Bush and Kerry Singing Together at last!

[thomas7g]

http://www.jibjab.com/thisland.html

Oh you HAVE to see this! Its a funny little flash movie making fun of our US political candidates. ONly a few minutes long but very funny! THis will leave you rolling in the aisles! Trust me. Its worth a download!



"This land is your land...this land is my land...."

Watch it quickly before this gets on the news and everyone and his sister will be hitting this iste!

Just as long as Kerry and Edwards sing together in the White House after election day, I'll be happy!

[bsg1fan1975]

I soooooooooooo agree with you Bijou!

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by Bijou88

Just as long as Kerry and Edwards sing together in the White House after election day, I'll be happy!

I agree with you on that one

[thomas7g]

I'm going to vote for the jerk that's already there.

Originally Posted by thomas7g

I'm going to vote for the jerk that's already there.

Voting for who you believe in is the American way!

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by Bijou88

Voting for who you believe in is the American way!

VOTING at all IS the AMERICAN WAY!

THose of you who don't vote and don't like
the person who gets in ..........have no right
to complain!

[thomas7g]

I'm voting for the guy who I think will keep the most americans alive by the end of his term.

The critical factor with me is North Korea. They are starving. They are fanatical. They are a cult more than a nation. And their great holy leader rapes and murders on a whim. And they will have nukes for sale soon.

I don't like Bush. I think alot of his policies and tactics make even moderate republicans cringe. But He is good at taking down international and dangerous bullies.

Kerry is an appeaser.

[shiningstar]

Kerry is more then a appeaser .............he's flat out dangerous.

If he is in office (By his OWN VOTING record) he will be for completely
wiping out our defensive capabilities on the land, in the air, and
on the sea.

[thomas7g]

Yeah.... I read some of his voting record. He tends to vote against every military funding act. I remember him voting against even F15s and they are the bulk of our airforce.

[thomas7g]

I think he would make a better president if we lived in a safer world. But I still think the world is a little too dangerous for a pacifistic president.

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by thomas7g

Yeah.... I read some of his voting record. He tends to vote against every military funding act. I remember him voting against even F15s and they are the bulk of our airforce.

he also voted against the stealth aircraft, and the apache helicopters..as well
the minutemen missle. Do I need to go on?

[Archangel]

Originally Posted by thomas7g

I think he would make a better president if we lived in a safer world. But I still think the world is a little too dangerous for a pacifistic president.

The same could be said for Clinton as well, but he got in anyway.

Do you know who actually cut lots of defense programs? Dick Chaney. Look at the record. I wanted to keep this rather non partisan. But, If some of you people are going to call Kerry an appeaser, I am going to reply that Bush is a war-monger that lied to the country to settle an old score with Saddam. Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. Saudi Arabia and Iran have a greater link to Bin Ladin. Did we invade them? No, because Saddam was a toothless tiger who was easier to take down. We couldn't invade Saudi Arabia because it is one of our main oil suppliers and the center of Islam. Meanwhile, Afganistan is religated to being a side show where Al Queda is reestablishing themselves. Bush is the greatest recruiting tool for global terrorism the world has ever seen. He misled the country on Saddam's WMD program and then when he is exposed as a BS artist, he passes the buck to the CIA. Bush is the closest thing to a dictator that our nation has ever seen. Before his term, the world respected the United States. Now we are looked down upon as an agressive loose cannon. Because of the prisoner abuse scandals, (90 different abuse cases being labled by the administration as "isolated incidents" rather than a pattern of brutality.) the United States no longer has any moral authority as a champion of Human rights in the eyes of the world. As an American, I love my country. As a patriot, I will vote for John Kerry.

