If you are against the war - who will you vote for in 2008 (please see additional details)?

Question

You can't vote for this one:
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

You can't vote for this one:
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Hmm... her either - then who?
"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. -Hilliary Clinton

Answer 1

I supported the war in the early stages and i'm sure everyone else did, but because the Democrats completly flip flopped their positions things got really messy. But because i don't like the reasons we're in the war now, but i'm not gonna be stupid to be "Oh!! He's for the war i'm not gonna vote for him" or "He's not bush so i'm gonna vote for him". People need to learn how to listen to what the politicians are for and not by some slick lines he may say. I think right now the Democrats have killed their reputation and made them look like nothing but a bunch of cowards with no values and the republicans made themselves look like a party full of corrupt politicians. At this moment i would never vote Democrat just because i'm sick of all the bashing they do. If they wanna win then do it by setting plans and policies that work for the country. and both parties need to stop seeing people as votes and actually work for them. I will vote for someone who seems fit for the job and i hope others will vote for someone for who that person is and not what party he's from. That kind of thinking is rediculous.

Answer 2

Out of these 3 choices I will vote for Clinton. Here is why. I presume that to have a radical enough politician in presidential office to do two things - tell the American public that they are against the war in Iraq, and actually do something about it, is an unrealistic hope. Thus, if I have no choice but to vote in someone who will not be against the war, I have to look for other reasons to distinguish them. I generally am ok with much of Clinton's politics, and even her husband's in case he acts through her, comapred to Kerry and Gore. Having a woman in the office for the first time I think will do more or as much for various liberal movements than her politicking will.

Answer 3

GLOBAL WARMING/THE ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL

Any and I mean any environmental cause or approach must be grassroots in nature. Having PhD's talk about global warming and having those representing industry interests debunk these present theories is a high level and almost an entirely futile effort. Don't get me wrong, it is great that someone with Al Gore's connections and exposure is getting the word out. However, people are people they want to see results.

Yes, the expression is now trite but still true, "Thing Globally, Act Locally". Watching the sky over a city, town or even a more rural area become darkened by smog has local impact, people take note and actually see A PROBLEM. A problem that can measured in terms of air quality or perhaps an AIR QUALITY HEALTH INDEX like the one that the provincial government in Ontario, Canada is in the process of implementing. You can measure results (however small) in terms of air quality and the affect it has on the health care system (those with breathing problems, doctor's visits, etc). It certainly speaks to the advantage of a UNIVERSAL health care system (however, actually implemented) as it actually makes sense to improve the environment as it keeps people healthy (a humanitarian cause) and when health care it publicly funded it affects the public coffers when people become ill therefore it even makes better financial sense to keep the environment a top priority.

Plus any approach must be entire with a complete overall plan (the big picture). Including recycling initiatives, energy solutions (alternatives/renewables can now present a real potential financial threat to the big oil companies and even power companies...), government involvement at all levels, public transit, greener vehicles in general (Hybrid, Hydrogen, Conventional electric, bio-diesel, ethanol), conservation in all energy arenas, ETC!

Economic viability is the real sell as many of these solutions are just that economically sensible (ensuring we look at the entire picture). Yes as more people use solar, wind and other renewable energy sources the cheaper the technology will get. Two of the newest billionaires have earned a large portion through renewables Solar (India I believe) and Wind (China I believe). Yes in many ways developing nations and economies will be the first and early adopters of such renewable tech as they are just building much of their infrastructure.

So what do we all need to do? GET INVOLVED ! Contact your local government about improving your recycling program, contact provincial/state/federal government about the adopting of these new technologies (renewables such as solar/wind), buy gas with ethanol in it and demand it, use and demand bio diesel, buy products with less packaging and demand manufacturers to reduce packaging and to offer a price break as a result. More ECONOMIC VIABILITY! After all energy diversity just like economic diversity is the safest and best bet for good long term results and return on investment.

Joe...


KEEP IT UP MR. GORE THE POLAR BEARS NEED YOU FIRST **GRIN**.

Answer 4

How does this grab your *** ... the UN weapon inspectors said in 2003 there were no WMD? Right up to the days before we invaded. They were on the ground there.

Kevin Phillips, a conservative of the Nixon White House, said the invasion of Iraq was to secure the undeveloped oil reserves of Iraq.

Who to vote for? Depends on who actually gets nominated.

Answer 5

I'll wait to see what the canidates are to make a decision on who I will back.

BTW...those quotes you present futher solidifies the deception put on by the Bush Administration. Those statement were made with the intellegence that they were allowed to see. The intellegence the Bush Administration decided to release. Those statement reflect what most of America has done. With the intellegence presented by Bush it sounded worth, but with the truth now it appearent we were mislead. You can see this evidence in the declining polls.

Answer 6

I would personally like to see Secretary Rice or Retired General Powell step in.

Answer 7

Thanks for the important input.....

below links lists the 23 US Senators who opposed the War Vote.

Incidentally, to my knowledge none of the 23 are considered "Pro-Life. All the "Pro-Life Senators voted to make War on the people of Iraq.

Prior to your question, I was for Joe Biden. I must rethink that....

Answer 8

I guess they were looking at the reports that the Bush administration gave them... but those were OBVIOUSLY CORRECT WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT.. .hahaha

and really... if you knew anything about politics... I seriously doubt any of those will get the nomination...

Answer 9

don't feel like reading your book, you call a question, So I'm Voting For JEB BUSH

Answer 10

Russ Feingold should he decide to run