1) I can trust my drop-dead-gorgeous daughters to be in the same room with him. Men who can be trusted when away from their wives can be trusted not to remarry a wealthy divorceé with a wicked tongue when the wife dies; live off of tax-payers money and deny them the privilege of investing for their own retirement while parasitically living off of it themselves; or to lose their spine when fearful of how their answer will be received by whomever is listening.

2) I really couldn't care less about Vietnam service. I think it's a tactic used by the John-John's to detract from Kerry's more important record of service (or rather, lack thereof) to this country: his voting record while in the Senate and participating on Senate committees. Attempting to skip the country to avoid serving wasn't why I didn't vote for Bill Clinton, in either election. And John Kerry's attempt at deferment; denial of it; the refuge he sought in the Navy; or the eight weeks of in-country service rendered; nor the wounds he received will be what makes me not vote for him.

3) George W. Bush going into the National Guard (forged document supporters read this) is just as honorable as John Kerry going into the Navy. So what if H.W. asked a friend to speak to a friend to get him in and keep him away from Vietnam? Isn't that what Bill Clinton did? And isn't it what numerous other Democrats did? It isn't limited to partisan politics, so stop making it seem like it is. (Hello? What were the responses in the '92 election when this very subject was brought up by Republicans to Clinton?)

4) Let me just say this now: if someone comes onto my property, sets fire to my home, kills my children and my husband, I don't want to have a "sensitive talk" with said person(s). I want swift justice. What? The evidence shows that Iraq wasn't involved? O.K. Let me say this then: if my neighbor is beating the crap out of his wife and children; cutting off their fingers and limbs; killing the pets; I won't watch, wring my hands, and think it to be "none of my business. " M'kay?

5) George W. is the man to get the job done, here and abroad. He did what he said he would do in his last campaign (Clinton even acknowledged it). He met our enemies full force. He made the valiant decision to attempt to liberate a people crushed under the very one to whom they should have been able to look to for protection and thus showed that the United States is committed to the welfare of more than our own backs. He has remained faithful to his wife and because of that demonstration of honor, I believe he will be to me, my daughters and grand-daughters (men, too, but this one is for the uber-fems). I don't care who you are, if you can't be faithful to one woman (repeatedly), how can you be to a nation of them? He can laugh at himself. If you can't laugh at yourself, you can't really be laughing at anything or anyone else.

6) Last thing: I can't stand the sound of John Kerry's voice. "W" may stumble, but he at least has inflection and doesn't drone. Just to make it understood that this isn't a partisan thing, while I didn't personally care for President Clinton's politics, I cannot deny he was a true orator and powerfully persuasive speaker. Sorry, the same just can't be said for Mr. Kerry.

7) Finally, I am voting for Mr. Bush because, even if he doesn't win, I will be able to live with myself knowing that I voted my conscience, not my political association. Let it be known; however, that should Kerry-Edwards win, I will be respectful and pray no less for their presidency than I am now of our current administration. The office and responsibility must be supported and respected whether I disagree or dislike the politics or the politician.

« Hide the rest of For the Record

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.

So, yesterday, I simply couldn't wait to eat. How could I when the makings of nachos were in my fridge and pantry? There is something irresistable about melted cheddar, guacamole, sour cream, fresh tomatoes, refried beans, and Romaine neatly layered across a crispy bed of tortilla chips. I made penance to R by supplying him with his own plate of nicely tiered nachos. We agreed that something sweet would be a delicious way to finish off our salty tasty dinner.

After securing the children in their activities at church, we headed over to a local ice-cream store. There is this concoction they make called...."Panookie." It is a word of mouth secret and not printed anywhere in the store. A woman at church suggested that we go there for dessert sometime and order the panookie. When she said the word, I inwardly startled and asked her to repeat herself. She did. I startled again thinking, Didn't the people who named this know that it sounds exactly like something else?

So when we first went there, I felt a bit embarrassed to say the word (and still have a bit of inhibition even now). It seemed like a yiddish word that a Jewish mother with a heavy Brooklyn accent would use to admonish her children with before they bathed: "Don't forget to wash ya Panookie."

What is this mysterious dessert? A chocolate chip cookie baked into the bottom of a metal dish with two scoops of ice-cream, hot fudge, whipped-cream, nuts, and a cherry. I have concluded that the intention of the inventors was to combine the words "pan" and "cookie." But, I think I would have called it.....something else.

« Hide the rest of Can I have a Panookie Please?

Daniel laughs when we go out to eat because no matter how button burstingly full I am, I can always make room for dessert. I wish we could eat it first, then have a little dinner if we still had room! Thank you God for dessert!!!

The old moon laughed and sang a song
As they rocked in the wooden shoe,
And the wind that sped them all night long
Ruffled the waves of dew.
The little stars were the herring fish
That lived in the beautiful sea ~
"Now cast your nets wherever you wish ~
Never afeard are we";
So cried the stars to the fisherman three:
Wynken,
Blynken,
And Nod.

