So, last thursday or so, Kerry has been vicisously accused of 'looking French', which seems pale in comparison to him also seemingly 'advocating socialism'...
His cousin is French, Kerry speaks French, by God!! he may be part FRENCH, to some degree... Of course this doesn't really help, it helps AFTER the election if he wins, but not before... (not to me, but to someone).
REP. Sen. Gordon Smith (Ore) is not really surprisingly acting like a last minute GOP douchebag. Kerry spoke of the 'sensitive' treatment required for the war, which is fairly acurate... It's a good guess that sheer force isn't going to do any good, and god forbig anyone do any planning or diplomacy rather than adding to the body count (on both sides).
So we get the word nuance, which is from the old French, which Kerry did or didn't say, (I doubt he said it in any public address), but, regardless...
I'm not going to go into all the other things about the 'sensitivity' of warfare... Or the fact that neither Cheney nor Bush have the combat experience that Kerry actually has... (and about the medals, all of that is nonsense... Kerry saw what was the most brutal and defeating wars in American history... at the time, it's hard to imagine anyone in his position having a positive view about the little 'one bad apple'.... ) ...but, do you think that these sort of ludicrous desperate measures make any difference, or is there someone who is really swung by the fact that Kerry may take less than a 'scorched earth' approach to the war as a BAD thing?
This election, Bush seems to have ruled out any notion of different party, same candidate; even 'lesser of two evils' seems unfound. When it comes down to it, "the war on terror" was bungled, not only that, but exacerbated, covered up, neglected, ignored, & generally used as an exploitation of American people and military.
The military isn't getting out anytime soon, no matter who gets re-elected. They may bow out for 4 years and get a REP candidate in in 2008, it's a good try... they tried with Bush Sr. Let the other sap take the blame for the mess we made.
All of this takes a quite nuanced tact to the rebuilding and reconstruction of Iraq, AND our relationship with it, and the world.
Obviously the post-war planning for Iraq was lacking, but I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks the U.S. military should just up and leave Iraq.
As for the "sensitive war" comment, I can understand the meaning behind it, but that's just a stupid thing to say when most of the warfare going on right now is street-to-street urban combat with RPGs, heavy guns and mortars against people who dress as civilians.
Instead of "sensitive," all the folks who wail about the religious right in this country should also put their energy against religious fundamentalism in places like Iraq. That includes American Muslims. You can't tell me you have a problem with Pat Robertson but you think al Sadr is a righteous man.
If enough momentum is built and pressure is put on moderate Islamic leaders, things can be calmed down.
Either way, we're not leaving Iraq in the foreseeable future, and anyone who thinks pulling out is the solution is asking for an even bigger disaster.
sadisticmika
I'm lost
July 2004
SEP 07, 2004 09:27 PM