I know it's a long shot, but Ron Paul would be my choice and everyone else's if you listen to this man's message. He is the only canidate that isn't backed by corporate entities and only accepts money from individuals. He is true-blue and is on the side of the people. He's beens labeled as radical, but most of his ideas hold great merit for the individual in this country. He talks about abolishing the federal reserve, which most of us think is a government institution. It isn't. It is a group of bankers from the US and abroad that make money for the cost of the paper, backed by nothing, and loan it to us for a profit. You don't have to believe me. Look it up. It was an idea created by the richest men in this country in the early part of the 20th century and pushed into existence by the same men. It was a quite stealthy move and it worked. By the constitution, the government has the right to coin, value and regulate money in this country, but they don't. They leave it to an elite group of bankers, who also make up the list for the president to chose the next chairman of the federal reserve from among their ranks. So who really runs this country?

John McCain, because look at the options!

What options?!?!

John McCain= 100 more years in Iraq, I say no way!

McCain is just being realistic about the war in Iraq. Without doubt there will be a long-term U.S. Military presence in Iraq. To just walk away would be a catastrophic mistake!

Bamabob,

I agree. We need to let our military do their job to protect our country. I shudder to think if some of these candidates had been our president on 9/11, what the outcome would have been. Would they have just said, "you were bad boys, don't hurt our people again?" Let us not forget, the war was started by Al Queda and the terrorist cells, not by America. The media likes to hype on the negative aspects of the war and our President, but we need to look at what good has come from the war and his office. We need someone who will continue to defend America's freedom, because without that, nothing else really matters.

We need a president who won't make the mistake to attack a country unprovoked and with no basis for attack. Afghanistan is a completely different war than Iraq, we attacked Al Qaeda there because they attacked us...... there was no reason to invade Iraq..... I don't want war with Iran either!

Since when is America about taking over the world? There's no reason to be in Iraq, we shouldn't stay there.


I know there are many opposing opinions to mine, but when is war and killing ever a good option, especially when there was no reason?

Obama is the only candidate who spoke out against going to war with Iraq, Clinton and McCain supported Bush's decision.

Bush has pounded fear into the heads of Americans for so long that's all lots of people can think about. Bush's promise that they'll be killing us over here unless we win over there has made so many people paranoid they've lost sight of everything else that matters.

Now McCain is taking over the Bush's war cry, keeping the fear going, scaring Americans into thinking that only he knows what it takes to keep us safe. And obviously those who are scared will grasp at any promise of protection, valid or not.

-nab

Do you want to try and turn back the hands of time, or do you want to deal with the situation as it exists today?

We are engaged in a war and we need a Commander in Chief that knows how to bring about a successful conclusion. We do not need a leader that promises to bail out immediately during a speech designed to play upon emotions and then later admit that such a plan would be impossible.

We need a whole lot of reality and a whole lot less motivational rhetoric!

Do you want to try and turn back the hands of time, or do you want to deal with the situation as it exists today?

We are engaged in a war and we need a Commander in Chief that knows how to bring about a successful conclusion.

It is true that we can’t turn back the hands of time, but does that mean we should ignore the past when looking for wisdom in deciding a course of action in the future?

I’ll give you an example of what I mean. The Pentagon has just finished studying hundreds of thousands of documents seized from Iraq. The conclusion: There was no link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Queda.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88154003&ft=1&f=1001

However, since Hussein was dethroned, there is now a definite Al-Queda presence in Iraq .

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/26/alqaeda.book/index.html

On this simple basis, we can say that the invasion of Iraq has made things worse, not better. So supposing we could turn back the hands of time, it is easy to say that we should have chosen the lesser of two evils. We could have tolerated one big dragon, or let loose thousands of little dragons.

With things like this in mind, perhaps we have to redefine what can be considered a “successful” conclusion. Perhaps there is not a successful conclusion to Iraq in the way people are accustomed to thinking. Most people still believe in the “Stratego” concept of war. Capture the enemy’s flag, and then you go home.

What if instead you must define success as the lesser of two evils?

Choice 1-Withdraw from Iraq and watch things get bad.

Choice 2-Stay in Iraq and watch things get worse.