All night long their nets they threw
To the stars in the twinkling foam ~
Then down from the skies came the wooden shoe,
Bringing the fishermen home;
'Twas all so pretty a sail it seemed
As if it could not be,
And some folks thought 'twas a dream they'd dreamed
Of sailing that beautiful sea ~
But I shall name you the fishermen three:
Wynken,
Blynken,
And Nod.

Wynken and Blynken are two little eyes,
And Nod is a little head,
And the wooden shoe that sailed the skies
Is a wee one's trundle-bed.
So shut your eyes while mother sings
Of wonderful sights that be,
And you shall see the beautiful things
As you rock in the misty sea,
Where the old shoe rocked the fishermen three:
Wynken,
Blynken,
And Nod.

« Hide the rest of Thank you, Mr. Field

Nice.

Love that poem.

I love this poem, too. We have this in book form and it is one of my favorites to read to the children. It is so lyrical and soporific....I think I will attempt to memorize it :)

While on my weekly shopping excursion, I swung the swollen cart down the periodical isle. I can only find The Atlantic in this particular store and only if the four other people who read it in this town haven't gotten there first. I perused the cover and winced: "Bush's Lost War: How the War on Iraq Undermined the War on Terror" by James Fallows. I am sure that it will be another liberal diatribe, but just to be fair, I will attempt to read it. Then I flipped over to the Letters to the Editor section. I just knew that someone would have something to say about Mr. Kaplan's respectfully written article from the previous month. Of course, I was right. Two wrote in praise of his writing, with one pointing out the contribution of the Army during a specific engagement. Then I turned the page and there it was: the whining letter of some dissenter with quotes such as "Kaplan's glorification of military values is also disturbing" or "..Kaplan either conceals or is unaware of the indiscriminate violence unleashed upon the city by the Marines he identifies with so much" or how about this one: "Kaplan's comfort with the word 'imperialism' is also worrisome, but most alarming is his repeated use of the word 'us' to describe the Marines. Should he not strive for a certain amount of objectivity?" I assume that Mr. Nir Rosen is referring to his own level of objectivity voiced here in the closing of his letter: "Though having been embedded myself, I recognize the difficulty of remaining impartial when living with the affable young men of the American Military who risk their lives for the whims of politicians back in Washington. I believe it is no less, and perhaps more, important to identify with those on the receiving end of American imperialism and military might (emphasis my own), and to question the assertions of both military and political leaders." * Hmmm, that's some objectivity there, Mr. Rosen.

Mr. Kaplan's response to the points of Mr. Rosen's letter that I listed:
"Simply because I did not snobbishly blast Christian fundamentalism, the way so many in the media often do, doesn't mean I was without judgement on it. In fact, I found it made troops more disciplined and compassionate. As for the 'indiscriminate violence' of the Marines, that was simply not what I observed: rather, as I wrote from firsthand knowledge [not that of supposed witnesses with an agenda to undermine the U.S. and squash those Iraqi's who support independence and democracy so often quoted by journalists], Marines regularly risk getting shot to protect civilians.

I am in the midst of a project about the middle and lower ranks of the American military and how the world looks from their point of view. Meanwhile, the global media are full of people, like Mr. Rosen, who are more than willing to write about things from the viewpoint of those fighting the United States. The media establishment has often lavished praise on thos who cover life exclusively from the point of view of oppressed miniorites and the working poor. Apparently it doesn't consider American's own working-class military- drawn predominatly from the South and adjacent areas- deserving of similar empathy. Given the pressure on our military, and that the overwhelming majority of our troops around the world behave in exemplary fashion, I am saddened by this double standard." *

The honesty and courage to question the tactics of his colleagues and to challenge the inconsistent standard they claim to have for journalism and the American people whom they "seek to serve" through dissemination of "facts" is commendable. Mr. Kaplan, you have a new devoted reader. I intend to personally thank you for reporting what many have believed but have been unable to find in print media: the American military is everyday putting their lives on the line for the freedom of the Iraqi people, not the "whims" of Washington politicians.

Now, on to the article "The X Factor" by Michelle Cottle. A tidbit: "Teresa's efforts to play the political spouse are reminiscent of watching your mom try to relate to the kids at your fifth-grade slumber party: sweet, but painfully inconvincing." * Doesn't that sound like an interesting take?

*All quotes taken from The Atlantic October 2004

« Hide the rest of Objective?

As heart broken as the Marines of the battalion were, last night they really took it to the insurgents inside of Fallujah. Contrary to what might be in the media, the mission was not "retribution" for the suicide bombing. It was part of a regular operation that was slightly accelerated in light of what happened. We had been watching the city for quite a while and killed many, many terrorists last night. The battle lasted for hours and hours later, we were still getting secondary explosions off of objectives that we destroyed. You must have faith that the Marines are giving much better that we get.

