NationStates Jolt Archive

Please feel free to distribute this letter to anyone that you wish. Thank you.


My fellow Americans, my fellow Ohioans...in three weeks the nation heads to the polls to choose the next President of the United States. We stand at a crossroads the likes of which the country has never seen, and we must choose wisely the road we wish to tread. We stand at the very brink of catastrophe, and yet hope remains that America will make the right choice on Election Day.

Four years ago, I voted for Al Gore in the 2000 elections. Needless to say, I was disappointed that George W. Bush was victorious, but at the time I was not overly disturbed. Bush had seemed like a compassionate and moderate Republican, just like his father. Although I did not agree with his social and economic priorities, I DID give the Republican high marks on national security and international affairs. I advocated a strong hand to deal with the threats of the new century, and I believed that George Bush was the man do it.

After the 9-11 attacks, my convictions regarding George Bush's actions crystallized. I strongly supported his invasion of Afghanistan, and then his invasion of Iraq. When he told us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I did not need any proof. When he told us that Al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein were working together, I needed no proof. The word of President George W. Bush was enough for me.

And then it all went horribly wrong.

I began to hear whispers and see small, telltale signs that Bush's actions did not entirely match his words. People were arrested under the authority of the Patriot Act and imprisoned without charge, without access to lawyers, without contact to the outside world, for however long the Bush government deemed it "necessary" to hold them. John Ashcroft, Bush's own Attorney General and the leader of the Justice Department, has been cited at least twice already for using the Patriot Act in ways that Congress had not authorized. Many of those detained were never charged with any crime at all, much less terrorism.

The war in Iraq began to go wrong. A top United States general who insisted that we needed more troops in Iraq was forced into retirement by the Bush Administration. Intelligence reports from the State Department surfaced suggesting that U.S. policy in Iraq was flawed....reports that President Bush ignored. I was horrified to hear that Bush had rushed into the war with Iraq -so- quickly that large numbers of U.S. soldiers did not even have body armor to protect them. Their parents had to go shopping on the internet to buy suitable armor and MAIL it to their sons and daughters serving over in the Middle East. And through it all, the Bush Administration kept assuring us that we were winning the war...even as terrorists launched attack after attack and allied nations began to leave the country. I continued to BELIEVE in President Bush's word on Iraq.

Then the reasons for going to war against Iraq began to change after the fact. First, we invaded Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then, when we did not find any WMDs, we invaded because Saddam Hussein was working with Al-Qaida. When that claim was decisively disproven the new reason was, "To bring peace and freedom to the Iraqi people". 1,000 American fatalities later (not to mention the 10,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians who have so far been killed), large tracts of Iraq are no longer under U.S. control. Bandits roam freely creating a climate of lawlessness, and American soldiers are no longer the hunters....they are the hunted.

Do not mistake my purpose. The soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq are some of America's best, and not even the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib can tarnish that completely. They fight for their nation even as their president flip-flops from one war rationale to another. They fight even though George W. Bush sent them in with insufficient equipment, intelligence, and numbers. It is not John Kerry who denigrates the soldiers in Iraq. but rather George Bush. Neither the President nor Dick Cheney are admitting the truth to the American public...either they can not or will not acknowledge the reality of the situation in Iraq.

Indeed, they will not recognize the situation for what it is anywhere else in the world, either. In Afghanistan, the "free" elections Bush trumpeted in his second debate on Friday have already suffered a major setback...most of the candidates running for office there have withdrawn from the race, citing massive election fraud. Al-Qaida and the Taliban remain active in the southern parts of the country. Bush's speech on Friday illustrated his ignorance regarding the situation when he claimed to have "killed or captured 75% of Al-Qaida's leadership". Al-Qaida has surely appointed NEW leaders to replace those who have been taken out. And in this lies the very heart of the problem with George W. Bush's War on Terror.

Bush is very good at finding and killing current terrorists. Yet, that is only half the game. Terrorism is not a physical object, it's an idea...and no force in the course of human history has ever been able to completely destroy an idea. Bush CANNOT win the War on Terror simply by dropping bombs. You must address the underlying problems that spawned terrorists in the first place...and George W. Bush has shown NO interest in doing that. Take for example Saudi Arabia; we buy tons of oil from that country every year to fuel our economy and our gas-guzzling SUVs. Would it surprise you, then, to know that some wealthy Saudis are helping to FUND terrorists? Indeed, Osama Bin Laden himself is a former Saudi citizen. Every time you drive over to the gas station and fill the tank, you may unwittingly and indirectly fund terrorists. And what has the Bush Administration done to fix this problem? Nothing. It fought tighter vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would have reduced our dependency on foreign oil. It has done nothing to rebuke Saudi Arabia for supporting those terrorist organizations. It has also done nothing to reduce our dependency on Saudi oil. This is not the liberal media attempting to deceive you, these are facts....policy statements made by the Bush Administration and a matter of public record.

