Thanks! Nice post..

I trust W!

I do not trust Kerry.

It's that simple for me, which is why I will vote for Bush.

I'm ashamed to say, while I do pray for Bush regularly, if Kerry wins the election and becomes president, I will feel convicted to pray even harder!

'George W. is the man to get the job done, here and abroad. '

I dont see how this can be supported. Since Bush's infamous 'bring them on' comment of last year, 812 American soldiers have died and over 6000 have been wounded, according to the Pentagon. Insurgency in Iraq is on the rise, and Bush has no plan whatsoever to pull out of Iraq. He has created a lot of International disrespect for the United States, which is a great shame, considering the world were united behind the US after 9/11.

The domestic record isnt much better. Hes spending huge sums of taxpayer money in Iraq, much more than initially planned. Hundreds of billions of dollars. As nailed by Professor William Nordhas of Yale University:

'Like a teenager who gets further in debt on a credit card, the Bush administration is racking up costs that will have to be paid in the future in higher taxes or lower government programs. '

On the home front, Bush has also run up the biggest deficit EVER, and in correlation to him coming into power, job losses have increased annually. This is just the tip of the ice berg here.

Im sorry for dissent, im not playing devils advocate.......it just puzzles me when people say Bush is the man for the job, when he has made such a mess of things at both home and abroad.

Well, hello, FC!

Hmm, well, in comparison with John Kerry, who claims to be able to know how to run the country when he couldn't even keep his commitment to show up and/or vote on issues that affect the American people and the military, and can't maintain a constant, I maintain my statement: Bush is the man to get the job done, here and abroad.

War costs money and lives. The men and women of the military know that when they sign the contract they are making a binding agreement to put their lives in danger with the possibility of losing life or limb. I do not say this lightly. My husband served in the USMC during Desert Storm. I did fear for his life, but he was ready to do what he had been trained to do; was ready to give his life or lose an arm for the purpose of liberating the Kuwaiti people from Sadaam. I know what it is like to live with the thought of never seeing someone whom you love to the marrow and soul of your being. I would have mourned his death, but never blamed the government. He knew what he was doing and was ready to do it.

I think it easy for liberals (which truthfully, FC, while not an American citizen, this is what you would be if you were one) to criticize war (is there one that they have actually supported?) while living generously from the benefits of it.

Anyway, I know your stance, you know mine....:)

I can see some reasons WHY people are backing Bush in '04, mostly his tough stance etc....but it baffles me when people say hes the man to get the job done, when he has failed to do so in Iraq, and at home.

Out of the 2 candidates, at least one isnt in denial over the state of Iraq, and we all know who that is. Bush maintains Iraq is going his way, when the Pentagon states that it isnt.

'War costs money and lives. The men and women of the military know that when they sign the contract they are making a binding agreement to put their lives in danger with the possibility of losing life or limb.'

What im saying is, after arrogantly saying 'Bring them on,' thousands of service men and women have died or been injured. A lot of the reasons behind this war have been debunked, mostly notably the whole 'Iraq was a threat' thing. He rushed into this war, and now who knows when hes going to get out? He hasnt outlined any plans. The insurgency at best will stay at its current level, or at worst get even more advanced and plunge Iraq into total disarray.

'I think it easy for liberals (which truthfully, FC, while not an American citizen, this is what you would be if you were one)'

I take no offense to being called a liberal.

'(is there one that they have actually supported?) '

Im not a pacifist. I support war when it is necessary. I feel it wasnt. Dont forget my country is in on this mess also. What it boils down to is........the war is not being won. Innocent Iraqi's, coalition soldiers, and western contractors are dying everyday. Bush's pretty picture of a war totally under control is an illusion. Its also an illusion to say the war has anything to do with US interests (aside from oil contracts maybe?)

'while living generously from the benefits of it. '

How is this so? I certainly dont see any benefit from the war in Iraq.

FC, I didn't imply that to be a liberal is bad; not at all. I was trying to delineate that if a citizen of this country you would definitely fall into that "category" so to speak.

Also, another clarification: it is known that most of those who call themselves liberal will back a president of their party if he decides to bomb or agrees to have our troops participate in U.N. peacekeeping missions, or heck, if he wanted to engage in all-out war, they would find a reason to support him (I supported Clinton in Bosnia, btw, something not many of my conservative colleagues did). I meant that while decrying all the terrible things of war, it seems they refuse to acknowledge that death, pain, dismemberment, suffering, etc are part of a war for the liberators and the liberated. Why is the focus solely on the casualities of this war and not on the many more thousands who died on Sadaam's regime? Why are those Iraqis who support this war, not taken seriously or listened to? Why not admit that perhaps, at the cost of American lives, but far less than average Iraqi citizens over the past 25 years, some good has been done?

