Mr. Villagomez, I'm sure that comment was referring to myself so I will address it.  There are multiple positions that I disagree with this administration about.  The reason I'm talking about Iraq in this blog is due to Jilluser offering a different viewpoint specifically on that issue and we are simply debating about it.  I also stated that Bush lacked experience with foreign policy in this blog but that also is not the only thing that I find he lacks.  I think informed people are upset with Iraq not because of the economy but because the justification that they provided was found to be insubstantial and inconclusive as well as their being no connection with Al Qaeda or 9/11, emphasis on informed.  If we are going to talk about sending other people's children to die in war I can see no worse case than a war that was led under false pretenses.  I am happy to see Saddam out and Iraq heading towards a new democracy but can we say the end justifies the means? 

Madine:
I am not sure how the invasion of Iraq applies to what he would do if Kerry became President.

Jilluser:
I doubt he would close or change what we are doing in terms of "terrorism suspects" already caught. I mean, the guy fought in a war. I think he saw Viet Namese prisoners arrested and held. I think he has more backbone than simply to say, "oh sorry, we made a mistake." I think some people may be confusing Kerry (the guy who served in Viet Nam) with the guy who didn't.

I think some people may be confusing Kerry (the guy who served in Viet Nam) with the guy who didn't.

I would not be such a person...ever.  Again, just because someone has been a soldier, doesn't mean they can be a good leader.

Here's the deal, I care about our country being safe from terrorists.  I care far less about making nice with other countries.  You might think that Kerry has backbone but I sure haven't seen it.

psychx, I'm glad you see this as it is meant.  Simply me putting forth my opinion.  If noone offered a differing opinion to debate upon, it would be quite a boring thread.  I have no desire to bring the economy into this.  Like I said, my main concern is our safety from terrorism.  I merely brought up Dole vs Clinton because military leadership should always be a consideration in who you vote for whether during war time or not.  I simply find it hypocritical for anyone who discounted the whole "he served and he didn't" during Dole vs Clinton and then use it as a talking point for Bush vs Kerry.  You simply can't have it both ways.

As far as our reasons for the war in Iraq are concerned, it is a war on terrorism.  It is no secret that Saddam has it out for the US.  There is much debate over the whole Iraq-Al Qaeda-9/11 hook up.  I was never under the impression that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.  I do believe that Saddam has been linked with Al Qaeda though.  As far as I'm concerned, you don't have to be one of the terrorists responsible for 9/11.  You just have to be a terrorist.

Over all, I am just thoroughly depressed that our only options are Bush and Kerry.

Jilluser:
Well, what I was trying to say is that we can't know what Kerry will do, granted, but we know his background and know that he served in battle so has seen what soldiers face. I think too many people are associating Kerry with Clinton in terms of leadership. I don't think there is a good basis for that. They should be considered very different men in terms of who they are who have similar ideas in terms of democratic party philosophy (i.e. pro-choice, pro-union, pro-national healthcare, etc.)
I think we need to get into the debates in the fall before we know better how Kerry would handle the issues of Iraq and terrorism. Until then I will keep an open mind. The election is a long time from now. No need to make the choice 5 months in advance.

I think too many people are associating Kerry with Clinton in terms of leadership

I don't know of anyone who does this.  For one thing, Clinton was far more conservative than Kerry.  The only similarity I see between the two is party affiliation.  Kerry is no where near as charismatic as Clinton.  I think if Clinton would have kept his brain out of his pants, he would have been remembered as one of the top presidents of modern times.                                                                                      I am looking forward to the debates.  As far as making the choice 5 months in advance, that would depend on what your main concerns are.  If you think that taxes are working in the right direction currently, then you probably can already plan to vote for Bush because you know for certain that Kerry will make changes to taxes.

Kerry is no where near as charismatic as Clinton.

IMO, Kerry has been showing a little more charisma this week...maybe having Edwards around to model himself after will be a plus in that department. He was very animated and energetic here in Dayton the other day, and certainly whipped the crowd up into a frenzy!