Also a matter of public record is the growing anti-Americanism spreading over the globe. George Bush has, from the very beginning of his presidency (before AND after 9-11), consistently thumbed his nose up at the international community. He withdrew unilaterally from the Kyoto Treaty. He withdrew unilaterally from the ABM Nuclear Treaty. He invaded Iraq unilaterally. Bush claims to this day that he "worked with the UN" before going into Iraq. Yet, he would not have done so at all if it had not been for a large outcry both internationally and in Congress. Even the highly conservative Pat Buchanan noted, "America is not hated for what we are, but what we do." George W. Bush has consistently pushed away other nations (even our allies and friends) at the EXACT time he should have been working to form closer bonds in order to prosecute the War On Terror. The United States CANNOT be everywhere in the world at once hunting terrorists. In order to direct a truly comprehensive and effective strategy to win the War On Terror, we MUST have the cooperation of our allies and friends abroad. Former presidents, like Ronald Reagan and the FIRST President Bush understood this. They understood that in order to achieve the objective (whether it was defeating the Soviet Union, repelling Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, or fighting global terrorism) that you need the cooperation of other nations because the sheer scope of the problem defies the efforts of any single nation to solve it. The United States did not attempt to contain the Soviet Union alone...it forged powerful alliances like NATO to ensure victory in the Cold War. By extension, the United States should not try to fight the global war on terror alone, either.

This argument lies at the very heart of the case against President Bush. His mistakes in Iraq, combined with his earlier behavior on the world stage, have completely alienated the United States. Longtime allies are refusing to support us because they have extreme difficulty working with George Bush. He is unwilling to admit his mistakes, unable to devise a plan to correct them. President Bush's credibility around the world (and by extension the credibility of the United States) is at an all-time low. Bush claimed during the Friday debate that being President means that you have to make unpopular decisions sometimes. That's true, but a President also has to take responsibility for his decisions, both good and bad...and the fact is, there are no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam had no links to Al-Qaida, and we are now saddled with a $200 billion dollar boondoggle in Iraq that has drained our military and financial strength to the point where we may not be able to prosecute the War On Terror. When Kerry has pointed this out, Bush has accused him of "wanting to leave Saddam in power" which he KNOWS is nonsense. Saddam Hussein is an evil, vile, rapacious man...this is beyond debate. BUT HE WAS NOT AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES. The sanctions had effectively destroyed his ability to create weapons of mass destruction, as the final report to Congress regarding Iraq states. Even if Saddam still wanted to develop those weapons again once sanctions were gone, there were clearly other (and FAR less expensive) ways to keep him under control. Sanctions COULD have been reinforced by the United States. There are many tools available to the President other than the military with which to craft foreign policy. After 9-11 and before the Iraq War, Bush could have used the enormous worldwide goodwill to ask for new measures to contain and control Saddam Hussein short of war, thus leaving U.S. forces free for other anti-terrorist operations around the globe. But Bush didn't. He rushed into war for whatever reason, and now we are mired in Iraq with no clear exit strategy.

This isn't leadership. This is a mixture of George W. Bush's ignorance and impulsiveness coming home to roost. He has not made America more safe. In fact, he's made it LESS safe. He's made America less safe because: A.) He has wasted money and military strength in Iraq, leaving us unable to react to threats elsewhere. B.) He's inflamed anti-Americanism all over the world, creating vast new pools of potential recruits for terrorist organizations, and C.) He's severely damaged U.S. credibility and relations abroad which we NEED in order to fight the War On Terror. And worse yet, he's not trying to FIX these problems. He's instead attacking John Kerry, trying to paint him as a flip-flopping pacificst who would be worse at the job than Bush himself is. John Kerry may be many things, but he is NOT what Bush has tried to make him out to be. John Kerry is a Vietnam VOLUNTEER whose courage and determination is noted by both his commanding officers and his shipmates. John Kerry understands what is needed to win the War On Terror, and he understands that there is a difference between decisive leadership and plain old stubborness. This is why many former military commanders back his candidacy....it's because John Kerry has laid out a solid, cohesive, and logical plan for winning the War on Terror. George Bush has not. The ONLY reason Bush is not in deep trouble is because he's been running on 9-11. He can't exactly claim success on the economy...here in Ohio we've lost almost a quarter of a million jobs under him. He can't claim success in foreign relations...Nixon went to China, but Bush only goes to Crawford. In light of that, he claims "catastrophic success" in the War on Terror, tries to hide the details of what is going on from the American public, and wages a ceaseless smear campaign against Kerry/Edwards. It's NOT right! America deserves better than -this-. Even members of the President's own party in Congress have said that his performance in Iraq is, and I quote, "Pathetic". Bush has made the centerpiece of his campaign, "You don't change horses" in the middle of a war.

Let me tell you something. If MY horse is galloping over the edge of a cliff, I am gonna move my ass to a new one. Quickly. I urge the rest of you to seriously consider doing the same.

-Written by an Ohioan

*applause*
Wonderful letter!!

Excellently written! I was very much like that, although I supported Bush from the start. I did begin to change my mind about him a short time after the war in Iraq was declared over.

Again, very well written!

Hurrah! Hurrah!
A brilliantly written letter!
Is it alright if I print this out and post it around my school?

