<p>Adults? I guess in the context of promising the kids the candy store. I agree with you that drastic measures are necessary, but first cut spending. </p>
<p>If you find Veterans’ medical unacceptable, then I guess you’re not in favor of the federal government controlling that sector of the economy. After all, we know how long waits can be in other countries.</p>
<p>To be fair, though, (I mean myself) my father was a veteran of WWII, Korea and Vietnam who died a couple of months ago, and his care was exemplary and I am grateful.</p>
<p>If you support any of the Republican candidates for President, you have to be lumped with that group. All of the candidate (except Paul) have stated unequivocably that they support the Bush occupation of Iraq as long as it takes to “win”, even if that is fifty years. It is not possible to be in favor of ending the occupation of Iraq and support a Republican candidate in the 2008 election. Guiliani, McCain, Thompson, and Romney have all stated, in no uncertain terms, their support of the war in Iraq and their position that “losing” is not an option.</p>
<p>You don’t get to decide with whom or with what I’m lumped Interesteddad. You also don’t get to prioritize for me or define “win.” Speak only for yourself in the future. Feel free to disagree with me or with any candidate that you see fit, but go no further than that. I am a republican who has never supported the Iraq war, and I will support whomever I choose for whatever reasons I choose and convey my opinions on myriad issues to all of my party’s candidates. Many of the most principled opponents of the Iraq war are conservatives.</p>
<p>Lt. General William Odom, US Army (retired), graduate of West Point, former Director of the National Security Agency (under Ronald Reagan), and Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, a student of Clausewitz, and commander in Vietnam:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The people saying they want to stay in Iraq till we “win” are like a guy going around randomly breaking windows in his house, insisting he’s going to keep at it till he “adds value.”</p>
<p>Garland, I voted against John Kerry, as did many others. Liberals/democrats may have a problem with that concept, but there it is. I liken that to the inability for some people to comprehend that a person can be pro life and not vote on the issue. I oppose the Iraq war and have worked within my party to oppose it, but that doesn’t mean that I would be irresponsible enough to have voted for John Kerry.</p>
<p>Other than Ron Paul, are the Republicans fielding anyone who’s a conservative this go round? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At the end of the day, what matters isn’t what you think or say; it’s your actions. Anyone who votes for the Republican front-runners is at least enabling and facilitating an effort that serves our enemies’ interests and not our own, so it matters little to me whether deep down in their hearts they “support” that effort or not. I’d be willing to have them support the occupation a little more if they’d enable it a little less.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We might have had another long nightmare of peace and prosperity (TM The Onion).</p>
<p>I hope all those who support or facilitate this occupation are at least calling their Senators demanding that more National Guard and Reservists from their home state be mobilized to fight it.</p>
<p>The states that have guys going off for the third and fourth time, and have the top 10 or so highest rate of per capita casualties would sure appreciate it.</p>
<p>Zoosermom–Nah–when you stop opposing the taxes needed to pay for your party’s extravagances, rather than leave them for our children to pay, then you will have. </p>
<p>And you know what, I’m totally impressed with how hard you work, but you ain’t the only only one–just making more money for it, but paying taxes at the same rate (actually less, since most payroll taxes are regressive.)</p>
<p>Not on foreign policy. They are all spouting the neocon expansionist nonsense. Guiliani, McCain, and Thompson are all off the charts in favor of using the US military to “spread democracy”. Thompson, of course, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the think-tank that brought you the Iraq war and the “surge”.</p>
<p>The simple fact that they are all missing: as the sole superpower, the last thing the US needs to do is project an image of imperialism around the globe.</p>
<p>Peace and prosperity under Kerry? That’s a howler that only The Onion could come up with. Conyat, you get to live your life as you see fit, set your priorities and define your principles. So do I. I can’t imagine that I would ever agree with yours, but I defend your right to hold them. It’s a shame that so many of you can’t respect differences. So much for open-minded. I could rant about how democratic administrations bear much responsibility for the attacks that decimated my city. I could rant about how a democrat like John Kerry in power would embolden our enemies. You think that military force is against our interests. Fine. I think that’s bizarre, but I would never presume to speak for you or to change your mind. I present my POV as part of a conversation. I genuinely enjoy hearing other experiences and it fascinates me to know how different things can be in different parts of the same country. That’s why I post.</p>
<p>See, Garland, I oppose extravagances with others’ money. I just believe tat Democrats would be much more extravagant. I don’t want you to be impressed with how hard I work. Couldn’t possibly care less. I make the point here that, living in such a blue state, I’m sick to death of all these democrats sucking money out of my paycheck to support their special interests. Not interested in arguing with you. This is my opinion and I’m entitled to it. That free flow of opinions just kills some liberals. Now I’m told that the same is true of folks in the majority in red states, too, which just goes to show that all blowhards are the same, no matter how they turn the lever in the polling booth.</p>
<p>Wow, is that a strange interpretation! I never said military force in general is against our interests; it’s an utterly unfair characterization of my position. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s because you made up a position for me. </p>
<p>My position is that the AEI-planned and managed occupation of Iraq is against our interests. And I say that because respected military authorities and even Ronald Reagan’s former military advisor say it. Not to mention the mountains of empirical evidence.</p>
<p>Do you really just dismiss them all as bizarre too, because they disagree with the thinktankers of the AEI–none of whom ever seem to have heard a shot fired in anger? </p>
<p>What makes General Odom, General Batiste, and General Eaton seem so trivial that you can just dismiss their opinions as “bizarre”? And how can you claim to be against the war but not share the retired generals’ opinion that the war is against our interests? </p>
<p>I’m genuinely puzzled here. Are you claiming that you think the war IS in our interests, but you oppose it anyway? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You do seem to bring up regional differences a lot, as though they account for why people don’t agree with you. You’ve brought up my being from Louisiana at least twice that I can think of off-hand. I hope you’re not suggesting what it sounds like you are. But I’m not going to make up a bizarre twist and ascribe it to you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You should check sometime at the growth in the national debt as a % of GDP under Republican vs. Democrat presidents. What you see will challenge a lot of your stereotypes.</p>
<p>I’ve not heard Conyat say anything like that. Most Democratic opponents of the Bush war in Iraq are angry, in part, because the Republican Party is destroying our military capability. Angry that the Republicans are not supporting our troops.</p>
<p>Conyat I sincerely apologize. I was responding to interesteddad and used your name instead. That was careless and unacceptable of me. (I’m not responding to any other issue in this post because I would like my apology to stand alone).</p>
<p>I bring up regional differences because they are the reason I post here in the Cafe. I find those differences endlessly fascinating. I love to read posts that discuss (whether political or not) what life is like in other parts of the country. I’ve always lived in NYC, and my mother’s family were Dutch settlers in the 1600s. Parts of the country like the South are exotic in the extreme to me. I’m not sure what you would ascribe to me, but it’s nothing other than what I just said.</p>
<p>Z–It’s all a matter of political perspective, I guess. I, for one, never quite got what was so awful about John Kerry (or Al Gore). Pompous, yeah. Professorial and preachy, a bit. Full of himself, maybe–but aren’t they all? Yet even with his quirks and flaws, I found him infinitely preferable to the scary man he was running against. I disagree that Kerry (or Gore’s) election would have emboldened our enemies and I truly doubt that he (or Gore) would have created billions of additional enemies for America by invading Iraq. Just my humble opinion.</p>