|
French: Seriously, the French pretty much want Saddam out just as much as anybody else. Sure they make money in illegal oil trade, but they want a piece of the Iraqi pie just the same as anybody else. They're just smart about it. By being publicly against the US invasion of Iraq, they spare themselves the political backlash of their populace while also getting Saddam out of power. If you ever wonder why the French hate us....the French don't like anybody, including the French. Equally, nobody likes the French.
Iraq and WMD: There is absolutely no question in the circles of international intelligence that Iraq has had WMD. It's just not worth debating. Whether Iraq had WMD recently is a different story. Whether they existed when Bush was on the warpath is another story. Simply put, Saddam is NOT a stupid person. In fact, he's a very bright person. He is playing the US on the international political scene just as he did back in the Gulf War. He knows that he can discredit any US intelligence, no matter how valid, by removing the very proof that the US seeks. If we don't find WMD, Bush looks to be an idiot, even if they were there when Bush was on the warpath. It is no surprise that we haven't found anything. However that is not to say that the intelligence community was correct or honest about everything when Bush made the decision to go to war.
I don't agree with the war in Iraq, however I am not yet convinced that Bush made a wrong decision. In retrospect it may be wrong, but was it wrong at the time it was made? He can only act based upon the intelligence provided for him at the time. Just as whoever pushed the button that bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade cannot be held very liable for the faulty intelligence, Bush is in the same boat. He may have made a bad decision, or acted on intelligence he suspected to be wrong....or he may have made the best deicions ANY of us would have made based upon the intelligence he was given. Remember, the President never makes ANY decision without tons of input from lots of advisors, etc. In fact, in a way you could easily say the President doesn't ever make any decision, his advisors make the decisions.
Also trust me that there are many other sides to the discussion of the Iraqi war that never make it into the news media. Some are downright unpopular ideas, others are top-secret and nobody has leaked them.
Social programs: The government's responsibility is to look after its populace. There are people who do work for a living and still don't have the money to pay for things like gym memberships. There are neighborhoods where nobody wants to spend tax dollars because no taxes come from them. There are government programs that help children in those places. Why should the child of a poor family be relegated to poverty as a rule? The government spends time and money on social programs to try to help these children so they can maybe make a better life for themselves. Of course, many of them don't.....many by choice, many not by choice. But for every minute that someone is playing basketball, that person isn't committing a crime, is possibly happy, maybe even learns something, and develops physical fitness (an asset).
On Kerry's comments: Kerry is taking a stand. He's saying that the issue belongs up to the states. He's saying he doesn't agree with it, but he's not forcing his opinions down others throats as many Republicans are doing. Why must people discriminate and persecute gays so much? Now we want to build persecution into the Constitution? This country was suppoed to have been founded upon FREEDOM, we are fighting a war on terror to protect FREEDOM, what part of denying same-sex marriages says freedom to you? It doesn't hurt anybody, if anything it benefits us. Bush stands so tall talking about the "sacred institution of marriage." Why, then, do 50% of marriages end in divorce these days? If it's such a sacred life-long commitment, why all the failures? Should we make a Constitutional ammendment banning divorce as well? Bush mentions how we have learned about marriage from the millenia of human experience. Funny, because marriage is a WESTERN institution, not to mention the fact that polygamy is common everywhere but WESTERN cultures. Human experience in many parts of the world has taught us of polygamy, not the sacred union of one man and one woman till death or divorce do they part. Bush wants to write marriage as "the union of one man and one woman" into the Constitution, while leaving open the possibility of future crackdowns on civil liberties or making "gay marriage" a "civil union." Doesn't anybody realize that it's either semantics (meaningless) or is just a stepping stone to future abuse of civil liberty?
On the tax cuts: Sure Bush's tax cuts may "help soem small business owners like mommy and daddy." But bear in mind that the tax cuts are also pushing more and more people into AMT. Bush "looks good" on TV by lowering taxes, but for some people he's actually RAISING taxes with the AMT. He and Congress refuse to revamp the AMT to keep in line with inflation and the tax cuts are largely just a paper phenomenon. Of course it can't all be blamed on Bush, nobody else has had the balls to actually revamp the AMT because it is such a money maker these days with inflation. But Bush won't tell you anything of that when he says he's going to "save you money and spur the economy." Yeah, right.....
Sorry it was so long.
b
|