Thank you, thank you :) Please, feel free to spread this letter around all you wish. I am prepared to be heard.

Thanks :)

In fact, that goes for everyone. Feel free to distribute it.

Shalrirorchia
Please feel free to distribute this letter to anyone that you wish. Thank you.


My fellow Americans, my fellow Ohioans...in three weeks the nation heads to the polls to choose the next President of the United States. We stand at a crossroads the likes of which the country has never seen, and we must choose wisely the road we wish to tread. We stand at the very brink of catastrophe, and yet hope remains that America will make the right choice on Election Day.

Four years ago, I voted for Al Gore in the 2000 elections. Needless to say, I was disappointed that George W. Bush was victorious, but at the time I was not overly disturbed. Bush had seemed like a compassionate and moderate Republican, just like his father. Although I did not agree with his social and economic priorities, I DID give the Republican high marks on national security and international affairs. I advocated a strong hand to deal with the threats of the new century, and I believed that George Bush was the man do it.

After the 9-11 attacks, my convictions regarding George Bush's actions crystallized. I strongly supported his invasion of Afghanistan, and then his invasion of Iraq. When he told us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I did not need any proof. When he told us that Al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein were working together, I needed no proof. The word of President George W. Bush was enough for me.

And then it all went horribly wrong.

I began to hear whispers and see small, telltale signs that Bush's actions did not entirely match his words. People were arrested under the authority of the Patriot Act and imprisoned without charge, without access to lawyers, without contact to the outside world, for however long the Bush government deemed it "necessary" to hold them. John Ashcroft, Bush's own Attorney General and the leader of the Justice Department, has been cited at least twice already for using the Patriot Act in ways that Congress had not authorized. Many of those detained were never charged with any crime at all, much less terrorism.

The war in Iraq began to go wrong. A top United States general who insisted that we needed more troops in Iraq was forced into retirement by the Bush Administration. Intelligence reports from the State Department surfaced suggesting that U.S. policy in Iraq was flawed....reports that President Bush ignored. I was horrified to hear that Bush had rushed into the war with Iraq -so- quickly that large numbers of U.S. soldiers did not even have body armor to protect them. Their parents had to go shopping on the internet to buy suitable armor and MAIL it to their sons and daughters serving over in the Middle East. And through it all, the Bush Administration kept assuring us that we were winning the war...even as terrorists launched attack after attack and allied nations began to leave the country. I continued to BELIEVE in President Bush's word on Iraq.

Then the reasons for going to war against Iraq began to change after the fact. First, we invaded Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then, when we did not find any WMDs, we invaded because Saddam Hussein was working with Al-Qaida. When that claim was decisively disproven the new reason was, "To bring peace and freedom to the Iraqi people". 1,000 American fatalities later (not to mention the 10,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians who have so far been killed), large tracts of Iraq are no longer under U.S. control. Bandits roam freely creating a climate of lawlessness, and American soldiers are no longer the hunters....they are the hunted.

Do not mistake my purpose. The soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq are some of America's best, and not even the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib can tarnish that completely. They fight for their nation even as their president flip-flops from one war rationale to another. They fight even though George W. Bush sent them in with insufficient equipment, intelligence, and numbers. It is not John Kerry who denigrates the soldiers in Iraq. but rather George Bush. Neither the President nor Dick Cheney are admitting the truth to the American public...either they can not or will not acknowledge the reality of the situation in Iraq.

Indeed, they will not recognize the situation for what it is anywhere else in the world, either. In Afghanistan, the "free" elections Bush trumpeted in his second debate on Friday have already suffered a major setback...most of the candidates running for office there have withdrawn from the race, citing massive election fraud. Al-Qaida and the Taliban remain active in the southern parts of the country. Bush's speech on Friday illustrated his ignorance regarding the situation when he claimed to have "killed or captured 75% of Al-Qaida's leadership". Al-Qaida has surely appointed NEW leaders to replace those who have been taken out. And in this lies the very heart of the problem with George W. Bush's War on Terror.

Bush is very good at finding and killing current terrorists. Yet, that is only half the game. Terrorism is not a physical object, it's an idea...and no force in the course of human history has ever been able to completely destroy an idea. Bush CANNOT win the War on Terror simply by dropping bombs. You must address the underlying problems that spawned terrorists in the first place...and George W. Bush has shown NO interest in doing that. Take for example Saudi Arabia; we buy tons of oil from that country every year to fuel our economy and our gas-guzzling SUVs. Would it surprise you, then, to know that some wealthy Saudis are helping to FUND terrorists? Indeed, Osama Bin Laden himself is a former Saudi citizen. Every time you drive over to the gas station and fill the tank, you may unwittingly and indirectly fund terrorists. And what has the Bush Administration done to fix this problem? Nothing. It fought tighter vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would have reduced our dependency on foreign oil. It has done nothing to rebuke Saudi Arabia for supporting those terrorist organizations. It has also done nothing to reduce our dependency on Saudi oil. This is not the liberal media attempting to deceive you, these are facts....policy statements made by the Bush Administration and a matter of public record.

