[GCFL-discuss] The Thick Plot

[gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net]

Siarlys, what are you going to do when we sit here in two years debating
why we elected Kerry and found that he lied to us? What happens when the
stones you're throwing at Bush become the very stones thrown at Kerry?

God bless,
Lance
John 8:32 "You will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free."

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 14:26:21 -0500 gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net writes:
> OK, since you asked about the debate, I am unimpressed with both
> participants. Bush fed us his usual bland string of pastel lies, 
> with a
> childish grin on his face, while Kerry politely declined to call him 
> on
> it.
> 
> A few things Kerry missed:
> 
> When things are not going right, you have to be honest with the 
> troops.
> Saying "things are going well" when it is obvious on the front lines 
> that
> they are not, is no way to keep up morale. Saying "we're giving them 
> the
> equipment they need" does not count as "support" for  troops sent 
> into
> action without body army, in humvees that have no armor either. 
> Rhetoric
> about "sending mixed messages" is no excuse for blindly continuing 
> a
> failing strategy. Someone has to say, there is a better way, and it 
> will
> lead to an acceptable outcome that will do some justice to the 
> sacrifices
> made -- which the current policy will not.
> 
> YES, it WAS a diversion from the war against al Qaeda. Now, we are 
> there.
> Now, we have opened up territory that was CLOSED to al Qaeda. 
> Zawahiri
> wouldn't have dared show his face in Iraq while Hussein was in power 
> --
> Hussein didn't allow any rivals of any political persuasion. We 
> weren't
> being attacked by al Qaeda in Iraq until we went into Iraq. Now, we 
> are
> there, we owe it to the people there, and to our own security, to 
> find a
> resolution that people in Iraq can live with. Bush can't find a 
> way.
> Kerry might.
> 
> The reason we need to call in other nations is simple: there is no 
> longer
> any chance that any government installed by American arms will 
> retain
> credibility with the people of Iraq long enough to establish 
> stability.
> We cannot just pull out, because that would leave a power vacuum 
> with NO
> security or peace or development. But we cannot restore order 
> either. So,
> we need other outside forces to join us, who will have the 
> credibility
> (with native Iraqis) to establish security without tainting whatever
> Iraqi government emerges. George Bush can't do that: he is the one 
> who
> said he could do it alone.
> 
> The first and biggest lie that Bush told the American people about 
> Iraq
> is that it would be easy. He said we could do it with far less 
> troops
> than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reported. The 
> president
> was wrong, the chairman was correct. He said we would be welcomed 
> by
> cheering throngs. We weren't. For a few weeks, a fair number of 
> people
> cheered the fall of Hussein al-Takriti, but most of them want us 
> gone. He
> said it would be quick. Now he has the nerve to say "Its hard." He 
> should
> have told us that in the first place, soberly, instead of 
> cheerfully
> rushing us off to a war he wasn't prepared to lead. (Kerry DID 
> manage to
> say once that Bush said we could fight the war on the cheap, and it
> wasn't true).
> 
> Bush has the nerve to talk about completing the mission. Kerry 
> should
> have asked him "Oh, I thought Mission Accomplished was declared in 
> May
> 2003."
> 
> Talking about how much money he is spending is no answer to 
> questions
> about why he cut specific programs to put more local police on the 
> street
> and support local fire departments. It is also unworthy of a 
> Republican
> -- isn't that the party that used to criticize throwing money at a
> problem as a way to solve it?
> 
> Kerry should have called him on the "flip-flop" nonsense. As a U.S.
> senator, Kerry voted to authorize the only president we had to act 
> in a
> critical situation. That does not immunize the president from 
> criticism
> when his actions prove to be a failure.
> 
> And when it comes to character: I would not have used the noun, 
> "liar,"
> but I would have used the verb, and said "George W. Bush has lied to 
> the
> American people, to congress, and to  the troops he sent into 
> action."
> MAYBE I would have said "factually challenged."
> 
> When George mindlessly talks about "freedom" -- someone should point 
> out
> that the what is important to the people of Iraq is different from 
> what
> is important to the people of the United States, and different from 
> what
> is important to the people of Iran, and Jordan, etc. There is no 
> common
> ideology being pursued by all the people of the world. Everyone has 
> a
> slightly different definition of "freedom." Most Iraqis would like 
> to be
> "free" of us, of the al Qaeda types who ran in after we knocked off
> Hussein, of what's left of Hussein's forces... there is no force in 
> Iraq
> that can establish peace and order, nor is there any outside force 
> that
> enough people in Iraq really have confidence in. THAT is why we need 
> a
> broader international effort, to put together a force that will be
> acceptable to Iraqis for a transition period. Otherwise, we will 
> just
> find more and more people in Iraq turning to one or another of the 
> forces
> that seem to be shooting at our troops.
> 
> Siarlys
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Get your name as your email address.
> Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more
> Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today!
> _______________________________________________
> GCFL-discuss mailing list
> GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
> http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss
> 
>