I am looking forward to the debates.

As am I....I never thought that I would actually find myself on the fence this year, but GWB has made a few choices that have me doubting whether I want him representing my interests in the world arena, or on a national level.

Helix: Kerry came home from fighting Vietnamese and then protested the war.  He even went to the trouble to throw medals back over the fence in Washington, but later it ended up the medals weren't his, lol.

So now he can brag about his military service and brag about his anti-war stance.  He can sympathize with soldiers that agree with him and vilify those that don't as war mongers. 

Kind of funny, huh?

I think the democrats waived their right to use military service as a talking point about their candidate.  I laughed out loud when I saw Hillary Clinton on The View.  She said (in respect to Kerry) that she feels that since he had actually seen war time action, unlike Bush, he would be a better source of leadership for out troops.  Well, hello!  Again, Clinton vs Dole.  Dole was a war hero who sacrificed the use of his arm for the good of our country and the world.  Like I said, either it is important or it isn't.  You can't pick and choose for the given race.  "Oh, this time our guy is the one who went to war.  It's a good thing if it is our guy.  It's irrelevant if it's the other guy."

 

Jill,
I think your fears WILL be unfounded. The world knows the U.S. can play rough, now they need to know that the U.S. can play fair.

Good hair, humor from candidates: yes, that can't be allowed.
I've not heard The Johns or the Mrs Johns up close & personal, and it pleases me to hear that they can work a crowd. Thanks.
I've heard them speak via the TV. I've heard them give specific methodologies.
I've heard the Bush Bunch speak via the TV. It apparently pleases half of American voters that they take a stand and stick to it. It doesn't seem to matter that the Bush Bunch repeats the same lies day after day, because at least they're not changing their stories. It also doesn't seem to matter that, in fact, the Bush Bunch flip-flops on issues of importance regularly. And Bush? Gosh, he has humor. Doesn't he? Isn't that weird vocabulary he affects some kind of funny?

"27 retired senior government officials released a statement Wednesday morning claiming George W. Bush’s foreign policy has damaged the United States’s reputation abroad...".

So? You can't please everyone, and it is not in our interest to try. Maybe some of these countries that are unhappy with us should consider any rift between us as their diplomatic failure. After all, they need us a lot more than we need them.

JillUser- I'm late for this, but wanted to add a comment. I'm concerned for our safety, as well. But I feel that in the end, Bush has done more harm in that way, then good. We are not thought well of. We, ourselves have to take our intelligence with a large grain of salt. At this point, any time I hear the threat level has been elevated, I roll my eyes. I think your point is good, security is an important thing for us right now, and I feel strongly that Bush does not provide it.

Bush Bunch repeats the same lies day after day, because at least they're not changing their stories. It also doesn't seem to matter that, in fact, the Bush Bunch flip-flops on issues of importance regularly

What lies would those be? What flip-flops are you referring to?

I feel strongly that Bush does not provide it.

On what grounds? And, sorry to break this to you, but we weren't thought of well by other countries long before Bush. Do you think the hatred has only been around since Bush? When has France not looked down their noses at the US?

WiseFawn: what many people who are suddenly interested in international politics don't understand is that the US has been on the outs with these nations for DECADES. We have had tradewar after tradewar. Anyone who really looks hard at international politics in the last 20 years or so would see how utterly transparent the behavior of those nation who now oppose is really is.

They have been wanting something to divert the attention from the fact that they are all wallowing in stagnant economies so they can be "hard" on us for some other excuse. They used the used the Iraqi people's pain to do business with Hussein, and now they use them as leverage against the US in what will eventually just subside back into a greedy trade battle.

All you war freaks will forget about the situation once the US is out, or worse, blame Iraq for something that is far older and much less clear-cut. The fact is, though, Europe is using Iraq as a bargaining chip in a battle that has nothing to do with Iraq.