Also a matter of public record is the growing anti-Americanism spreading over the globe. George Bush has, from the very beginning of his presidency (before AND after 9-11), consistently thumbed his nose up at the international community. He withdrew unilaterally from the Kyoto Treaty. He withdrew unilaterally from the ABM Nuclear Treaty. He invaded Iraq unilaterally. Bush claims to this day that he "worked with the UN" before going into Iraq. Yet, he would not have done so at all if it had not been for a large outcry both internationally and in Congress. Even the highly conservative Pat Buchanan noted, "America is not hated for what we are, but what we do." George W. Bush has consistently pushed away other nations (even our allies and friends) at the EXACT time he should have been working to form closer bonds in order to prosecute the War On Terror. The United States CANNOT be everywhere in the world at once hunting terrorists. In order to direct a truly comprehensive and effective strategy to win the War On Terror, we MUST have the cooperation of our allies and friends abroad. Former presidents, like Ronald Reagan and the FIRST President Bush understood this. They understood that in order to achieve the objective (whether it was defeating the Soviet Union, repelling Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, or fighting global terrorism) that you need the cooperation of other nations because the sheer scope of the problem defies the efforts of any single nation to solve it. The United States did not attempt to contain the Soviet Union alone...it forged powerful alliances like NATO to ensure victory in the Cold War. By extension, the United States should not try to fight the global war on terror alone, either.

This argument lies at the very heart of the case against President Bush. His mistakes in Iraq, combined with his earlier behavior on the world stage, have completely alienated the United States. Longtime allies are refusing to support us because they have extreme difficulty working with George Bush. He is unwilling to admit his mistakes, unable to devise a plan to correct them. President Bush's credibility around the world (and by extension the credibility of the United States) is at an all-time low. Bush claimed during the Friday debate that being President means that you have to make unpopular decisions sometimes. That's true, but a President also has to take responsibility for his decisions, both good and bad...and the fact is, there are no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam had no links to Al-Qaida, and we are now saddled with a $200 billion dollar boondoggle in Iraq that has drained our military and financial strength to the point where we may not be able to prosecute the War On Terror. When Kerry has pointed this out, Bush has accused him of "wanting to leave Saddam in power" which he KNOWS is nonsense. Saddam Hussein is an evil, vile, rapacious man...this is beyond debate. BUT HE WAS NOT AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES. The sanctions had effectively destroyed his ability to create weapons of mass destruction, as the final report to Congress regarding Iraq states. Even if Saddam still wanted to develop those weapons again once sanctions were gone, there were clearly other (and FAR less expensive) ways to keep him under control. Sanctions COULD have been reinforced by the United States. There are many tools available to the President other than the military with which to craft foreign policy. After 9-11 and before the Iraq War, Bush could have used the enormous worldwide goodwill to ask for new measures to contain and control Saddam Hussein short of war, thus leaving U.S. forces free for other anti-terrorist operations around the globe. But Bush didn't. He rushed into war for whatever reason, and now we are mired in Iraq with no clear exit strategy.

This isn't leadership. This is a mixture of George W. Bush's ignorance and impulsiveness coming home to roost. He has not made America more safe. In fact, he's made it LESS safe. He's made America less safe because: A.) He has wasted money and military strength in Iraq, leaving us unable to react to threats elsewhere. B.) He's inflamed anti-Americanism all over the world, creating vast new pools of potential recruits for terrorist organizations, and C.) He's severely damaged U.S. credibility and relations abroad which we NEED in order to fight the War On Terror. And worse yet, he's not trying to FIX these problems. He's instead attacking John Kerry, trying to paint him as a flip-flopping pacificst who would be worse at the job than Bush himself is. John Kerry may be many things, but he is NOT what Bush has tried to make him out to be. John Kerry is a Vietnam VOLUNTEER whose courage and determination is noted by both his commanding officers and his shipmates. John Kerry understands what is needed to win the War On Terror, and he understands that there is a difference between decisive leadership and plain old stubborness. This is why many former military commanders back his candidacy....it's because John Kerry has laid out a solid, cohesive, and logical plan for winning the War on Terror. George Bush has not. The ONLY reason Bush is not in deep trouble is because he's been running on 9-11. He can't exactly claim success on the economy...here in Ohio we've lost almost a quarter of a million jobs under him. He can't claim success in foreign relations...Nixon went to China, but Bush only goes to Crawford. In light of that, he claims "catastrophic success" in the War on Terror, tries to hide the details of what is going on from the American public, and wages a ceaseless smear campaign against Kerry/Edwards. It's NOT right! America deserves better than -this-. Even members of the President's own party in Congress have said that his performance in Iraq is, and I quote, "Pathetic". Bush has made the centerpiece of his campaign, "You don't change horses" in the middle of a war.

Let me tell you something. If MY horse is galloping over the edge of a cliff, I am gonna move my ass to a new one. Quickly. I urge the rest of you to seriously consider doing the same.

