Kerry's body language scares me

[Holmes]

I would not be

ok for one of us to kill some one, but if one of us was a king or a leader and we perceive a threat to the

people it is our moral obligation to the people to “take out” the threat. [/font]

Yes, but what if

that "perceived threat" is, in reality, no threat at all, but rather the product of our own paranoia or ulterior

motives?

[belgareth]

Yes, but what if

that "perceived threat" is, in reality, no threat at all, but rather the product of our own paranoia or ulterior

motives?

If you can prove it, that makes the peron no different from any other mas-murderer.

[Friendly1]

But the whole

argument is based on the belief that we have the right or obligation to act as the world's police, judge and jury.

That's what we were doing in trying to oust Hussien. Desert Storm was done right, including stopping when we did.

The implementing of sanctions afterwards are of debatable value as sanctions in general have proven to be pretty

worthless in changing a country's direction. Look at Cuba for a great example of that.

I agree that

trying to police the world has been as frustrating an experience for us as people have made it out to be. The

policy was implemented after World War II in stages out of fear that if we stood by and did nothing, we would find

ourselves in another world war.

Ironically, we will never know if that policy succeeded. At least one political

analyst has already declared that the war on terrorism is already a world war (just not fought with massive

armies).

I also agree with you about the distinctions between the first Persian Gulf War and the last one.

...The comment about the children dying, while a tragedy worthy of humanitarian efforts, carries no weight

while so many of our own are hungry and homeless. It certainly is not a good reason to kill untold numbers of

innocent bystanders in a foriegn land.

Our government was directly responsible for the deaths of those

Iraqi children. The partial failure of the sanctions and their impact on the people of Iraq were noted years ago.



Bush had the choice of continuing to kill Iraqi children for years to come, or trying to bring about an end to the

United States' responsibility for the suffering.

Naturally, it wasn't described in those terms. No one would

have approved a war to end the suffering of Iraqi children. Everyone blamed Saddam Hussein for not cooperating with

the U.N. But the sanctions policy, though preventing Hussein from building WMD, nonetheless prevented thousands of

Iraqi families from receiving proper care.

One of the alleged goals for the sanctions was to coerce the Iraqi

people into overthrowing Hussein. I think our leaders saw that as a low-potential outcome of the sanctions, but

they defintely called for Iraqi rebellions more than once.

You state that voters cannot be educated very

well. In large part I agree with you because of the social/political climate we are working within. But to believe

they cannot be educated at all is another thing altogether.

I think voter education is an ongoing process.

But I don't think effective voter education occurs where the issues are concerned. Almost everything we are told

about the issues is being funneled through analysis and legal objection.

Where is the simple rundown of the

facts for the interested voter?

Not everyone will want to analyze them. Not everyone will arrive at a fair

analysis. But our system doesn't try to educate the voter so much as persuade the voter.

So, persuasion and

education are not the same in my book. The few media outlets that simply try to inform without analysis get drowned

out by the big guns.

"There will probably always be people who claim that Kerry's medals were not

properly awarded and there will probably always be people who claim that Bush did not finish his military service

honorably.

Both charges are false. Both charges continue to be repeated over and over."

There will also be

Flat Earthers and people who believe JFK's assasination was a CIA conspiracy. Teaching our children to think rather

than to memorize information would go a long ways towards correcting that. Holding politicians to their word would

also be a step in the right direction. So would elimination of the huge campaign contributions and term

limits.

That means we need to change the way we do things, because what you are saying has been said

throughout my life. I have never seen any successful attempts to change the system.

Both the Republicans and

the Democrats benefit strategically and financially from the current system. None of them have any incentive from

the system itself to change. Those Democrats and Republicans who do honestly want to change the system so that it

more fairly represents the people's interests, don't seem to have either a clue how to do it or the means to pull

it off.

So, we're stuck with what we've got. Bush's call for and end to 527 ads may eventually mean those

sort of things go away. But the special interest groups will find new ways to get around the laws.

[belgareth]

That

means we need to change the way we do things, because what you are saying has been said throughout my life. I

have never seen any successful attempts to change the system.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats benefit

strategically and financially from the current system. None of them have any incentive from the system itself to

change. Those Democrats and Republicans who do honestly want to change the system so that it more fairly represents

the people's interests, don't seem to have either a clue how to do it or the means to pull it off.

