Kerry meets the enemy during wartime?!!!

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-16-2004
Kerry meets the enemy during wartime?!!!
29
Sat, 09-18-2004 - 8:51am
How can this be??? Kerry met with the enemy, while a commissioned officer in our armed services. Not once, but twice!

It is unprecedented that a president of our great nation has met with the enemy during a time of war. Not only has he made up stuff about Cambodia and the "atrocities" about vets he served with, but he actually met with the enemy. Can we expect Kerry to do the same with Bin Ladin? Can't imagine what would come of such a meeting...but fear something of this nature may happen if he is elected into office. Is the the future of what is to come of the country?

He wants to get paid to do these jobs, yet his records show he's never there. Why should the american public pay for dead weight. We have enough of that already in office....

Look at the article below before you respond. This is well documented.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132799,00.html

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Mon, 09-20-2004 - 11:49am
<>

I think the plan all along has been to expand the war to most of the countries in the middle east (Iran certainly, the Palestinians, and perhaps even Saudi Arabia if they had been able to secure a steady supply of oil from elsewhere....like Iraq for instance?).

It would be a given that if Bush attempted to declare war on any other country in the area that Saddam would have sided against the US. Therefore, he had to go there first before the rest of the plan was implemented. It was probably determined within Bush's inner circle that justifying this this would be relatively easy because of the bad blood that already existed between Saddam and the US...It would be an easy sell to a people already reeling from 9/11 and they also conveniently have heard of Iraq and Saddam before.

It was American hubris (particularly that of Bush and his cronies) that refused to see just how complex a problem they were getting themselves into. A powerful military can only do so much but it CANNOT change the hearts and minds of people (unless it is in the direction you don't want it to go....of being the angered party who got attacked....can anyone say....martyr?). Also unforeseen by this administration (but not by experts in Middle Eastern affairs) was the power of the insurgency in the struggle to obtain power in Iraq.

There is no denying that Saddam was a power hungry sadist but he very well knew that Iraq with it's large numbers of Shiite muslims (60% of Iraq) had the potential at any time to rise up and overthrow the govt. and then Iraq would have gone the same route as Iran. Saddam had no conscience as well as a personal agenda in keeping a lid on this very real possiblility and certainly his tactics were cruel beyond description, but other than keeping Saddam in power, it did serve that purpose as a side benefit. By removing him from power, and leaving behind anarchy. The US has inadvertantly sped up this process of turning Iraq into a theocracy. The Americans can bomb and do all the surgical strikes they like, but unless they've got some sort of hypnosis weapon, there is NOTHING they will be able to do to change the minds (and ambitions) of these people. The uglier things get, the more likely that supprot for the Americans will dwindle....not grow.

Bush could hardly say that his motivation to go into Iraq was to start a large scale conventional war that could potentially suck the rest of the world into it for a decade or more. He met with a lot of resistance internationally becuase not everyone was unaware of this potential (and some suspected it's true intent). He couldn't count on the fact that there would be enough voters who would welcome World War 3 (the American people may be gullible at times....but not THAT gullible) but he knew that if he played on the fears of the American people he could very well implement the PLAN.



iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Mon, 09-20-2004 - 11:53am
<>

I see nothing wrong with someone engaging in a dialogue with both sides during peace talks.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Mon, 09-20-2004 - 11:56am
<>

I didn't know that so many people were mind readers that they don't need to talk, ask questions and get a deeper understanding of the issues, desires, and expectations of the other side.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-16-2004
Mon, 09-20-2004 - 12:07pm
<>

I see nothing wrong with someone engaging in a dialogue with both sides during peace talks.

So, you see nothing wrong with an officer of our armed forces going on his own ... to talk to a leader of our enemy during wartime? Well, if that's the case...I guess Kerry is your man. Go check out winters soldier.com; or swiftvets.com. Take a look at all the Kerry has done (or hasn't done) for our country before you blindly vote for him. Just because he was nominated by the democratic party doesn't mean he is the best for the job.

While i may not agree with everything bush does, he is the better choice. There is just way too much controversy over kerry's actions in the past. There are key things here that people keep forgetting or dimissing...i'm not quite sure which it is....maybe someone can shed some light.

He's made up stories bout fellow soldiers during the vietnam war.

lied about incidents that happened during the war

(keep in mind...Kerry is the one that decided to run on the vietnam war platform)

extremely inconsistent record of showing up at senate hearings and lack of voting on issues.

has flip flopped more times than a carp out of water. "I voted for the xx billion, before I voted against it". WHAT???