-Written by an Ohioan


Shalrirorchia:

It appears our thinking has tracked somewhat over the past few years. A difference being I voted Bush in 2000. A registered Republican and a avowed conservative, I had no confidence in Gore at all.

I have lived 2 blocks south and one block west of the WTC for 16 1/2 years. On February 26, 1993 the local beat cop and I were the first two responders on the scene. I managed to provide aid to a couple who were preparing to exit the underground garage but made it no further than the ramp leading to Liberty Street. He has a glass shrapenel wound that was lodged in his left upper and inner thigh and had nicked the femoral artery. She had the hair and parts of her scalp on the right side of her head blown off and was peppered with glass. I managed to get his bleeding slowed to a trickle and kept them both from descending into shock until EMS arrived.

On the morning of 9-11, I heard the impact of the first plane and responded. As I opened the front door to my building I was passed by a man I have known for years as a calm, implacable person who had a look of sheer terror in his eyes and manner. I looked up and saw the flames and smoke rising from the north tower. Once again I responded by running toward the incident in hopes of being of some use.

When I arrived at the intersection of West and Albany Streets I saw that the FDNY, NYPD and EMS were, unlike 1993, already at the scene in force. There was no need for me there but where I stood there was a river of people moving away from the WTC and across West Street toward the Hudson River. Stuck in this flow of humanity there were several trucks and other vehicles that couldn't move. But from past experience I knew they had to move because soon a torrent of emergency vehicles of all manner would be racing toward the scene on both sides of the highway. I managed to get them through the crowds and away toward the south. I then took up the task of keeping the people moving away from that intersection and off the street for their safety and to provide the expected emergency vehicles clearer access.

In the process of doing this I spotted several bloodied bits I didn't quite register at the time. I also saw a large whitish mass about twenty feet from where I stood. Noted but not defined at the time because it was not relevant to the task at hand. Then a young woman screamed in horror. Instinctively I jerked my attention to her. She stood with her right arm extended and pointing at that mass, her left hand covering her mouth. I followed her point and then recognized the mass as what could only be the inverted torso or a human being with only small bits of blood red here and there. Now noted, but without emotional reaction, I returned to the task at hand. Occasional glimpses toward the tower revealed what seemed to be debris occasionally falling from the towers in irregular intervals. Then one piece of debris rotated enough for me to see the arms and legs of a human being falling through space. I jerked my whole body away knowing what I saw but trying to erase it from my mind and to deny it's existence.

Then, from the south, the roar of jets engines increased. I spun toward the source. It was a very low, very fast passenger airplane in a sharp left bank racing northward just east of our position. "What the hell is wrong with the Air Traffic Controllers?" my mind demanded. The pilot dipped his wings into an even steeper left bank. "This poor bastard is fighting to avoid a collision." I willed him to successfully bank away from the towers, then - in an moment that seemed to last several seconds - the jet was absorbed by the south tower. Then, along with the back blast came the just as instantaneous awareness that we were under attack and that the buildings were going to fall down.

Terror. Shock. Fear. Instinct. Horror. These are just empty words. They convey nothing. No word or group of words can possibly convey the myriad firings that one experiences in such an timeless moment. Trying to define it is impossible. What followed is more distinct and discernable.

Long after the clouds of dust settled, the emotional dust settled. What was left was an unbelievable determination to first fix this and then to fix those that caused this.

It was not particular to me. Everyone was of one mind on both scores. I'd have to hazard that it is a very human response. Part internal defense and part the acknowledgement that one has to contend with an external threat and neutralize it. I would have to say this is the nature of war and the results of it. Whether you are an innocent in New York or an innocent in Baghdad.

Whether one is killed by the bullet from a Saturday Night Special or a multimillion dollar smart bomb is quibbling. Either way death to innocents is intentionally dealt. The perpetrator of that death must be stopped. All the lies and obfuscations offered in defense must be shown to be the reprehensible work of an unredeemable madman.

Bush has to go.

Excellent! The enlightenment was not in Vain!

*signs* If only EVERY citizen of the United States was as enlightened as you bunch are.

Indeed.

Beautiful *Sniffle* Simply beautiful...

Thanks for listening. I had to get that one out.

I'll revert to my normal nation and leave this one rest.

Peace.

Excellent letter and heartfelt story by The Sadder But Wiser.

I regret that you went through such a horrible event, sir.

Bump

I'm happy to see that other Ohioans are trying to get their message out their. All I can say is, let the cards fall where they may. I've made up my mind.

Or to quote Caesar, "I've crossed the Rubicon."

I am quite happy to see Ohio residents speaking out against Bush. I was perturbed when that huge rally was held in West Chester. So many Republicans in one place...

I think Ohio is in play this election. Bush's policies have damaged this state economically and socially. Governor Bob Taft is weakened, and is dragging Bush down with him.

bump

You all are clearly brainwashed liberals that care more about partisan politics than what is good for the country!!

....Just kidding, I'm not that stupid.

Ohio: 51% Bush, 43% Kerry (Strategic Vision October 11, 2004)

I doubt that Ohio is in play this year but I'm glad to see people speak their minds.

