I think some people may be confusing Kerry (the guy who served in Viet Nam) with the guy who didn't. |
I would not be such a person...ever. Again, just because someone has been a soldier, doesn't mean they can be a good leader.
Here's the deal, I care about our country being safe from terrorists. I care far less about making nice with other countries. You might think that Kerry has backbone but I sure haven't seen it.
psychx, I'm glad you see this as it is meant. Simply me putting forth my opinion. If noone offered a differing opinion to debate upon, it would be quite a boring thread. I have no desire to bring the economy into this. Like I said, my main concern is our safety from terrorism. I merely brought up Dole vs Clinton because military leadership should always be a consideration in who you vote for whether during war time or not. I simply find it hypocritical for anyone who discounted the whole "he served and he didn't" during Dole vs Clinton and then use it as a talking point for Bush vs Kerry. You simply can't have it both ways.
As far as our reasons for the war in Iraq are concerned, it is a war on terrorism. It is no secret that Saddam has it out for the US. There is much debate over the whole Iraq-Al Qaeda-9/11 hook up. I was never under the impression that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I do believe that Saddam has been linked with Al Qaeda though. As far as I'm concerned, you don't have to be one of the terrorists responsible for 9/11. You just have to be a terrorist.
Over all, I am just thoroughly depressed that our only options are Bush and Kerry.