XPost: alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.democrats.d   
   XPost: talk.politics.misc   
   From: steele.david@verizon.net.REMOVE   
      
   |> Oh, I have ethical considerations, all right.   
   |>   
   |> That's why I was willing to admit I was wrong about the WMD   
   |> issue--when I could have just remained silent.  (How many other people   
   |> on Usenet admit their mistakes?)   
   |   
   |I was thinking more of your belief in the manifest destiny of the United   
   |States as a force entirely for good and the use of that alleged goodness in   
   |the transformation of the world.  It never occurs to you----except I   
   |suppose when a Democrat is in the White House-----that the foreign policy   
   |designs of a government of the United States can be bent entirely towards   
   |doing evil rather than good.  You have decided to go into total gullibility   
   |mode when it comes to the pronouncements of the Bush mafia on Iraq, for   
   |example.  You've relented on WMD, but continue to rationalize about the   
   |very mission that is Iraq.  You pretend to be dumb on this issue.   
   |   
   |> Now the whole reason for this AWOL flap is McAuliffe's attempt to   
   |> deflect the kind of criticism of Kerry's past peacenik track record   
   |> that we're discussing here now.  The result, is that we are now   
   |> debating the Vietnam War.  AGAIN.  The most divisive and bitter issue   
   |> we had in the last 100 years, and we're back to it again.   
   |   
   |But as a student of history, why the hell are you complaining.  I would   
   |have thought that YOU would be the first to say that many of the foreign   
   |and even domestic policy decisions made today have some basis in the   
   |fighting and the aftermath of the Vietnam War.  We still have a leadership   
   |generation who became men at that time, and we look for the ROOTS of   
   |character by traveling back to that era as much as we look for the evidence   
   |of character today.   
   |   
   |> Had the Dems nominated Dean or Edwards or Gephardt, this entire   
   |> unpleasantness--on both sides--could have been avoided.   
   |   
   |Really?  If Dean were the front runner, we'd be talking about his draft   
   |dodging.  With Edwards, we'd be wondering why he didn't join in the fight   
   |to liberate Kuwait.   
   |   
   |> Any of these vs. Bush would have been a spirited debate--on the   
   |> issues.   
   |   
   |Trust the American voter to get down finally to the stuff that really has   
   |priority for him.  Such as the status of his retirement account.  Or is he   
   |now living from paycheck to paycheck, having gone through savings to   
   |survive a period of unemployment?  Or does he go to work every day in fear   
   |that he will be told he will be laid off?  Or has the commitment to   
   |education meant that there are 45 kids to a classroom in the classroom of   
   |his own child as opposed to half that number (45 children being left behind   
   |as opposed to less than that)?   
   |   
   |And then he can think about the approximately $6500 being spent in the last   
   |year PER Iraqi to support that Iraqi's "liberation" and development.   
   |   
   |Ask me if that American citizen would like a check from the U.S. government   
   |to the tune of $6500 to spent on his own kid.   
      
   In 1994, the common man, the heart of the democrats in years,   
   past, voted out democrats over one issue.  The Assault Weapons   
   Ban (AWB).  They did not vote their pocketbook, they voted their   
   guns (they believe that the gun is the ultimate vote, that   
   revolution is the one thing that they can force on the elitist   
   like you).  Many average guys now bitch that the democrats want   
   to bribe them with money in order to shut them up on the really   
   important issues like gun control.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)