Rasmussen Poll: Ohio: Bush 48% Kerry 47%

Gallup: Oct. 9-10 National: Kerry 50% Bush 48%



Zogby shows it tied exactly. American Research Group shows Kerry up by just a few. Gallup's Ohio poll also shows Kerry with a thin lead.

I think in the end, it won't be in play. I do thin that Bush will win Ohio and Florida. As for PA, I've following this state closely. If Spectre wins the Senate Race, Bush should win the state too.

I'm going to vote for Bush because I think there's a chance he'll spark a major international war against us. I think that would be neat.

The main focus, the absolute core of this election, lies on which candidate has a better plan to "defeat terrorism." President Bush decided that we could stop fighting terrorism halfway through and then invade Iraq for his own personal reasons.

Iraq was a stable, secular state with a secret police who actively hunted down terrorist recruiters and anyone thought to be a terrorist himself. Now it is in a state of anarchy, with young "crusaders" pouring across the borders, from Saudi Arabia and Iran, and thousands more Iraqis taking advantage of their newfound freedom to declare their support of radical Islam.

These terrorists have taken over entire cities, which US troops are now ordered not to enter. These terrorists have made Iraq their shining beacon, a place close to home where fundamentalists can hurt the Great Satan United States, a place where it does not take the intricate planning and fiendish ingenuity of a Bin Laden to hurt and kill thousands of Americans.

al-Qaida's leadership is in shambles, yes, but Bin Laden and others still live, and live to train new leaders. Far from destroying al-Qaida as a political force, we have bolstered their enrollment a hundredfold. Instead of making America a place which is safe from terrorist attacks, Bush decided to use the money instead to invade Iraq and create a terrorist haven and breeding ground.

We are not safer. Iran is closer now to having nuclear weapons than Iraq ever was, and Iran has been directly linked to radical Islamic terrorists for the past thirty years. Remember that "radical Islamic terrorists" overthrew the Shah whom we put in power, and hold Iran today. How much effort would it take for a single nuclear weapon in a single container ship, which we do not search, to destroy not only the remains of "Ground Zero" but also the rest of the Manhattan skyline, and the Statue of Liberty to boot?

President Bush has made us less safe than we were, for motives that are constantly changing and seem more suspicious day by day. This man, who risks all Americans for selfish reasons he will not reveal, has no place leading a country.

Actually, Iraq isn't the hotbed of terrorism you make it out to be. Sure there are some terrorists using any excuse to spread their particular brand of hate, but by and large the greater portions of combat are coming from fighters that represent the various tribes all vying for power in Iraq. They aren't fighting us because we're American, they're fighting us because we're standing between them and the throne of Iraq.

Civil war was virtually unavoidable after Saddam's death. Too many people want a piece of the pie for things to get resolved peacefully. We just sped the process up.

Actually, Iraq isn't the hotbed of terrorism you make it out to be. Sure there are some terrorists using any excuse to spread their particular brand of hate, but by and large the greater portions of combat are coming from fighters that represent the various tribes all vying for power in Iraq. They aren't fighting us because we're American, they're fighting us because we're standing between them and the throne of Iraq.

And Allawi is demanding that the foriegn fighters be handed over and their is a major rift forming between the local fighters and the foreign fighters in Falujja.

Civil war was virtually unavoidable after Saddam's death. Too many people want a piece of the pie for things to get resolved peacefully. We just sped the process up.

That is unfortunately true.

The main focus, the absolute core of this election, lies on which candidate has a better plan to "defeat terrorism." President Bush decided that we could stop fighting terrorism halfway through and then invade Iraq for his own personal reasons.

Iraq was a stable, secular state with a secret police who actively hunted down terrorist recruiters and anyone thought to be a terrorist himself. Now it is in a state of anarchy, with young "crusaders" pouring across the borders, from Saudi Arabia and Iran, and thousands more Iraqis taking advantage of their newfound freedom to declare their support of radical Islam.

These terrorists have taken over entire cities, which US troops are now ordered not to enter. These terrorists have made Iraq their shining beacon, a place close to home where fundamentalists can hurt the Great Satan United States, a place where it does not take the intricate planning and fiendish ingenuity of a Bin Laden to hurt and kill thousands of Americans.

al-Qaida's leadership is in shambles, yes, but Bin Laden and others still live, and live to train new leaders. Far from destroying al-Qaida as a political force, we have bolstered their enrollment a hundredfold. Instead of making America a place which is safe from terrorist attacks, Bush decided to use the money instead to invade Iraq and create a terrorist haven and breeding ground.

We are not safer. Iran is closer now to having nuclear weapons than Iraq ever was, and Iran has been directly linked to radical Islamic terrorists for the past thirty years. Remember that "radical Islamic terrorists" overthrew the Shah whom we put in power, and hold Iran today. How much effort would it take for a single nuclear weapon in a single container ship, which we do not search, to destroy not only the remains of "Ground Zero" but also the rest of the Manhattan skyline, and the Statue of Liberty to boot?

President Bush has made us less safe than we were, for motives that are constantly changing and seem more suspicious day by day. This man, who risks all Americans for selfish reasons he will not reveal, has no place leading a country.

