the real world.

[nobody]

When we went after Bin-Baby, the anti-Bushers ranted about how Bin was not the real problem and that we should go after Iraq. Then when we went into Iraq those same anti-Bushers ranted about how we should be after Bin instead. Could you guys get your story straight, please?

This confuses me. The Neo-Con agenda had Iraq ion the table before 9-11 and kept it there. It was not the anti-Bush crowd saying he should ease up on Bin-Laden and go after Iraq, it was his inner circle that had been pushing the Iraq agenda all along.

We had near universal support both at home and abroad going after Bin-Laden, it wasn't until Bush and his crew decided to go into Iraq instead that the tide started to shift.

[JSE]

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

I never said it did. I implied that something like 9/11 could change a person's course of action or perspective of the world around him. It could have changed his idea about Nation Building. So again, HOW DID HE LIE?

What is wrong with a timetable?.

Nothing is wrong with a timetable. But it has to be flexible. The problem the democrats have right now is a lot of the country believe they are hell bent on pulling troops out of Iraq by a specific time reagardless of what happens in the meantime. Timetables should be fluid. The democrats are viewed by many as wanting to make it a "hard" deadline.

We need to send a message that we are there to help, not police. The quicker they understand that they need to take over operations, and that we will not be there forever the better. .

Well, if you or the democrats know how to convince Iraq of this and make it happen sooner than later, I'm all ears. But that's the problem, democrats can't even begin to tell us how they will do this. They don't have a clue and have no interest in coming up with a plan. They just want seats. They hope that enough people will "assume" they must have a plan. I am not that happy about being in Iraq these days but I am really afraid that a democratic controlled house, senate and maybe even presidency would put Iraq on the back burner. This would be a huge mistake.

In 2004, when Kerry changed his mind he was a flip flopper. That was my point. Bush is a liar or a flip flopper, you decide.

Bush appears to have "flip-flopped" on this issue (nation building) due to a significant world event. Kerry seems to flip-flop due to any slight directional wind change. Kerry's biggest problem with the "flip-flop" issue was there were so many flip-flops. He seemed to say whatever his audience wanted to hear. And that bit him in the ass. In today's internet world, a person's words can and will come back to haunt them. In Kerry's case, over and over and over again.

By the way, I am not a Democrat. I do not belong to any party.

Nor do I but I am more conservative in my political views. I have said for years, I will vote for ANY candidate that will erect a huge wall/fence along the Mexican border to keep illegals out. A big electric fence! Illegal imigration is a far larger problem here in the US than terrorism. Unfortunately, Republicans and Democrats are too busy trying to find potential voters to do anything real about it.

JSE

[jrhymeammo]

I smell a DingDong.

[jeskibuff]

I smell a DingDong.

Sorry about that!

I had four of them for dessert tonight and they always tend to give me gas!

[SRO]

As you seem to want to get in to semantics, you in fact did not say "my best friends". But you also did not say "that I interact with" either. You may want to re-read your post.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the only way a Democrat can be smart is to think like a Republican in your view. If we all think the same way, we are not a Democacy. It tends to become more communist or fascist. Is this the America that you want?