:) Yup. And we both know that in November our choice will again be between two white men who are a front for their own cadre of special interest financial backers. The part I'm sick of is that continual examination and scrutiny of these guys youthful decisions. I made some mistakes when I was young, and I learned from them and moved on, I think we all did (except Al Gore). I'm not even sure how far back deception and politics goes back, but I'm sure it is to Roman times at least.
Frankly, if I were picking Presidents, neither Bush or Kerry would be in my top ten list. This reflects my attitude to any position of authority (like police officers). Those who most desperately want it are usually the ones I most want to keep it from. I guess what I'm asking myself is; What are the agenda's these guys will push for over the next 4 years and which can I live with (or will do the least amount of harm). From an international relations POV, a change of administration would do us good in being able to repair some of the damage done during the last 4 years. But, insofar as agenda, either will (should) focus almost entirely on homeland security and mitigating the growing threat we seem to be facing. My thoughts are that national security is the most important primary job of the federal government. We cannot return to a pre-9/11 world where we are blithely heedless of where the next catastrophy will occur.
As far as the Bush agenda of the last 4 years (or at least post 9/11); I just don't think they have done a very good job communicating why they are doing what they are doing. My understanding is that the Bush doctrine is that; Terrorists need a place to safely base and plan their attacks from, and this can be due to a chaotic state, such as Somalia, or a sympathetic state, such as the former Afghanistan under Taliban rule.
The Axis of Evil speech clearly put Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the primary root of the biggest threats to the US national security. Now that is debatable, but that is what our government tells us. We don't really know why they think that, but prior to the Iraq war we trusted that they had some evidence to support their claims. We know that Iraq and Iran in their own ways supported the Palestinian struggle in the middle east. This is a continual source of friction that is fueling a growing tide of Islamic unrest. The US position must be then that if we can dry up the sources of funding and arms supplying the Intifada, then we can force the Palestinians to capitulate and accept the Oslo accord. We have no control over Isreal, other than severing all our funding of them. I'm not against using that trump card, and we've probably sent way too much money into Isreal already. Anyway, I do think that the current administration is doing alot to work with many nations, influence nations, or intimidate nations on stopping terrorism. A crucial step in that is to remove all state complicity, or sponsorship of terrorists and not give the terrorists any designated safe areas to rest or plan.
But, then you have to question things like; "Why were the bulk of the 9/11 terrorists from our supposed friend and ally, Saudi Arabia?" "What role does Yeman, and Afghanistan and our support of the former Muhajadin fighters play in our current troubles?"
So how would Mr. Kerry solve our national security threats I wonder?
Frankly, if I were picking Presidents, neither Bush or Kerry would be in my top ten list. This reflects my attitude to any position of authority (like police officers). Those who most desperately want it are usually the ones I most want to keep it from. I guess what I'm asking myself is; What are the agenda's these guys will push for over the next 4 years and which can I live with (or will do the least amount of harm). From an international relations POV, a change of administration would do us good in being able to repair some of the damage done during the last 4 years. But, insofar as agenda, either will (should) focus almost entirely on homeland security and mitigating the growing threat we seem to be facing. My thoughts are that national security is the most important primary job of the federal government. We cannot return to a pre-9/11 world where we are blithely heedless of where the next catastrophy will occur.
As far as the Bush agenda of the last 4 years (or at least post 9/11); I just don't think they have done a very good job communicating why they are doing what they are doing. My understanding is that the Bush doctrine is that; Terrorists need a place to safely base and plan their attacks from, and this can be due to a chaotic state, such as Somalia, or a sympathetic state, such as the former Afghanistan under Taliban rule.
The Axis of Evil speech clearly put Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the primary root of the biggest threats to the US national security. Now that is debatable, but that is what our government tells us. We don't really know why they think that, but prior to the Iraq war we trusted that they had some evidence to support their claims. We know that Iraq and Iran in their own ways supported the Palestinian struggle in the middle east. This is a continual source of friction that is fueling a growing tide of Islamic unrest. The US position must be then that if we can dry up the sources of funding and arms supplying the Intifada, then we can force the Palestinians to capitulate and accept the Oslo accord. We have no control over Isreal, other than severing all our funding of them. I'm not against using that trump card, and we've probably sent way too much money into Isreal already. Anyway, I do think that the current administration is doing alot to work with many nations, influence nations, or intimidate nations on stopping terrorism. A crucial step in that is to remove all state complicity, or sponsorship of terrorists and not give the terrorists any designated safe areas to rest or plan.
But, then you have to question things like; "Why were the bulk of the 9/11 terrorists from our supposed friend and ally, Saudi Arabia?" "What role does Yeman, and Afghanistan and our support of the former Muhajadin fighters play in our current troubles?"
So how would Mr. Kerry solve our national security threats I wonder?
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.
![[Image: yVR5oE.png]](http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/329/yVR5oE.png)
![[Image: VKQ0KLG.png]](http://i.imgur.com/VKQ0KLG.png)