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by Bijou88

Do you know who actually cut lots of defense programs? Dick Chaney. Look at the record. I wanted to keep this rather non partisan. But, If some of you people are going to call Kerry an appeaser, I am going to reply that Bush is a war-monger that lied to the country to settle an old score with Saddam. Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. Saudi Arabia and Iran have a greater link to Bin Ladin. Did we invade them? No, because Saddam was a toothless tiger who was easier to take down. We couldn't invade Saudi Arabia because it is one of our main oil suppliers and the center of Islam. Meanwhile, Afganistan is religated to being a side show where Al Queda is reestablishing themselves. Bush is the greatest recruiting tool for global terrorism the world has ever seen. He misled the country on Saddam's WMD program and then when he is exposed as a BS artist, he passes the buck to the CIA. Bush is the closest thing to a dictator that our nation has ever seen. Before his term, the world respected the United States. Now we are looked down upon as an agressive loose cannon. Because of the prisoner abuse scandals, (90 different abuse cases being labled by the administration as "isolated incidents" rather than a pattern of brutality.) the United States no longer has any moral authority as a chamion of Human rights in the eyes of the world. As an American, I love my country. As a patriot, I will vote for John Kerry.

You are entitled to your opinion Bijou and I don't CARE who YOU vote for as long as you VOTE

On that point we agree completely.

[shiningstar]

[thomas7g]

I agree with alot of what you are saying Bijou, and respect it. Bush turns allies into enemies. That's the main reason why I hate him. But your first claim against Cheney I think doesn't work.

I agree he has been a bit of a bastard as a VP behind the scenes advising Bush. But under the senior Bush (who was much smarter), Cheney did a good job as Defense Secretary. The worlds was pre 9-11. We had just witnessed the collapse of the USSR. And we didn't need the HUGE defense allocations anymore since we didn't need a gigantic militrary to confront the USSR, which was probably the biggest most powerful war machine the world had known. So comparing Cheney's defense cuts after the cold war doesn't really compare to Kerry's modern proposed defense cuts.

I'll let his record speak for itself.

Cheney Proposed to Cut Defense Programs Vital to Recent Military Operations
Cheney Proposed Cutting F-16 Aircraft. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Cheney said, "If you're going to have a smaller air force, you don't need as many F-16s...The F-16D we basically continue to buy and close it out because we're not going to have as big a force structure and we won't need as many F-16s." According to the Boston Globe, Bush's 1991 defense budget "kill[ed] 81 programs for potential savings of $ 11.9 billion...Major weapons killed include[d]....the Air Force's F-16 airplane." [Cheney testimony, House Armed Services Committee, 2/7/91; Boston Globe, 2/5/91]

Cheney Proposed Cuts to B-2 Program. According to the Boston Globe, in 1990, "Defense Secretary Richard Cheney announced a cutback... of nearly 45 percent in the administration's B-2 Stealth bomber program, from 132 airplanes to 75..." [Boston Globe, 4/27/90]

Cheney Proposed Cutting AH-64 Apaches. In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, Cheney said, "This is just a list of some of the programs that I've recommended termination: the V-22 Osprey, the F-14D, the Army Helicopter Improvement Program, Phoenix missile, F-15E, the Apache helicopter, the M1 tank, et cetera." In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Cheney said, "The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64...I forced the Army to make choices...So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out." [Cheney testimony, Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, 6/12/90; Cheney Testimony, House Armed Services Committee, 7/13/89, emphasis added]

Cheney Proposed Cutting M-1 Abrams Tanks. In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, Cheney said, "This is just a list of some of the programs that I've recommended termination: the V-22 Osprey, the F-14D, the Army Helicopter Improvement Program, Phoenix missile, F-15E, the Apache helicopter, the M1 tank, et cetera." The Boston Globe reported on the impact of Cheney's cuts to armored tanks: "The Army's cupboard is left particularly bare. Coming in the wake of last year's killing of the M-1 tank and the Apache helicopter, the death of the M-2 means the Army will soon have virtually no major weapons in production." [Cheney testimony, Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, 6/12/90; Boston Globe, 2/5/91]

Cheney Proposed Cutting B-52 Bombers. In 1990, Cheney proposed cutting 14 B-52 bombers. Cheney also sought the retirement of two Navy battleships, two nuclear cruisers, and eight nuclear-powered attack submarines. In 1991, Cheney scrapped the Navy's A-12 Stealth attack plane, a fighter that was proclaimed to be a key part of the future of navy aviation in advanced stealth technology. [Newsday, 2/5/91; NY Times, 1/8/91; Boston Globe, 4/27/90; Boston Globe, 1/30/90]