So, we're

stuck with what we've got. Bush's call for and end to 527 ads may eventually mean those sort of things go away.

But the special interest groups will find new ways to get around the laws.

Give the man a prize! He hit

the nail on the head.

Yes, I've been hearing it all my life too. Yes, both major parties grossly

profit by the way things are and have no reason to change them. But stuck with it we are not. It's a massive task

but no more so than many other tasks undertaken and accomplished by good people.

To say or believe that it

cannot be accomplished is defeatist and I've never been good at that. It''s a lot better in my eyes to try to

accomplish what you believe is the right thing than to go through life accepting that which you never tried to

change. The way to change something like this is much like sitting on the top of a mountain rolling snowballs down

the hill. The majority will founder and stop in a few seconds. Every now and again one will grow and thrive.

Eventually, one may even start an avalanch that sweeps the side of the mountain clean. I think I'd like to keep

roilling snowballs.

You mentioned that we had an obligation to resolve the issue of starving children in Iraq

and I agree with that, kind of. Since the sanctions were created through a parlimantary body that were were a

functional part of at the time, we had the obligation to continue to work through that body to remove them. The

sanctions weren't working, they were causing suffering and grief and they were created through the action of a

group that we support! Instead of taking appropriate action to remove the sanctions, we take it upon ourselves to

unilaterally determine a new course of action?

[Friendly1]

Since the

sanctions were created through a parlimantary body that were were a functional part of at the time, we had the

obligation to continue to work through that body to remove them. The sanctions weren't working, they were causing

suffering and grief and they were created through the action of a group that we support! Instead of taking

appropriate action to remove the sanctions, we take it upon ourselves to unilaterally determine a new course of

action?

The United Nations hasn't exactly been an effective arbiter of international justice. It wasn't

really created to arbitrate disputes -- only to provide a medium for open communication. It seems to have acquired

responsibilities by accretion without any real plan for the future.

We had plenty of U.N. Security Council

resolutions authorizing the use of force. Several dozen nations obviously felt those resolutions were sufficient to

go into Iraq.

So, where was the unilateralism?

The United States by no means acted alone. "Unilateral" is

one of those oft-used words which has been rendered meaningless, since every coalition that suffers any opposition

at all is accused of acting unilaterally.

The United States did not act alone. But if George Bush is going to

be faulted for acting like the leader of a coalition of dozens of nations, then he shouldn't be accused of failing

to establish or maintain U.S. influence over seas.

I am of Hispanic descent, and I was ashamed for the Spanish

people when they withdrew from Iraq in the wake of the Madrid bombing. But, what I think is even worse, is the fact

that they have shown the world that they can be pushed around and bullied and they will end up paying an even more

terrible price for that weakness.

[belgareth]

That last paragraph put me in a

tough spot because I don't believe we should be there but don't believe we can back out because terrorists acted

in a cowardly manner. There's no good answer to that other than my firm belief that we should not have been there

in the first place.

Yes, we did decide unilaterally to stop working through a democratic body. The fact that

other groups followed does not change the unilateral nature of our initial action. I also disagree with the need for

force to deal with Iraq. What have we really accomplished? How many have been killed because we didn't like their

leader? How many are suffering or dead as compared to when Saddam was in power? Don't misunderstand me, I am not

against defending oneself or one's allies. I am opposed to unnecessary violence though and I believe our presence

in Iraq is unnecessary.

What form of overseas influence are you advocating? Our current method has been a dismal

failure in large part. I haven't been faulting Bush for not maintaining an overseas influence, I am faulting our

foriegn policy since at least WWII.

[HK45Mark23]

It''s a

lot better in my eyes to try to accomplish what you believe is the right thing than to go through life accepting

that which you never tried to change.

Bravo chap

HK45mark23

[Friendly1]

Yes, we did

decide unilaterally to stop working through a democratic body. The fact that other groups followed does not change

the unilateral nature of our initial action...

We did not issue orders to other nations. That is the only

way a unilateral action could have taken place.

We approached other nations and negotiated a coalition with

them. That coalition took action.

