can't ignore the obvious question
An important question: did I, mistakenly, buy decaf coffee? The thought resonated throughout my morning drive punctuated by intense, not run of the mill, yawns. I write a lot about coffee. I think a lot during the morning drive. Whether I did or not - buy decaf - will be resolved when I arrive home this afternoon and check it out. It's one of the day-to-day items that my life is filled with now. I feed the dogs. I make the coffee. I keep the kitchen clean. I spend time with my boyfriend - and of course - this year, more than any other, I'm into politics. The way it falls in among the rest of my habits and activities intrigues me. I want to buy one of those hip shawls. I want a new president. Etc.
I was resolved not to talk about politics on this blog, as Jen, Jess and I have one designed specifically for that purpose. Check out www.politikitten.com - we've got a blog and much more on that site and you can make comments or let us know if you've got something to say. However, with last night's debate and impending election, I feel obliged to write about the subject at hand.
No questions asked I'm a Democrat and after hearing Kerry's points last night I can also say I'm proud to side with Kerry and his ideas. He laid them out and in my opinion made a much stronger case than our current president. That aside I feel there is one important point that was brought to light last night and is constantly discussed between friends of mine and even the media - but which has not been answered. Simply put: the president went to Iraq to fight "the war on terror." What's up?
The "war on terror" is certainly a noble idea. I'll admit I'm one to embrace peace-loving views and wish there was another way. I don't know if there is and I know I for one have had some contradictory thoughts. After 9/11 I was ready to get over there and fight myself. I was angrier than I'd been, perhaps ever, concerning global issues. I thought more about terrorism than ever before.
And so we...went to Iraq. I know perfectly well that the Democrats, the people of America, and specifically John Kerry (last night) have questioned President Bush on this matter. The fact that there was intelligence suggesting weapons of mass destruction is another point entirely that I feel the president brings up whenever he is questioned on methods for fighting terrorism. But Iraq didn't attack us, also pointed out last night. I don't get it - why doesn't he answer the actual question? Why IRAQ? HOW is the war on terror a being fought there? Whether or not Sadaam was a threat, whether or not the president was supported by members of Congress - given the OK to go to war if it was inevitable - doesn't concern me as much as this very simple issue.
While I cannot question the president directly I can question his followers and concerning Iraq the response is usually something regarding wanting a leader who stays true to his convictions rather than a "flip-flopper." Ok then. Fine. Not even addressing why I believe Kerry thought out the complicated issue in a much more thorough way. But, ahem, why did we got to Iraq? Silence. Repeat above excuse. Remind about the weapons of mass destruction intelligence.
I have yet to hear someone explain to me the reasons we are fighting terrorism in Iraq. The president should have an answer to this this very simple, very direct question - or at least have the decency to admit that this war is dealing with seperate issues. There was bad stuff going on in Iraq! Everyone knows. There is bad stuff going on there now - and that is a different story. But why can't people see that the plan to go to Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? I cannot, in my heart, believe that the president has a case for a connection between the two issues - a real, legitimate connection that makes this war understandable as a "war on terror."
I'm not even getting into statistics here, more complicated numbers, issues, or other fears I have about the current regime leading our country. I just want Mr. President to explain to me, to us, point by point, how the war in Iraq has something to do with terrorists - specifically the ones that attached our country. It's that simple. That, or I want him to stop attempting to connect the two and further confusing an already confused public. If he could do this, he just might win my vote.
Kidding, friends. The man has no chance with me. And I hope his chances are diminishing with many undecided voters in this country who watched last night's debate. Sure, he's steadfast, but about what?
I could go on for many paragraphs, but will give it a rest. It gets tiring. Luckily I got a cup of coffee from across the street that was absolutely not decaf and I'm waking up.
I was resolved not to talk about politics on this blog, as Jen, Jess and I have one designed specifically for that purpose. Check out www.politikitten.com - we've got a blog and much more on that site and you can make comments or let us know if you've got something to say. However, with last night's debate and impending election, I feel obliged to write about the subject at hand.
No questions asked I'm a Democrat and after hearing Kerry's points last night I can also say I'm proud to side with Kerry and his ideas. He laid them out and in my opinion made a much stronger case than our current president. That aside I feel there is one important point that was brought to light last night and is constantly discussed between friends of mine and even the media - but which has not been answered. Simply put: the president went to Iraq to fight "the war on terror." What's up?
The "war on terror" is certainly a noble idea. I'll admit I'm one to embrace peace-loving views and wish there was another way. I don't know if there is and I know I for one have had some contradictory thoughts. After 9/11 I was ready to get over there and fight myself. I was angrier than I'd been, perhaps ever, concerning global issues. I thought more about terrorism than ever before.
And so we...went to Iraq. I know perfectly well that the Democrats, the people of America, and specifically John Kerry (last night) have questioned President Bush on this matter. The fact that there was intelligence suggesting weapons of mass destruction is another point entirely that I feel the president brings up whenever he is questioned on methods for fighting terrorism. But Iraq didn't attack us, also pointed out last night. I don't get it - why doesn't he answer the actual question? Why IRAQ? HOW is the war on terror a being fought there? Whether or not Sadaam was a threat, whether or not the president was supported by members of Congress - given the OK to go to war if it was inevitable - doesn't concern me as much as this very simple issue.
While I cannot question the president directly I can question his followers and concerning Iraq the response is usually something regarding wanting a leader who stays true to his convictions rather than a "flip-flopper." Ok then. Fine. Not even addressing why I believe Kerry thought out the complicated issue in a much more thorough way. But, ahem, why did we got to Iraq? Silence. Repeat above excuse. Remind about the weapons of mass destruction intelligence.
I have yet to hear someone explain to me the reasons we are fighting terrorism in Iraq. The president should have an answer to this this very simple, very direct question - or at least have the decency to admit that this war is dealing with seperate issues. There was bad stuff going on in Iraq! Everyone knows. There is bad stuff going on there now - and that is a different story. But why can't people see that the plan to go to Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? I cannot, in my heart, believe that the president has a case for a connection between the two issues - a real, legitimate connection that makes this war understandable as a "war on terror."
I'm not even getting into statistics here, more complicated numbers, issues, or other fears I have about the current regime leading our country. I just want Mr. President to explain to me, to us, point by point, how the war in Iraq has something to do with terrorists - specifically the ones that attached our country. It's that simple. That, or I want him to stop attempting to connect the two and further confusing an already confused public. If he could do this, he just might win my vote.
Kidding, friends. The man has no chance with me. And I hope his chances are diminishing with many undecided voters in this country who watched last night's debate. Sure, he's steadfast, but about what?
I could go on for many paragraphs, but will give it a rest. It gets tiring. Luckily I got a cup of coffee from across the street that was absolutely not decaf and I'm waking up.
posted by Cara Maria McDonough at 6:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home