Cheney's Record as Secretary of Defense Includes Cutting Troops and Bases
Cheney Cut Thousands of Active-Duty, Reserve, and Civilian Forces. In January 1990, Cheney banned the hiring of any new civilian personnel in the Defense Department through the end of September, which left more than 65,000 jobs vacant. Under the budget proposed in 1990, the Pentagon would have reduced active military personnel by 38,000; selected reserves would have fallen by 3,000. The budget called for the deactivation of two Army divisions. Long range, the Pentagon planned to reduce its work force by 300,000, including about 200,000 military personnel and 100,000 civilians. In 1991, he called for reduction of 200,000 active and reserve military personnel over two years. In 1992, Cheney called for cutting 500,000 active-duty people, 200,000 reservists, and 200,000 civilians over five years. [Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 2/2/92; Chicago Tribune, 2/20/91; 1990 CQ Almanac, p. 672; Washington Post, 1/13/90; Boston Globe, 1/30/90]

Active-Duty and Reserve Forces Endured Huge Reductions Under Cheney. The LA Times reported in November 1991 that the number of active-duty military personnel had decreased by over 106,000, or 5 percent of the total forces. The National Guard and Reserves had been cut by nearly 38,000, instead of the 105,000 the Bush Administration sought. [LA Times, 11/2/91]

Cheney Proposed Over 70 Base Closures. In 1990, Cheney proposed the closure of 72 domestic military installations and 12 overseas facilities. On April 12, 1991, Cheney proposed to close 31 major domestic military bases. The plan also called for shutting 12 smaller bases and reducing operations at 28 others. He submitted his list of closures to a commission on base closings on April 15, 1991. In 1992, Cheney proposed 70 overseas military base closures, three of which were in Turkey. [Aerospace Daily, 8/17/92; 1991 CQ Almanac, p. 427; Chicago Tribune, 1/30/90]

I don't mean for this board to become a partisan fighting ring. Basically, we are all here because we love Battlestar Galactica and science fiction in general. I just get a bit irritated when Kerry is characterized as an appeaser who is weak on defence.

[BST]

It's horribly sad that the events of 9/11 occurred and that Bush was forced to react to those events. If his predecessor, in the White House, had done more in the Oval Office than drop his pants, maybe Bush would not have had these decisions to make!

The first attack on the WTC and the attack on the USS Cole happened on Clinton's watch. What was his response?

It is true that Clinton should have done more against terrorism than lob a few missiles every now and then at suspected terrorist sites. However, why did Bush wait to do anything against terrorism until 9-11 occurred? If Bush was so clairvoiant, why did he not do something as soon as he took the oath of office? To blame Clinton for 9-11 is like blaiming Herbert Hoover for Pearl Harbor.

[BST]

Originally Posted by Bijou88

It is true that Clinton should have done more against terrorism than lob a few missiles every now and then at suspected terrorist sites. However, why did Bush wait to do anything against terrorism until 9-11 occurred? If Bush was so clairvoiant, why did he not do something as soon as he took the oath of office? To blame Clinton for 9-11 is like blaiming Herbert Hoover for Pearl Harbor.

Bijou,

Try setting your hatred of Bush aside for a moment and re-read what I wrote.

[thomas7g]

Bijou- Alot of the cuts you listed are good ideas.

The F16 is a wonderful plane, but it has a high maintenance problem. The F15 is also a much better plane. It has a higher ratio of flying hours to maintenance hours. It has a redundant engine which is important for an expensive jet in a battle. And it os a superior plane.

The Stealth bombers are also antiquated. They were designed for an enemy that doesn't exist anymore. In most of the countries we will be facing (past the first night of the war), a cesna flying at night is "stealth".

I dearly love the F-14, but frankly... its an antique. The F18 supercedes it on the battlefield.

And we don't even have to go near the Osprey!

The M-1 is a great battle tank. But it was also a cold war leftover. And the present force is lightyears beyond what any enemy can throw at us. We don't need more tanks. Maybe a defense against antitank missles...but buying more tanks doesn't give us that much more bang per buck.

We need a stronger more mobile but smaller military. Those cuts reflect that.