Still to this date....has no campaign message.

He keeps living in the past (30 year old war) seems to be the one thing he talks about over and over....

He's been talking about vietnam for a longer time than he was actually there! He was only over there for 4 months....he would have the average american believe he was there for years.


There's more....but quite frankly i'm tired of typing them over and over again. If people in our country want to vote for him, that's their perogative. He won't be getting my vote.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-05-2003
Mon, 09-20-2004 - 12:32pm

I am admittedly a Democrat but I think they are both pathetic candidates and I am disappointed there isn't a better choice.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Mon, 09-20-2004 - 1:11pm
I posted that before I read entirely through to the end of that thread so I jumped the gun a little. At first I had thought he met as a function of his political position. I was initially interested because I also think that someone with the experience and ability to negotiate might be a good thing after Bush's arrogant "go it alone attitude". I do think it is important to at least HEAR the other side. I also think that negotiating skills and knowledge of the world are ESSENTIAL in a leader, especially one of a nation as powerful and broad reaching as the US. Bush so clearly lacks these skills.

I've read plenty about this controversy over the Swift Vets crap and Bush's AWOL status etc as well and am also getting mighty tired of the whole thing.

I feel that there is probably something fishy about Kerry's past just like I think there's a LOT fishy about Bush's past as well. Admittedly, if someone wanted to dig into mine there's stuff there too (that's why I wouldn't run for public office....not that I wouldn't do a good job, but I couldn't stand the ruthless scrutiny). ;o)

However, I do think that people are getting their knickers in a twist and exaggarating Kerry's supposed "treason". I don't particularly care but I think Kerry got swept up in the era of Vietnam social conscienceness movement and tried to do what he thought might be helpful in stopping an unjust war. I also don't give two hoots if Bush senior paid off the entire US military to get his son into the guard and Bush spent the whole time lying in a ditch in a drunken stupor. The past is the past.

If we are measuring candidates by their good intentions that may have backfired we have plenty of fodder on both these men.

We have Kerry's attempt at trying to help end the Vietnam war and testifying on behalf of other vets against things that he felt were wrong (and many WERE wrong). If ending the war and attempting to get the US military to clean up it's act were his motivation, then one could say his intentions were good. You can't advocate change without stepping on some toes. In understanding Kerry's actions, you have to look at it in context and also have some understanding of the atmosphere of those times.

Bush's fiasco in Iraq (which is going on NOW and is much more important than events that took place more than 30 years ago). In Bush's case, I find it more unforgivable because he didn't take the time to fully cionsider what the implications about Iraq would be. He admitted as much that it was a "miscalculation". You could say that his intentions might have been good if not a little bit grandiose (ending global terrorism) but the way he is going about IS questionable.

They do say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. All you have to do is look at these two candidates to believe it.


iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Mon, 09-20-2004 - 1:49pm
Could they have nominated someone else? I was wondering about that. XOXO.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-16-2004
Mon, 09-20-2004 - 6:27pm
Ya know, both of them are liars....it comes with the territory of being a politician. Whats really sad though, is that people get so caught up in the mudslinging, and they gloss over the really important things.

I live my life with some basic truths; truth, morality, family, etc... I don't see much truth in kerry, but i think we all know that by now LOL! Nor, do I see much morality due to his record of flip flopping and changing his stories time and again. That to me indicates he is covering something up. Bush has problems too....he can't make a speech without stumbling over his words. Someone ought to buy that boy hooked on phonics! I hold all this near and dear though, because I worked at the trade center, and was supposed to be in my office by the time the planes hit... The leadership i sought from our president at the time, was answered. while the way he's gone about some things i may disagree with, i generally agree with him going after them in principle. it is the right thing to do...as they will continue to try and get us. keep in mind, bin laden and crew tried to get the WTC in 93. And since i see you hail from our north (Canada) it should be of concern to you too...as a lot of these terrorists have come here from there.

Well, should be an interesting race from here on out. Dan Rather and CBS finally admitted the docs were frauds today.

Another US hostage beheaded today....how do you negotiate with that???

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 09-20-2004 - 7:55pm
I am in the same boat as you, but since I live in the northeast, and know the likes of the prototypical northeast liberals, I cannot bring myself to vote for Kerry.

Pages