I'm sorry to jump in on your Suck-Kerry-offathon, but I just want to add a little balance here.

Before I do, let me say this: I'm neither for Kerry, or Bush. I have serious problems with both, and don't know who I will vote for, yet. I actually may be leaning towards Kerry, so please don't attack this as a neocon rant. It is not. The point of this post is to point out what I consider to be a flaw in arguments from both sides of the spectrum. The general thesis is this:

None of us know the truth. We take our opinions (sometimes, myself included), and try to ram them down other people's throats as unmitigated fact. We all do it. The only real "truth" here to know is known by only a very, very small group of people, and that raw, objective truth will never see the light of day during a campaign. Let me illustrate using the above quoted post (no offense to the writer intended):

President Bush decided that we could stop fighting terrorism halfway through and then invade Iraq for his own personal reasons.

No one knows, besides Bush and a few close advisors, the real reason behind the Iraqi invasion. Greed, Oil profits, revenge for Daddy's failure, bad temper...those are all conjecture and impossible to prove, no matter who you "quote". Anyone considered an "expert" on the issue is still pushing an opinion...just a better worded one. Only Bush knows the truth behind this one.

Iraq was a stable, secular state with a secret police who actively hunted down terrorist recruiters and anyone thought to be a terrorist himself.

An incredibly debatable position. "Stable" is an incredibly subjective term, and there was nothing "secret" about the police.

We are not safer.

Again, pure perspective. There is incredible jubjectivity to this statement.

Iran is closer now to having nuclear weapons than Iraq ever was

We don't know that.


President Bush has made us less safe than we were, for motives that are constantly changing and seem more suspicious day by day. This man, who risks all Americans for selfish reasons he will not reveal, has no place leading a country

1. Don't know if we are "less safe". That is a matter of perspective and conjecture.
2. Don't know the motives, even if they are changing.
3. "More suspicious" is attributed to you, the writer. Not to the motives, themselves.
4. We don't know if his reasons are "selfish". You only know what you think.
5. "has no place leading a country" is a theory shared by only half of our countrymen. The other half disagree, so again, a matter of conjecture.


Please, PLEASE understand that I am not trying to tear apart any argument against Bush or Kerry. I simply wish to point out that everywhere we turn, including to the candidates themselves, the media, "experts", friends, romans, countrymen....all you will ever get is an "opinion". We will never know the whole truth.

So please, when you are debating, or arguing, throw out an "I believe.." every now and then. No one ever says that. They all just say that what that are telling you is the absolute truth...and people fight and kill and die over "absolute truths".

This election must be intensely personal for each voter. Each person must rely on his/her ability to see through the smoke, doublespeak, opinions, commentary, documentaries, statements, press releases, etc. and try to determine what he/she THINKS is the truth, and cast your vote based on that. You cannot convince your friend that YOUR TRUTH is HIS TRUTH. That's when the real "truth" becomes opinion...and we're back to square one.

Vote your perception. Each of you. And only that.

I think in the end, it won't be in play. I do thin that Bush will win Ohio and Florida. As for PA, I've following this state closely. If Spectre wins the Senate Race, Bush should win the state too.
Spectre will win, even though we should be electing Toomey, but last time around we had an even more popular senator than Spectre (and one who energizes the Republican base more) in Santorum and it didn't get Bush my state :(

Spectre will win, even though we should be electing Toomey, but last time around we had an even more popular senator than Spectre (and one who energizes the Republican base more) in Santorum and it didn't get Bush my state :(

With this, I agree with you. Toomey should be going in. I wonder how much voter fraud went into Spectre's Campaign. As for Santorum, he is more popular than Spectre and this time, should help Bush take the state.

I have lived 2 blocks south and one block west of the WTC for 16 1/2 years. On February 26, 1993 the local beat cop and I were the first two responders on the scene. I managed to provide aid to a couple who were preparing to exit the underground garage but made it no further than the ramp leading to Liberty Street. He has a glass shrapenel wound that was lodged in his left upper and inner thigh and had nicked the femoral artery. She had the hair and parts of her scalp on the right side of her head blown off and was peppered with glass. I managed to get his bleeding slowed to a trickle and kept them both from descending into shock until EMS arrived.

On the morning of 9-11, I heard the impact of the first plane and responded. As I opened the front door to my building I was passed by a man I have known for years as a calm, implacable person who had a look of sheer terror in his eyes and manner. I looked up and saw the flames and smoke rising from the north tower. Once again I responded by running toward the incident in hopes of being of some use.

When I arrived at the intersection of West and Albany Streets I saw that the FDNY, NYPD and EMS were, unlike 1993, already at the scene in force. There was no need for me there but where I stood there was a river of people moving away from the WTC and across West Street toward the Hudson River. Stuck in this flow of humanity there were several trucks and other vehicles that couldn't move. But from past experience I knew they had to move because soon a torrent of emergency vehicles of all manner would be racing toward the scene on both sides of the highway. I managed to get them through the crowds and away toward the south. I then took up the task of keeping the people moving away from that intersection and off the street for their safety and to provide the expected emergency vehicles clearer access.