What you said was that the 9-11 terrorist attacks happened because Clinton was having sex in the oval office. I think that is really simplistic. I don't hate Bush. But I do hate his policies and agenda. I believe that Bush and his associates have done great harm to the reputation of the United States. The United States had the moral high ground and the sympathy of the world in the weeks after 9-11. Bush squandered this good will and thousands of our troops are now paying the price in Iraq. I own up to the fact that Clinton should have gone after Bin Laden. I think his responce was sadly lacking. However, my argument is what did Bush do once he was in office? Nothing. The 9-11 commission found that Clinton had four opportunities to prevent or hamper the attacks on September 11. That is over the 8 years of his presidency. Bush had six opportunities in his first 8 months in office. Who is more responcible?

Originally Posted by thomas7g

Bijou- Alot of the cuts you listed are good ideas.

The F16 is a wonderful plane, but it has a high maintenance problem. The F15 is also a much better plane. It has a higher ratio of flying hours to maintenance hours. It has a redundant engine which is important for an expensive jet in a battle. And it os a superior plane.

The Stealth bombers are also antiquated. They were designed for an enemy that doesn't exist anymore. In most of the countries we will be facing (past the first night of the war), a cesna flying at night is "stealth".

I dearly love the F-14, but frankly... its an antique. The F18 supercedes it on the battlefield.

And we don't even have to go near the Osprey!

The M-1 is a great battle tank. But it was also a cold war leftover. And the present force is lightyears beyond what any enemy can throw at us. We don't need more tanks. Maybe a defense against antitank missles...but buying more tanks doesn't give us that much more bang per buck.

We need a stronger more mobile but smaller military. Those cuts reflect that.

The reason I am talking about Cheney at all is becouse some of the posts above stated that Kerry is soft on defense and he voted to cut programs that we need to fight the war on terror. One person even called him a pacifist! A decorated Viet Nam Vet! Well, here is a comparison of Kerry and Cheney's records on defence:

BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLES: The Kerry Record

Kerry has supported at least $8.5 billion in defense authorizations for the Bradley program



THE CHENEY RECORD: Bush-Cheney Budget Terminated The Bradley. “Major weapons killed include the Army's M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Navy's Trident submarine and F-14 aircraft, and the Air Force's F-16 airplane. Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons.” [Boston Globe, 2/5/91]



BLACKHAWK HELICOPTERS:
The Kerry Record

Kerry has supported at least $13 billion in defense authorizations on versions of the Blackhawk.



THE CHENEY RECORD: “Terminate The Black Hawk. The Pentagon’s internal budget deliberations recommended termination of the Black Hawk program under Secretary Cheney.” [Aerospace Daily, 5/15/90]



B-2 BOMBER:
The Kerry Record

Kerry has supported over $16.7 billion in defense authorizations for the B-2 program



THE CHENEY RECORD: Cheney Proposed Cuts to B-2 Program, According to the RNC, B-2s Were Crucial to Operation Iraqi Freedom. According to the Boston Globe, in 1990, “Defense Secretary Richard Cheney announced a cutback… of nearly 45 percent in the administration's B-2 Stealth bomber program, from 132 airplanes to 75…” [Boston Globe, 4/27/90; From RNC Research Memo, “Kerry’s Military: As He Would Like It,” 7/18/03:



F/A-18 FIGHTER JETS: The Kerry Record

Kerry supported at least $60 billion in defense authorizations for the F/A-18 and F-18



THE CHENEY RECORD: Cutbacks Hit Industry Hard: Workers and the industry were hit hard by Cheney’s decision for “major cuts” in the F/A-18 program and upgrades to the F-18 in the late 1980s [Flight International, 6/27/90; Los Angeles Times, 12/17/89; Aerospace Daily, 5/26/89; Aviation Week and Space Technology, 5/1/89]



PATRIOT MISSILE SYSTEM:
The Kerry Record

Kerry supported at least $10 billion in defense authorizations for the Patriot program.

SOURCES ON KERRY SPENDING: Congressional Quarterly Almanacs, 1986-2002; House Armed Service Committee Authorization Conference Report Summaries; Conference Reports for Defense Authorizations, FY1986 – present


I agree with you about the Osprey. It is a flying death trap. But I think our troops are happy to have the M-1 and stealth bombers at the ready.

