remy

My eyes are wide open, and do you know what I see? Probably not, because you are so focused on saving face that you will say anything to elevate yourself.

In 2000 when Bush was running for President he said that he thought that our military was spread to thin across the globe and that the US should not get into the buisness of nation building. This was great because it appeased his ultra conservative base and brought in the moderate liberals as well.

Fast forward to September 2001. The US just experienced one of, if not the greatest tragedy's in our nations history. We are swift in our retaliation on the Taliban in Afgahnistan, and with the support of the world we are able to rid the Taliban from leadership. This was indeed necessary, because the Taliban directly funded and harbored the terrorists that attacked us on September 11, 2001.

Ok that was all fine and dandy, until we started hearing that Iraq somehow ended up next in the cross-hairs. As much as people would like to believe, Saddam did not support Bin Laden and his or any terrorists that attacked the US. But for some unknown reason Bush felt it necessary to go after Saddam.

He used proof whether good or bad to make his case. He used the facts that Iraq at one time did indead have chemical weaponry as proof that they not only currently had them but were going to use them against us. The sarine gas that Bush used to scare us, turns out to have had a shelf life of only 2 months. So that had become usless about 13 years ago.

Now here we are today, our military spread very thin, shown by the number of national guard and reserves that have been called up. In the process of building a nation. So to say that the majority of Americans support Bush is asinine. He has upset a large set of his ultra conservative base as well as liberals and some moderates. Afgahnistan was acceptible because we were retaliating against the actual enemy. Iraq is something comletely different. If you say that Iraq was a threat to the US, this is what I say: North Korea is a threat to the US. They have proven working nuclear weapons. So on Bush's crusade he chose a "threat" he knew he could handle. That being Iraq which had no WMD's and not North Korea which could actually put on an attack against us.

As for your comments on the debates, Bush is already trying to back out of the first town hall debate in the beginnging of October. Where as Kerry has said that he would like to debate once a week until November 2nd.

Oh shit I forgot, Kerry's voting record. I will limit it to he support of the war. Kerry indead support giving Bush the power to go to war to have a good bargaining tool with the UN. Here's what Bush said " That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about." So he did so trusting that Bush would take care of this great responsibilty. Bush did not. And now Kerry is simply saying that Bush did not handle the situation correctly.

You say Kerry flip flops(what a fucking stupid slogan) well umm... so is Bush:
If he is a flip-flopper, Kerry has company.

_In 2000, Bush argued against new military entanglements and nation building. He's done both in Iraq.

_He opposed a Homeland Security Department, then embraced it.

_He opposed creation of an independent Sept. 11 commission, then supported it. He first refused to speak to its members, then agreed only if Vice President Dick Cheney came with him.

_Bush argued for free trade, then imposed three-year tariffs on steel imports in 2002, only to withdraw them after 21 months.

_Last month, he said he doubted the war on terror could be won, then reversed himself to say it could and would.

_A week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." But he told reporters six months later, "I truly am not that concerned about him." He did not mention bin Laden in his hour-long convention acceptance speech.