The original blockade against Iraq in 1990 was enacted in the same way. That

coalition just happened to draw more countries into it because they were concerned (rightly so) that Saddam Hussein

wouldn't stop with just taking Kuwait.

...I also disagree with the need for force to deal with Iraq.

What have we really accomplished?...

We removed a threat to the stability of that region of the world.

Saddam Hussein attacked both Iran and Kuwait. He attacked Iran in part because President Reagan thought it would

help unbalance Iranian interests (perhaps it did).

He attacked Kuwait because he couldn't win a war with Iran

and he wanted to increase his power and prestige in the Arab world.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), we had

long-standing mutual defense treaties -- negotiated by FDR in the 1930s and/or 1940s -- with Saudi Arabia and

Kuwait. So, the only countries weak enough for Saddam to pick on just happened to be close American allies.

In

short, what have we gained? We have removed a threat to two countries that we have an obligation to protect. The

less we have to protect them in the long run, the less likely we'll end up fighting half or all the Arab/Muslim

world.

...How many have been killed because we didn't like their leader?...

Don't know.

American politics, so far as I know, are based more on who we have signed treaties with than anything else these

days.

...How many are suffering or dead as compared to when Saddam was in power?...

I believe

they are still counting the bodies from his regime.

Do we bear direct responsibility for the Arabs who are over

there slaughtering Iraqis? Well, our post-major-conflict policy certainly sucked big time. We bear responsibility

for the direct consequences of that policy.

Anyway, Iraq is not about personal issues between Bush and Saddam.

It's about the mess of treatires and obligations we have incurred through the past 60-70 years (pretty much for two

reasons: to secure an oil supply and to prevent a nuclear war).

What form of overseas influence are you

advocating? Our current method has been a dismal failure in large part. I haven't been faulting Bush for not

maintaining an overseas influence, I am faulting our foriegn policy since at least WWII.

I think we agree

more on the general history and less on the current situation.

[belgareth]

We removed

a threat to the stability of that region of the world. Saddam Hussein attacked both Iran and Kuwait. He attacked

Iran in part because President Reagan thought it would help unbalance Iranian interests (perhaps it did).

He

attacked Kuwait because he couldn't win a war with Iran and he wanted to increase his power and prestige in the

Arab world.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), we had long-standing mutual defense treaties -- negotiated by FDR in

the 1930s and/or 1940s -- with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. So, the only countries weak enough for Saddam to pick on

just happened to be close American allies.

In short, what have we gained? We have removed a threat to two

countries that we have an obligation to protect. The less we have to protect them in the long run, the less likely

we'll end up fighting half or all the Arab/Muslim world.

The region seems to be less stable than while

Hussien was in power. Admittedly he isn't stirring up trouble but quite a few others have started doing so.

World-wide, terrorism has increased. Yes, we have a treaty obligation with those two countries that basically state

we will help defend them in the event they are attacked. Whether they were going to be attacked is unprovable at

this point. Unprovable also is the assertion that we could have accomplished much the same thing by stationing

troops in those two countries except it would have caused fewer deaths, would have cost less and would not have

required us to invade another country.

Don't know. American politics, so far as I know,

are based more on who we have signed treaties with than anything else these days.
I believe they are still

counting the bodies from his regime.

The accounts I have read describe entire regiments of troops wiped

out as well as thousands of civilians. It is debatable about the troops, they did stand in harms way. However, you

first must accept our right to invade Iraq for that be be a valid argument. Without accepting that argument you can

count those deaths as being unnecessary. Using that argument, we've killed far more in a short time than Hussien

did during his entire reign.

Anyway, Iraq is not about personal issues between Bush and

Saddam. It's about the mess of treatires and obligations we have incurred through the past 60-70 years (pretty much

for two reasons: to secure an oil supply and to prevent a nuclear war).

The issue of nuclear war has never

been demonstrated. Maybe he could and would have built the weapons, but maybe not. There's a lot of what if's in

that argument. Securing an oil supply is not a reason for a war! That is no more than a massive example of armed

robbery.

[Friendly1]

The region

seems to be less stable than while Hussien was in power.

There don't seem to be any wars brewing. Acts

of terrorism have increased, but there is actually increased stablity in the region right now because no one wants

to bring the U.S. forces down on their own regime.