In the process of doing this I spotted several bloodied bits I didn't quite register at the time. I also saw a large whitish mass about twenty feet from where I stood. Noted but not defined at the time because it was not relevant to the task at hand. Then a young woman screamed in horror. Instinctively I jerked my attention to her. She stood with her right arm extended and pointing at that mass, her left hand covering her mouth. I followed her point and then recognized the mass as what could only be the inverted torso or a human being with only small bits of blood red here and there. Now noted, but without emotional reaction, I returned to the task at hand. Occasional glimpses toward the tower revealed what seemed to be debris occasionally falling from the towers in irregular intervals. Then one piece of debris rotated enough for me to see the arms and legs of a human being falling through space. I jerked my whole body away knowing what I saw but trying to erase it from my mind and to deny it's existence.

Then, from the south, the roar of jets engines increased. I spun toward the source. It was a very low, very fast passenger airplane in a sharp left bank racing northward just east of our position. "What the hell is wrong with the Air Traffic Controllers?" my mind demanded. The pilot dipped his wings into an even steeper left bank. "This poor bastard is fighting to avoid a collision." I willed him to successfully bank away from the towers, then - in an moment that seemed to last several seconds - the jet was absorbed by the south tower. Then, along with the back blast came the just as instantaneous awareness that we were under attack and that the buildings were going to fall down.

Terror. Shock. Fear. Instinct. Horror. These are just empty words. They convey nothing. No word or group of words can possibly convey the myriad firings that one experiences in such an timeless moment. Trying to define it is impossible. What followed is more distinct and discernable.

Long after the clouds of dust settled, the emotional dust settled. What was left was an unbelievable determination to first fix this and then to fix those that caused this.

It was not particular to me. Everyone was of one mind on both scores. I'd have to hazard that it is a very human response. Part internal defense and part the acknowledgement that one has to contend with an external threat and neutralize it. I would have to say this is the nature of war and the results of it. Whether you are an innocent in New York or an innocent in Baghdad.

Whether one is killed by the bullet from a Saturday Night Special or a multimillion dollar smart bomb is quibbling. Either way death to innocents is intentionally dealt. The perpetrator of that death must be stopped. All the lies and obfuscations offered in defense must be shown to be the reprehensible work of an unredeemable madman.

Bush has to go.
Wow, great post. I loved the story. Good on you for helping out in times of emergency.

With this, I agree with you. Toomey should be going in. I wonder how much voter fraud went into Spectre's Campaign. As for Santorum, he is more popular than Spectre and this time, should help Bush take the state.

[(Note the dripping sarcasm)] Yeah! Extreme right-wing nutcase conservatism is making this country great again! We've already crushed most of our hated enemies: the liberal intellectuals (God FORBID we actually THINK for ourselves!), the police departments (putting assault rifles back on the streets will teach them good!), the French (The history books lie! They never helped us achieve independence!), the godless masses (Saving the country from the Al Gore majority, don't you know?). ON TO SAN FRANCISCO! Vanquish the queers!

Bump!

Saddam had no links to Al-Qaida, and we are now saddled with a $200 billion dollar boondoggle in Iraq that has drained our military and financial strength to the point where we may not be able to prosecute the War On Terror.


Everything you said was basically true except the 200 billion in Iraq. The total was just tallied up as between 82-118 billion depending what you count and such (Soldiers have to be paid salaries regardless of whether they're in Iraq or in the USA, vehicles need repairs and new parts, etc)

Yes, I ought to fix that! I cited the 200 billion figure from John Kerry directly, and when he cited it he was saying ultimately it's projected to cost 200 billion. We just have not reached the actual figure yet.

Very nice letter! I'm from PA and I won't be voting Bush (I already decided well over a year ago, however) but I also won't be voting Kerry. He is in favor of partial-birth abortion which in my book is murder as well. I'm not against abortion but there's a point where an embryo becomes a living thing instead of a bunch of replicating cells. At that point, I believe it's murder.

I'm voting Nader.

Give this one a big BUMP since it's close to election time.

I think Ohio is in play this election. Bush's policies have damaged this state economically and socially. Governor Bob Taft is weakened, and is dragging Bush down with him.
Bush also seems determined to drag Blair down with him - and Blair seems willing to fall. Asking for the Black Watch at this exact moment was described by a Labour MP as "a hostile act against Tony Blair" which is as good a description as any.
Politicians and the military here are trying to paint this as a purely operational matter, but in reality the timing makes it clear that Bush wants an appearance of international support for his cockups and this is about the only way he can get it.
The public over here in the UK are almost entirely against this move, mostly because of the political ramifications rather than a wish not to support the Republican election campaign. Worse, Blair has committed some dreadful slips - for example the chilling phrase so redolant of the First World War "It'll all be over by Christmas" (not his exact words, but they were close enough to startle many listeners).

I've known all along that many Americans aren't the rabid gun toting menaces they often appear to be - and thank you so much for writing a letter than shows your people in such a more approachable light.