Dave

« Hide the rest of Lt. Colonel Bellon writes us

Having lived and worked in Russia for nearly 9 years, I weep for the children and parents of Beslan. However, what happened in Beslan cannot be separated from the tragedy in Chechenya - nor from the 300 years history of Russian imperialism in the region, including the mass deportation by J. Stalin of the entire population of Chechnya in 1944/45.

Chechens and other peoples of the Caucusus are second and even third class citizens of the Russian Empire. Russians in Moscow derisively refer to them as "chernomazy" (literally blackfaces), a name that in Russian has the same power to offend as does the word "nigger" in English. I know perfectly reasonable Russians, people you would invite to dinner, who believe the entire Chechen nation should be exterminated because they are "criminal and less than human."

While 350 people (innocent civilians) died at Beslan at the hands of "Chechen" terrorists, let us not forget that since 1994, the Russian Government has slaughtered nearly 60,000 Chechen civilians and that there is very little end in site for a war that now serves to attract Muslim extremists and fundamentalists from outside Russia.

The Government of Vladimir Putin is now using the tragedy at Beslan to consolidate further its hold on power over Russia's fragile democratic institutions. In the name of fighting terrorism, he is now asking a compliant Parliament to end representative elections to the Parliament and end popular elections for regional governors. I cry for Beslan, I cry for Chechnya, I cry for Russia. Bog blagoslavit rossiiu!!!

Kenneth, thank you for your thought-provoking and heartfelt comment.

I admit that I have absolutely no idea what it must be like for the Chechnyans. I also confess to my ignorance of the history of Russia and it's relationships to the once "satelite states" (i.e. countries it overtook and forced under it's rule).

I will say that to engage in terrorist acts, to rape women and children, shoot them in the back, blow them up; to do what was done to their own children, does this make it right?

No, of course not. The question is how do you stop the cycle of violence. I read the other day that Putin is very much a "prisoner of the Caucusus' (a reference to a 19th century short story by Tolstoy) because his Chechen policy does not allow him to acknowledge that he cannot win militarily in Chechenya. He is therefore stuck in the proverbial quagmire.

The Chechens fought the Russian army to a standstill in 1994, at which time the Yeltsin Government negotiated a political settlement that nominally gave Chechnya independence, putting off the settlement of its political status for 5 years. The Chechesn elected Aslan Maskhadov President. He is now a wanted man, but really was the most moderate of Chechen leaders. However, he was not able to control the situation and the country descended into chaos.

Putin dares not to let Chechnya go for fear that other "ethnic" regions of Russia - Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, etc. will want to secede as well. And then there is the question of oil and whether Caspian oil can be transported overland via pipeline to the Black Sea through Georgia and into Chechnya and then Russia.

I do not really understand how the whole affair started, but it was initially led by a former Soviet Air Force Officer and Afghan War hero - Dhokar Dudaev. He was killed by Russian special forces in 1996.

I am not really leading anywhere with this. If you are interested in this topic, you may want to watch the film "A Prisoner of the Mountains" starring Oleg Menshikov. It is in Russian with English subtitles and is based on the Tolstoy story mentioned above.

She looked up my name. I thought my heart and lungs would pop right out of my chest. It took a minute to find the pool number to which I had been assigned. The waiting was damaging my cardio-pulmonary system. When she said that today was, indeed the day I had been expected, I nearly fainted. Sensing the nearness of my extinction, she quickly followed up with the message that the case had been settled and my presence no longer desired. I expelled a poisionous amount of carbon dioxide and slumped against the door. You see, I was hiding in the garage; hiding from my children who I had so gently educated about my privilege to serve my fellow countrymen. I momentarily forgot the phone in my hand until the ever patient Lauri asked if I was still there. I thanked God and Lauri aloud and hung up.

I called Kris back and explained that the color clash of hair and jumpsuit was no longer a concern and that the weekend with Eddie was still on as no donation to the county would be required of my wallet.

Can you say.... Whew!

« Hide the rest of It's the Age I Tell You

... must... not... look... those piercing beams staring at me... ;)

I am glad this worked out well. Enjoy your weekend!

::: sheeeeeeeeeeeew! :::

Not orange. Auburn. I think it looks GREAT!

Yes, look great! And so long!

Phew on the no going to jail for missing jury duty. I would have panicked too.

Thanks, guys :) I miss me blond locks, but this is fun, too.

Emma- I know- I was about to have a coronary!

Kris-Orange=county jail jumpsuit color :)

GB- Thanks :) I am growing it out to donate to locks of love. I want to have it long enough to have a long length when they take the 12 inches.

I think it shows off your eyes. What does R think?
Amy

On the hair-I like it darker. The best color is what the Lord provided, and wavy or curly. I do get to see the real color in our oldest though. I don't get too worked up about the changes. The only thing that would be objectionable would be short. Refer to B.B. King, he had it right.

Thank you, R :)

How lovely that your man loves you el naturel (sp?). And he is right, that natural honey brown color with your natural wave is beautiful!