We have exchanged one kind of stability (minimal terrorism)

for another kind of stability (minimal war).

The accounts I have read describe entire regiments of troops

wiped out as well as thousands of civilians. It is debatable about the troops, they did stand in harms way. However,

you first must accept our right to invade Iraq for that be be a valid argument.

Until they stop counting

bodies, there is no point in trying to lodge numbers against us or Saddam.

Saddam Hussein forfeited all his

rights long ago. The real question is, did the Iraqi people have any exercisable rights?

People only criticized

the U.S. government for not sending troops to end the slaughter in the Balkans.

We sent troops to end the

slaughter in Iraq and now people are criticizing the U.S. government for doing that.

It's a no-win proposition.

But at least there have been no more world wars since we took on the role of occasional police force for the

world.

In any event, we are there now, and leaving before a strong Iraqi government is put in place would be

disastrous. We do owe it to th Iraqi people to give them a chance at building a better future for themselves no

matter how much they end up hating us for doing so.

Not because it was the right thing to do all along, but

because it is the only thing we can do now to justify it beyond what justifications have already been offered (and

rejected).

The issue of nuclear war has never been demonstrated.

I wasn't speaking of

preventing an Iraqi nuclear war, I just meant ANY nuclear war.

I think that most people who were around when

Israel took out Iraq's first weapons-grade nuclear facility would agree with me (and this is by no means my own

original proposition) that the Israelis would not have permitted Saddam to finish construction of another

facility.

Like it or not, we also acted in order to keep Israel from attacking Iraq and igniting a multinational

conflict in the Middle East.

I don't agree with Israeli politics, but then, I don't have to worry about

whether I will be stepping into the wrong cafe tonight.

Securing an oil supply is not a reason for a

war!

Sadly, it is. Because, without oil, we cannot defend ourselves or our allies.

People around the

world don't care about American sensibilities. There are a thousand future strong men out there building their

assets with the goal of seizing power somewhere.

We will ignore most of them as they go about committing murder

and rape, just as we allowed the Serbs to murder and rape hundreds of thousands of Croatians and other ethnic

groups, just as we allowed Saddam to murder and rape hundreds of thousands of his own people, just as we allowed the

Somali warlords to murder and rape hundreds of thousands of their own people, just as we allowed the Hutus to murder

and rape hundreds of thousands of Tutsis, just as we are allowing the Janjaweed to murder and rape tens of thousands

of people in Darfour.

The only ones we really care about are the ones who can somehow drag us into a war.



And when we go to war, we have to have oil so our aircraft will fly and our tanks will roll.

Iraq by itself

never supplied more than 5% of our foreign oil needs. But it did threaten the main sources of our Middle Eastern

oil.

And since we're not on the best of terms with Venezuela, we need to keep what friends we have who are

still willing to work with us.

The Kuwaities love us. We fought their war, not for oil, but for honor, and to

keep our word. We invaded Iraq largely because a lot of people felt the right job had not been finished. So, our

leaders saw what they saw in that faulty intelligence, and the rest of us saw it with them.

Anyone who says we

invaded Iraq so that we could get Iraq's oil just doesn't know much about where the oil comes from.

But we

WILL fight wars for oil. True oil wars, or at least the very serious threat of them, still lie in the future, as

the reserves dwindle.

[SweetBrenda]

I don't

believe we should be there but don't believe we can back out because terrorists acted in a cowardly manner.

There's no good answer to that other than my firm belief that we should not have been there in the first

place.

I totally agree with you on this Bob.

Me as many

others wish the War will end some time soon but we have to be realistic, is not going to be that easy or even

any time soon..

A few days ago my Family were talking about this subject and it was very

interesting to hear everyone's opinion on this matter most of my Family are voting for the same one.



I'm pretty much sure who am I voting for, but I can't deny having doubts about it.


Karry really have a way to express himself.
Bush is more down to

earth though...


On Wed 10/13 while they where here in Tempe Arizona I think Karry did a

good impression in a lot of people. I saw a lot of people on his side holding posters and such outside. That took me

by surprise honestly.

[Pancho1188]

I'm pretty much sure who am I voting for, but I can't deny having

doubts about it.
Karry really have a way to express himself.
Bush is

more down to earth though...