[BST]

What you said was that the 9-11 terrorist attacks happened because Clinton was having sex in the oval office. I think that is really simplistic.

Forgive me for being so simplistic. Allow me to be more to the point.

Comparing Clinton's and Bush's lack of reaction - apples and oranges.


How would Bush have prevented the 9/11 attacks? Where were they going to occur? LA? NY? DC? Texas? Alaska? In the days leading up to the attacks, your guess would have been as good as mine. The difference between the lack of reaction, of each, is rather clear - Clinton's was a lack of reaction to something that had already occurred; Bush's was a lack of preventative measures.

Had Clinton reacted to those incidents, at the time they occurred, perhaps 9/11 would never have happened. Al-Qaeda gained 'momentum' and were emboldened by these events AND the lack of an American military response.


I'll admit to taking a potshot at Clinton with the Oval Office remark but, I have absolutely NO respect for the man. I wish him no ill will and the best of success in his book sales but, as far as I'm concerned, he was an embarrassment to this country.

***

Regarding the issue of WMD's, I'm not surprised that none were found. Saddam had at least a 12 year advance warning (since the end of the Gulf War) that we would be back! In addition, there are "reports" that the highways connecting Iraq and Syria were quite busy in the time period leading up to the invasion of Iraq, last year. Is it unreasonable to consider the possibility that the weapons did manage to slip out of the country?

****

Moving onto the lack of agreement, i.e., France, Germany, and Russia voting against the UN resolution to attack Iraq, their reasons were not humanitarian but, economic. Each of those countries had extensive business dealings with Saddam and those contracts would be worthless if his regime fell.

Funny but, I seem to remember an embargo being in place, with regards to Iraq, except for medical and humanitarian supplies.

I guess these 3 countries were not above breaking international law, either.

****

Finally, and I love this one -- Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Granted, they did not actually fly the planes but, .......

If they were not involved, please be kind enough to enlighten me as to WHY there was a training camp, attended by Al-Qaeda members, complete with a mock-up of a jetliner. At this camp, the attendees were taught methods of attack while on an airliner, using such easily concealable items as box cutters. Sound familiar? This was done with the knowledge and support of the Hussein regime. Does this not qualify as "aiding in the cause" ?

Originally Posted by BST

Forgive me for being so simplistic. Allow me to be more to the point

How would Bush have prevented the 9/11 attacks? Where were they going to occur? LA? NY? DC? Texas? Alaska? In the days leading up to the attacks, your guess would have been as good as mine. The difference between the lack of reaction, of each, is rather clear - Clinton's was a lack of reaction to something that had already occurred; Bush's was a lack of preventative measures.


***

Regarding the issue of WMD's, I'm not surprised that none were found. Saddam had at least a 12 year advance warning (since the end of the Gulf War) that we would be back! In addition, there are "reports" that the highways connecting Iraq and Syria were quite busy in the time period leading up to the invasion of Iraq, last year. Is it unreasonable to consider the possibility that the weapons did manage to slip out of the country?

****

Moving onto the lack of agreement, i.e., France, Germany, and Russia voting against the UN resolution to attack Iraq, their reasons were not humanitarian but, economic. Each of those countries had extensive business dealings with Saddam and those contracts would be worthless if his regime fell.

Funny but, I seem to remember an embargo being in place, with regards to Iraq, except for medical and humanitarian supplies.

I guess these 3 countries were not above breaking international law, either.

****

Finally, and I love this one -- Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Granted, they did not actually fly the planes but, .......

If they were not involved, please be kind enough to enlighten me as to WHY there was a training camp, attended by Al-Qaeda members, complete with a mock-up of a jetliner. At this camp, the attendees were taught methods of attack while on an airliner, using such easily concealable items as box cutters. Sound familiar? This was done with the knowledge and support of the Hussein regime. Does this not qualify as "aiding in the cause" ?

On your first point you say that in Clinton's case it would be in responce to something that already happened. For Bush it was a lack of preventative measures. Wasn't it also Bush's job to remember the first attack on the WTS and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole? Just becaues it took place during another administaration dousn't mean it didn't happen. Why didn't Bush do something about it on day one of his administration? Why did he wait intill 9-11?

