<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>well said matthew</DIV>
<DIV>i totally agree with you. </DIV>
<DIV>-Layne </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 8/2/2004 11:48:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2><BR>>
I suppose we are all jerks now and then, but politicians are all jerks<BR>>
now and then in public. I don't think jerk sums up John Kerry's
strengths<BR>> and weaknesses very well. I do think we would be better off
with a<BR>> commander in chief who has been in combat, who knows what
troops face in<BR>> combat, whose leadership under fire was respected by
those who served<BR>> under him, and who had the courage to come home,
after serving honorably<BR>> in the military, to join other veterans in
saying, this war did not merit<BR>> the sacrifices our fallen comrades were
called upon to make. That would<BR>> make me feel a lot safer.<BR>>
<BR>> Siarlys<BR><BR>So I suppose serving only 4 months out of a normal 12
month period in<BR>vietnam is better than nothing. I guess it wouldn't
matter that it<BR>was only 4 months because of some wound so minor that Kerry
had to<BR>appeal to even get the purple heart, when so many would simply put
a<BR>band-aid on a wound that small and call it a good day and get on
with<BR>things.<BR><BR>Bush is certainly not ignorant to the needs of the
military. <BR>Throughout, there have been clearly defined objectives and
fairly<BR>minimal rules of engagement. It seems to me that if
there had not<BR>been a well defined plan throughout, the casualty count might
have<BR>actually been considerably worse than that predicted by all
the<BR>liberal media and naysayers, rather than *considerably*
lower<BR>(somewhere right around 1000 since we have been over there rather
than<BR>the liberal media's claims that there would be over 5000
dead<BR>coalition forces within 24 hours of entering). It seems to me
that<BR>there are an aweful lot of people choosing to look at two wars
started<BR>and handled well by Bush and completely ignoring the 40+ times
the<BR>military was employed by Clinton, including some of the worst
run<BR>operations ever - Somalia, Mogadishu, and numerous others.<BR><BR>The
reality, however, is that a military record is only a minor piece<BR>of the
list of things to consider. A much larger issue is stance on<BR>the
issues - something which Kerry seems to be rather inconsistant on.<BR>After
all, Kerry voted *for* the war in Iraq. But then, shortly into<BR>the
war, switches sides with a bunch of his liberal friends and claims<BR>he never
supported such a horrible thing. Kerry tries to be all<BR>things to
everybody and, IMHO, that kind of person cannot be trusted<BR>with
anything.<BR><BR>Anyway, enough politics for me for
tonight.<BR>Matthew</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>