On Wed 10/13 while they where here in Tempe Arizona I

think Karry did a good impression in a lot of people. I saw a lot of people on his side holding posters and such

outside. That took me by surprise honestly.

I find it ironic that what Bush has going for him is

'down to earth', when that's one of the reasons Howard Dean lost (remember the "Wooo!" incident? Come on, the man

was 'rallying the troops', and they call him 'unpresidential'. Bush screws up his speeches, and he's 'down to

earth')...



As for people holding signs and such at Kerry's campaign stop...When a candidate makes a stop

in an area, all of those die-hard fans show up with signs and banners. Hell, even Nader gets people holding signs

and banners when he goes to events. Why? Because they are their events. People show up, and they pass out banners.

It's not like somebody's birthday party where they invite a bunch of people and nobody shows up. They're running

for president. People are going to support them. That said, the vote is currently 50/50 now (although I think

those polls are inaccurate), so each candidate has a strong following.


Interesting thought: I've noticed

that recent elections have been about voting for the party instead of the candidate. I mean, there are many people

who vote Republican but may think Bush has made mistakes. On the other hand, there are so many people who don't

care about Kerry but are voting Democrat to get Bush out of office. I guess that probably happens in many elections.

After all, the most recent have been called the "lesser of two evils" for a reason...

[Holmes]

How exactly is Bush "more down to

earth?"

[SweetBrenda]

I was just giving

my opinion on Bush and Karry.
I don't spect for you or anyone else to agree with me of

course, we all are intitle to our own opinion when it comes to elections
The reason I said

he's more down to earth is by the way he was responding to certain questions he was asked while he was here in AZ.

If you didn't hear it than you wouldn't know what I am referring to.
I'm done with this.


Peace


Brenda

[Pancho1188]

I'm voting for myself. After

realizing that I can't run for President, I'm going to sue the United States government for age discrimination.

This will be an election year to remember!

[Pancho1188]

If you didn't hear it than you wouldn't know what I am referring

to.
I'm done with this.

Ouch...if I didn't know you any better, I'd say

the claws came out on that one!


On an added side note, I agree with you on one thing: I'm surprised

that anyone goes to those things to hold banners and cheer. Then again, I'm a cynical ol' fool who

thinks that supporting any cause is a waste of time. I don't want that sentiment to spread, though, because then I

would have to support my causes because no one else would be supporting them! What a strange world this is...

[Friendly1]

Ouch...if I

didn't know you any better, I'd say the claws came out on that one!

I'd say Bush sounds more

realistic than Kerry on most issues. People keep hounding Bush about the situation in Iraq, but so far, the

administration has been pretty good about giving warnings for when things would get worse.

They weren't so good

at predicting or preparing for the insurgency.

And they weren't so good at avoiding the prison scandal.

[DAdams91982]

1)They

weren't so good at predicting or preparing for the insurgency.

2)And they weren't so good at avoiding the

prison scandal.

1)No one could.
2)This was done by some very low class predjudice people... We in the

military live by the Law Of Armed Conflict which is what will punish these people... it shouldnt be a black eye for

President Bush.

Adams

[HK45Mark23]

Prison scandal? You call that a scandal. It was not that bad. At worst they were mishandled. What

about the real crimes these terrorist prisoners had possibly committed against the people by blowing up school

busses full of children and etc. It is a good thing I was not there; I would have used real science to extract

intelligence from the scum. Ha Ha Ha! Also there is word that some released prisoners are back to their true

terrorist roots. We had already captured them, but ignorant people around the world who change with the wind cried

like little babies. Here is a poem I like.



Queen Elizabeth I

(1533–1603)

[The doubt of future foes exiles my present joy]

The

doubt of future foes exiles my present joy,
And wit me warns to shun such snares as threaten mine annoy;
For

falsehood now doth flow, and subjects' faith doth ebb,
Which should not be if reason ruled or wisdom weaved the

web.
But clouds of joys untried do cloak aspiring minds,
Which turn to rain of late repent by changed course of

winds.
The top of hope supposed the root upreared shall be,
And fruitless all their grafted guile, as shortly ye

shall see.
The dazzled eyes with pride, which great ambition blinds,
Shall be unsealed by worthy wights whose

foresight falsehood finds.
The daughter of debate that discord aye doth sow
Shall reap no gain where former rule

still peace hath taught to know.
No foreign banished wight shall anchor in this port;
Our realm brooks not

seditious sects, let them elsewhere resort.
My rusty sword through rest shall first his edge employ
To poll their

tops that seek such change or gape for future joy.