Those who decry war as bad and point out death as the reason forget the deaths that occured to secure the very freedom they themselves enjoy: freedom to peaceable assembly; the right to bear arms; the right to petition; to a jury of peers; innocent until proven guilty; freedom of speech; the right to persue the religion of one's conscience. The early years of this country were bloody, devasting, difficult. Why can't that be recognized? Why aren't the parallels seen? In the establishment of any country seeking freedom from oppression, lives are lost. Mayhem, death, insurgents exist. This is not unique to Iraq. The history of your country and my own exemplifies how the fight for freedom is fraught with mistakes, death, dissent.

I have conceeded numerous times that there are other countries in which I think the U.S. should also be involved (Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc) where the people have no strength from which to draw; nowhere to turn for help or relief. NO ONE was attempting to help Iraq. NO ONE!

I think there are times when you make the best decision possible with the information you have at the moment. There are some decisions that by nature require immediacy in action. This was one of those.

Yes, you are right. Death is happening, but the number of deaths in a war does not connotate victory. If that were accurate, we could easily say the Civil War World War's I and II were lost.

Have you read my post on Robert Kaplan's Five Days in Fallujah? How about Lt. Col. Bellon's letters-- the man is there.

'Also, another clarification: it is known that most of those who call themselves liberal will back a president of their party if he decides to bomb or agrees to have our troops participate in U.N. peacekeeping missions'

Ironically, Iraq's breaking of US resolutions was one of America's reasons for going to war. The US broke the law by invading Iraq, and broke the treaty signed by Harry Truman. Kofi Annan has explicitly stated this invasion was illegal. It is known most of those who call themselves conservative are against UN humanitarian missions, but all for wars with nothing to do with national security.

' I meant that while decrying all the terrible things of war, it seems they refuse to acknowledge that death, pain, dismemberment, suffering, etc are part of a war for the liberators and the liberated.'

The point is, Bush claims the war is going his way. It isnt. He said 'bring it on,' and thats exactly what the insurgents did. The insurgency is rising, and shows no sign of going away. The coalition is barely in control of Baghdad and Basra, let alone Fallujah. Im not sure if you are aware, but an American was beheaded today. Another American and a Brit captured at the same time are next. Terrorist groups like this capture western contractors virtually at will.

'Why is the focus solely on the casualities of this war and not on the many more thousands who died on Sadaam's regime?'

I never condoned Saddam's regime. Just because Saddam was a nasty piece of work, doesnt mean im going to condone nearly 15,000 innocent deaths in Iraq, and tens of thousands injured. This isnt liberation. Would you feel liberated if your kids were blown up, then called 'terrorists' by the 'liberators?' Just last week a residential area was hit in Fallujah. The military claimed to have killed 60 foreign fighters, despite the fact that 17 killed were kids, and 8 were women. A dozen or more homes were destroyed out right.

'but far less than average Iraqi citizens over the past 25 years, some good has been done?'

I dont call the current situation 'good.' The majority of Iraqi's despised Saddam. This doesnt mean they welcome the coalition.

'The early years of this country were bloody, devasting, difficult. Why can't that be recognized?'

I recognize this. What i dont recognize is ANY parralels with this unjust war.

'I think there are times when you make the best decision possible with the information you have at the moment. There are some decisions that by nature require immediacy in action. '

This situation did not require immediate action. Saddam's regime was not a threat, and this has been proven. Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11. After this invasion, how many angry young men do you think have been driven into the arms of terrorists? This invasion has ESCALATED international terrorism.

'Yes, you are right. Death is happening, but the number of deaths in a war does not connotate victory.'

True, it doesnt connotate victory. But what it does connotate is a situation out of control. In July last year, Bush was THAT confident he said 'bring them on' to the insurgents. 'Bring them on' to the terrorists. Now we are still stuck in Iraq with no plan to get out, and deaths on every side amounting. I wont be surprised if i see a newsflash tommorrow informing me the British contractor Kenneth Bigley has been executed, in the wake of Eugene Armstrong's death today. This is a terrible, terrible thing....and its not getting better....

'How about Lt. Col. Bellon's letters-- the man is there. '

I have read a couple with interest.

FC, did I not say that I supported President Clinton's actions in Bosnia? Did I also not say that I think that we should be actively involved in doing something in Sudan and Zimbabwe and several other places?

And the whole "Kofi Annan declares the war illegal" thing? I like Jeff's thoughts.

'And the whole "Kofi Annan declares the war illegal" thing?'

You dont have to take Kofi Annan's word for it. Brisk over the UN charter that the US voluntarily signed up for. The invasion of Iraq was illegal on an international level. Kofi Annan never denied the fact Iraq was also breaking UN resolutions, but he advocated weapons inspections, which had a free run over Iraq right till the invasion. And now after, WMD's have failed to be found Israel has broken/ignored literally hundreds of UN resolutions. Should the coalition invade them? As for Jeff's comments, i didnt see the US intervening in Rwanda, it isnt intervening in Sudan either. As for the UN, members states all sent troops to Bosnia, not just America. NATO peacekeepers are now there, and also in Kosovo. Using Jeff's logic, he thinks the UN should put a finger in every pie in the world, so to speak.....when the US itself is actually quite selective in its intervention. The world doesnt work this way.