Hey Kendall, I agree with you about Dean. He shot himself in the lip. As to why Kerry voted agains't the first Iraq war, he was probably gun shy about another Vietnam. Most of what was proven was simply hearsay. It was mostly about the burning of oil wells. I think he thought it might be solved by other means such as including the international community in the decision making. He has been consistent on this in his statements. Kerry has a history of military service. He sees things in terms of military intelligence which he probably believed and found out later to be faulty. I think a person with his background can change his mind to the benefit of the country without being perceived mechanically as a "flip flopper". Bush certainly has the prize on this issue. "Not a nation builder". Unfunded policies by members of his own political party in congress. "Uniter not a divider"? "No child left behind"? The list goes on. The rationale for Bush changing his mind was that times and conditions change. Remember the old saying "Things changed after 911"? And I believe that conditions do change. This does not require rigid position taking but response-ability to the new conditions. I think it's a credit to Kerry to be able to do this. It's working with the situation rather than against it. Nader is a spoiler. It's only ego that keeps him in the race. He has nothing to contribute. Kucinich has already articulated Nader's position better than Nader himself. BTW, wouldn't it be nice if all these Guests who are discussing with one another would be polite enough or possibly sincere enough to reveal who they are. Frank
|