http://www.factcheck.org/ is great resource as I said. It is not for either candidate. That's why everyone should read it.
I agree with you on that point. If, however, you want to make a claim based on what they say, it would be nice (some might say intellectually honest) to link to the exact story you are referring to, rather than make a charge based on a website's story, and to let others muddle around trying to figure out what story you are referring to. If someone (let's say Sephroth, since he was looking for info) hasn't looked into the info yet, and you post about something without giving him the info you are referring to, what if he read a story that KINDA pertained to your view, yet didn't agree with yours? You're only hurting yourself by indirectly linking to your story/fact/statistic.
On Iraq:
1- Kerry wanted military action to be the LAST resort. He, like I, feel Bush did it too early. IE: Cooter says: "I personally support military action against North Korea. Just not today." Taken out of context it would look confusing.
[/sup]no, the context is factually correct as you have stated it. It just needs further fleshing out, as in (and this is the "context" everyone is searching for - the ducking of answering this) "IF you support military action, but only as a last resort,
WHEN do you feel we should go to it....if not a mythical "today", then
WHEN....it's the WHEN, THE WHEN, THE WHEN that is Kerry's major problem. The mythical "when we have exhausted all "informed diplomacy" is ANOTHER cloud-in-the-sky notion that never gives a straigh answer.
You can ALWAYS fall back on "I'm for it, just not now". It's the unwillingness to lay out WHEN HE WOULD think it necessary that shapes his "flip-flop" image to a finely-honed point.
But that doesn't mean to do it later today. Putting our soldiers on foreign soil is a big decision with major consequences. It isn't something we should be doing without thinking it through.
[/sub]if you honestly think that decision to put our soldiers into Iraq was done at the drop of a hat, you're misinformed beyond belief. The logistics alone dictate that it couldn't be done. Also, I'd have to question what you were doing leading up to this war, because it obviously wasn't reading/watching/listening to ANY media of any sort. This was written/reported/spoke about ad nauseum. By what definition do you think we went into Iraq without thinking it through?
2- Greater International Support defined - Cooter says: "Greater International Support is other countries commiting the level of resources that we are".
Money: Where is it? Troops: Where are they? Commitment: Why is everyone leaving?
What percentage of our military is in Iraq? What percentage of our GNP is being spent there? Compare that to the percentage of our "coalition" allies.
[/sub]To "blanket answer" your points - we have more than others.
So you are basing your definition of support on how much other countries are willing to give us. It's about fairness. I see. Is it fair that we also send aid to other countries in all sorts of fashions (money, food, military aid)? By that same ludicrous standard, we also should never have gone into Croatia, Haiti is someplace that should be dismissed....the "fairness" of others actions...dynamite definition.
Then he told the other countries they couldn't help rebuild.
Again, the facts you have to support this would be nice, because all I heard was...and let me put this so you can understand it....
the countries WITH us in fighting this war could help, after all, it's only "fair"....FRANCE, GERMANY, RUSSIA....BEAT IT".I don't know how you manage to (well, I know it doesn't support your position, so it IS convenient to do so) overlook the Oil for Food programs, or the sale of arms and supplies to Sadaam...see, those countries were "getting their share" before we went in there. It just so happened to be at the expense of the Iraqi people...See, Sadaam only "trickled down" the torture and poverty, not the money he was making from these deals
Then they awarded all (and I mean ALL) the construction contracts to the company Cheney worked for prior to becoming VP.
facts to back this up, being such a strongly worded statement, please
But I do know there's no such thing as a "be all/end all". Whatever we do, we will be struck by terrorists again. Your vote either way will not change this fact.
But Kerry made it sound as if Bush was missing the boat big time on that one area, and that if he's elected, he'll "do it better" than Bush. You mean to tell me that if Kerry is elected, we could be struck again?!?!
ANOTHER RINGING ENDORSEMENT FOR KERRY I'm voting for the guy who'll
DO something about it, instead of talk to nation after nation hoping they'll offer something "fair" to help us out
If we're not right 100% of the time, then we are wrong. Hopefully, we learn and make changes to try and fix the problem.
but, as you so clearly stated above, we can't EVER be right, since "we will be struck again". Again, why should Americans allow Kerry to try to fix a problem that is, by YOUR definition, unfixable?
As for your other problems with Bush, we're all MORE than happy to discuss them (
No duh, hey? Even MrC seems to have decided "If you can't shush 'em, join 'em" ) We even allow the reddest of neck amongst us to speak!
Peace and bong hits to everyone
DK