As to WMDs-Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell led us all down the garden path by giving us the impression that Iraq was floating on a sea of bio and chemical weapons. Since the invasion, we have found squat. If Saddam moved the WMDs to Syria, doesn't that mean that the Syrians are now a major threat to peace? When are we going to invade them? By the way, do you know where Saddam got the Bio-toxin samples for his program in the 1980s? It was from the Reagan administration. We wanted Saddam to use them in Iraq's war with Iran. Of cource this is kept on the down-low. It wouldn't make W's rational for war look too good.

Your third point regarded French Russian and German opposition to the war. You said this was based on economic rather than humanitarian concerns. This might very well be. But if you think that the U.S. invaded Iraq on purely humanitarian motives you"ve been watching Fox News too much. It was about securing a stable supply of oil in the Middle-East. That Haliburton and similar companies could rake in vast profits was merely frosting on the cake.

your final point deals with Iraq's involvment with 9-11. I don't know where you obtained this information, but I have never read anything about such an elaborate camp. I do know that Bin Ladin hated Saddam because he was running a secular state in the Middle East. Saddam, for his part wanted to keep the status quo and live the good life skimming profits off of the food for oil program. He was fat and happy and the leader of a country with the lowest standard of living in the middle east. Saddam didn't need an upstart like Bin Ladin to come in and stir up trouble. He didn't want a figure like Bin Ladin to set up shop in his fifedom and ferment an Islamic revolution. It is sad to see that many people still believe that there is a like between Iraq and Al Queda. The 9-11 commision made it clear that there was no like beween the two parties.

A healthy exchange of ideas is the lifeblood of a strong democracy.

[thomas7g]

Bijou! Look at all the dates of those quotes.

You are talking about a TOTALLY different world.

Of course your needed military cuts back then.

You are making me argue pro-cheney. I don't like cheney! But your logic about Cheney being bad cause of his defense cuts during the collapse of the soviet empire don't really make alot of sense.

The Soviet Empire was collapsing. Of course we don't need a military to take them on. Not anymore.

Its a totally different world.

Originally Posted by thomas7g

Bijou! Look at all the dates of those quotes.

You are talking about a TOTALLY different world.

Of course your needed military cuts back then.

You are making me argue pro-cheney. I don't like cheney! But your logic about Cheney being bad cause of his defense cuts during the collapse of the soviet empire don't really make alot of sense.

The Soviet Empire was collapsing. Of course we don't need a military to take them on. Not anymore.

Its a totally different world.

Sorry Thomas! I would never want to put you in a position to defend Cheney. I'm glad we are on the same side.

My point is that the GOP is trying to portray Cheney as a defense god and Kerry as a whimp who wants to conduct the war on terror via pillow fights. It is just not the case. If all the military hardware that Cheney wanted to cut was cut, what would our armed forces be fighing with now?

You point out that the Cheney cuts happend as a result of the end of the cold war. Well, the defense votes that the GOP are trying to sink Kerry with occured well before 9-11. That changed however. Throught the 90s Kerry voted for lots of military hardware. By no streach of the imagination could Kerry be styled as soft on defence, an appeaser and a pacifist.

[thomas7g]

Sorry Thomas! I would never want to put you in a position to defend Cheney. I'm glad we are on the same side.

Hehe. No problem.

I seriously have to wait and see, to see exactly what the Bush side will claim against Kerry. Obviously I don't care about any votes to cut military programs prior to 911. Cause nothing before then relates to now.

Regards to Cheney. I think he was a damn good Defense Secretary. When he had to reduce the huge amount we spend on defense, he cut the department down without being partisan. He cut less effective costly programs to fund the basic needs of your ordinary soldier. Like guns that don't jam. Radios newer than the Korean War. And a weekly alotment that a basic soldier can live off of without going into debt. He cut lucrative contractsand bases even though many senators were fighting him tooth'n'nail to not cut in THEIR backyard.

But that was then, and obviously this guy thinks differently now.

Kerry, I'm worried about. I keep seeing him flip flop on foreign policy. Which worries me! I'm still waiting to see backbone in him. I haven't seen it yet.

My decision will be based primarily on who is best suited to deal with Al Qaeda, North Korea and Iran. So whoever convinces me they are best suited gets my vote.