HK45Mark23

[Holmes]

Prison scandal?

You call that a scandal.

Badgers? We don't need no stinkin' badgers.

[Pancho1188]

Badgers? We

don't need no stinkin' badgers.

Mushroom! Mushroom!

[Friendly1]

Prison scandal? You call that a scandal. It was not that bad. At worst they were

mishandled.

They

were tortured, some of them died, and many of the prisoners weren't supposed to be there anyway.



It was a situation that got out of control, and last time I checked on, several dozen people had been published,

investigated, and/or charged with crimes. The investigations continue.

We don't need to sweep this under the

rug.

[HK45Mark23]

Hey, Maybe I am ignorant. I have not heard of any prisoners dieing, please provide me with reference

material. I also don’t think terrorist prisoners deserve the rights we get as Americans so the Supreme Court thing

is crazy. Now several terrorist are free again reaping havoc. How about Kerry stating that he committed atrocities

against noncombatants and committed war crimes but did not know at the time they was war crimes, he was an officer

not a non commissioned soldier. And as far as that goes ignorance to the law is no excuse, he still is guilty of

war crimes by his own admission. And in Lindy England’s case I know you must follow the orders of your superiors

but I still have the personal convictions to evaluate what is going on and not to just follow rules and orders

mindlessly. I will follow if they are just and righteous. If I do not think it is OK I will face a court-martial.





Quoted originally by

Pancho

“I find it ironic that what Bush has going for him is 'down to

earth', when that's one of the reasons Howard Dean lost (remember the "Wooo!" incident? Come on, the man was

'rallying the troops', and they call him 'unpresidential'. Bush screws up his speeches, and he's 'down to

earth')...”



We are use

to Regan and Clinton who are very good public speakers. Many intelligent people are not smart. And wisdom is not a

byproduct of intelligences. Matter of fact many people who are not smart or highly intelligent are very wise. Just

because Kerry can speak eloquently and recall information (usually incorrectly) does not mean he can make wise

decisions. The ability to speak publicly is very important and Bush should be come a member of Toast Masters, but

he is wise in some important ways. Why are some people so upset? He stated from the onset that this would be a

bloody and long conflict. Dean was just stooped to cry out like that. It was not dignified and showed how unstable

he is. We don’t want some one who behaves that way to run our country.



HK45Mark23

[Holmes]

Many intelligent

people are not smart.

- Yogi Berra

[a.k.a.]

Hey, Maybe I am

ignorant. I have not heard of any prisoners dieing, please provide me with reference material.

"Two

Iraqi faces that do appear in the photographs are those of dead men. There is the battered face of prisoner No.

153399, and the bloodied body of another prisoner, wrapped in cellophane and packed in ice. There is a photograph of

an empty room, splattered with blood."

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

[Pancho1188]

Dean was just stooped to cry out like that. It was not dignified and

showed how unstable he is. We don’t want some one who behaves that way to run our country.

Note: HK, not directed at you, just rhetoric. I'm too lazy to remove the second-person tonality of it all. That

and I'm still mad that everyone trashed a person for doing a positive thing of raising his supporters' morale.

You can do something positive and lose an election, but you'll still win even after you are caught in the middle of

a big lie.



But it's okay to have a man at the helm who accidentally tells doctors to have sex with their

patients?

"Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice thier love with women across this country."

Seriously,

though...if my supporters were bummed, I'm totally going to get them psyched.

"Woo!"

To remove my shot at

Bush, I would vote for even the worst public speaker if he actually got the job done.






'Unpresidential'. What do you call sleeping with your intern or bumbling your speeches?

[Friendly1]

But it's

okay to have a man at the helm who accidentally tells doctors to have sex with their patients?

At least we

don't have any goofy pictures of him riding around in a tank (ala Michael Dukakis) or endless media jokes about his

claiming to be the father of the Internet (ala Al Gore, although someone told me that what Gore originally claimed

was distorted beyond recognition by the media).

"Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice thier love

with women across this country."

Don't you watch late-night cable television? We have PLENTY of love

doctors these days....

To remove my shot at Bush, I would vote for even the worst public speaker if he

actually got the job done.

So, that means you won't be voting for anyone at all this year? I admit, I am

tempted to select "None of the above" myself. But the last time I avoided voting for a Bush, I got a Clinton.



There are days, about once every four years, when I think, "The two-party system sucks".

And then I read about

another Italian government collapsing and I think, "Well, at least we have a two-party system".

[DAdams91982]

There's No Politics in the Foxhole

By

GREG KELLY









[img]cid:image001.gif@01C4B4FE.36BFD150[/img]ashington —

Punishment will continue until morale improves" - or so goes the absurdist joke told in every barracks and chow line

in the American military. In this election season, however, an almost equally absurd caricature of the

American warrior is emerging - that of a hyperpolitical, ultrasensitive creature whose morale rises and falls with

every modulation in the debate back home over the progress of the war in Iraq.

Readily fueling this notion are President Bush and Senator John Kerry, each of whom would have us

believe that the troops stand squarely behind him. In their first debate, the senator told this story of being at a

political rally a few days earlier: "A couple of young returnees were in the line, one active duty, one from the

Guard. And they both looked at me and said: 'We need you. You've got to help us over there.'

"

Minutes later, President Bush warned against the prospect of a

Kerry presidency: "The troops would wonder, how could I follow this guy?"

So, when the troops are not fending off insurgent attacks, are they obsessively tuned in TV news,

waiting to be patted on the back or offended, their performance contingent on the rhetoric emanating from the small

screen?

Of course not. If all politics is local, so is morale. A

rifle platoon commander in Falluja knows his unit's morale is not the president's responsibility; it's

his.

I speak from experience. I served in the Marine Corps under two

Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and one Democrat, Bill Clinton. I flew missions over

Iraq enforcing the no-flight zone in the late 1990's. And I saw combat with the Army as a journalist,

embedded with the Third Infantry Division during the invasion of Iraq last year.

In

all of that time, the morale of the units I served in or beside was never determined by politicians, pundits or the

press. High or low, the spirits of our men and women in Iraq stem from more mundane concerns. They

ponder the same problems that Americans have back home, only with their quiet moments occasionally punctuated by

unthinkable worry: Do I like the people I work with? Who will be killed next? Why is the e-mail system down again?

Would I rather be mutilated by an improvised bomb or captured?

That is not to say

military men and women don't care about or follow politics. They skew decidedly Republican, especially among the

officers. Overall, however, partisan preferences are mostly benign, akin to rooting for one sports team over

another. Professional warriors do not have much time for political debate when they have a mission to conduct and

troop welfare to worry about.

But there are plenty of people who

don't wear a uniform who will try to draft those who do into the political realm. Some members of Congress tried as

much last month, when the House Armed Services Committee brought in a group of recently returned soldiers and

marines to testify about conditions in Iraq. Members invited them to weigh in on one of the most

politically charged debates of the past year and a half: the question of the news media ignoring the "good news

stories" inside Iraq. The officers had the good sense to stay above the fray.

And

there is particular zeal on the talking-head circuit to score political points through the troops. On "The

McLaughlin Group" earlier this month, the conservative pundit Patrick J. Buchanan said that Mr. Kerry was

demoralizing the troops by "poor-mouthing" America. This led the liberal political analyst Lawrence

O'Donnell to respond: "I don't care if they're demoralized! They have to go to war and be prepared to live with

the debate that goes on in the United States about whether it's right or wrong." Mr. O'Donnell will not be running

the U.S.O. any time soon, but he was more right than wrong, and professional warriors understand that.



Citing troop morale to advance a political campaign is an unwelcome politicization

of an institution that strives to remain apolitical. It is also ineffective: our service members don't let the

political winds determine their morale. Their work is too important.

Greg Kelly, a correspondent for the Fox News Channel, is a former Marine jet

pilot.

Adams

[DrSmellThis]

I'm glad I'm taking a break

from this one. Carry on, guys!

[Elk Dreamer]

Nine more days and the ball

is rolling for the Kerry / Edwards change throughout the USA!

Elk