Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Thanks AP, I just read kerry’s campaign speech, thanks for the easy link.
To be honest, I find it more of the same useless drivel that Bush gave at the convention. While kerry gave many obvious solutions, he gave no proof that he would be able to do any better than Bush. Sure, there were lots of “I will do this” and the such, but exactley how will kerry be able to do these things?

Posted by: kctim at September 23, 2004 09:37 AM

It is terrifying that Kerry’s focus is on the UN. Other than the Oil-for-Food scandal, the UN was completely ineffective at doing anything in Iraq, as it is now doing nothing in the Sudan. In fact, where has the UN ever been effective?

As Thomas Sowell points out today, Kerry has done nothing as a Senator. I would love to hear what Kerry has been doing in the Senate, including when he missed all those intelligence committee meetings. Also, how can Kerry say that we acted unilaterally? What a lie! More than forty countries have been involved in Iraq. Which countries have been the biggest dissenters? The ones profiting from either the Oil-for-Food scandal or the secret, illegal contracts with the Hussein regime. Those are the countries Kerry is now courting. Somehow, that seems appropriate.

Posted by: Troy at September 23, 2004 09:58 AM

he gave no proof that he would be able to do any better than Bush.

kctim, what would you accept in the way of proof? Maybe a pledge by EU leaders to a man who isn’t even President, yet? You know that’s not going to happen.

I spell out in the article two reasons why Bush failed and Kerry wil prevail:

Bush has repeatedly rejected a leadership role for the UN and NATO in Iraq. Why would they want to be involved in an operation where they have responsibility, but no authority? Kerry will give them a stake in bringing about the best possible solution in Iraq.

Bush has systematically pissed off every world leader in a position to offer substantial aid (troops AND cash). These guys are not interested in helping Bush. Petty? Yes - and very human. A Kerry presidency means a whole new ballgame. These guys will have to put-up or shut-up on the “We’re not anti-American, we’re just anti-Bush” talk.

For Americans, Bush is a known entity: He’s a failure. Kerry is a fresh start.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 23, 2004 10:02 AM

k ctim, my opinion is not far from the one you have expressed above, but realistically what proof could Kerry offer?

The only evidence and proof, on this subject, indicates that Bush has made a complete mess of Iraq, and his failure to acknowledge that this is a problem, really is significant. On this alone, and provided Kerry keeps his suggestions sane, Bush could not be any sober person’s choice for the job to restore order to Iraq.

Posted by: Bob Hope at September 23, 2004 10:06 AM

Bob:

The reality is that Kerry has no proof to offer. Proof will only be available if Kerry is elected. Its kind of like trashtalking before a boxing match—its all woofing and counts for nothing when the fight begins. Then, and only then, do you know if the fighter walks the walk.

That having been said, it IS possible to look at past situations. For instance, Pat Ewing of the Knicks repeatedly guaranteed New York fans a championship, but never was able to deliver one. To continue believing his statements, in the absence of proof, would have been silly. Now Mike Jordan, on the other hand, delivered the goods—-I’d believe him more about a future occurrence than I would a Pat Ewing.

Kerry, in my opinion, has never really delivered the goods. I’m not sure he has really promised to before either. I simply dont see him as being able to deliver on what he claims he can. I have not seen from his past that he has that ability.

He claims he will provide for better intelligence, yet in 8 years on the Senate Intell Committee, he missed 76% of the meetings. That doesnt give me confidence.

He claims he will involve the UN, but having seen the UN fail in Kosovo, Rwanda, the Congo, Iraq etc, I dont have confidence in them either.

Kerry’s meandering on Iraq doesnt give me a good feeling that he is certain about the direction to go. I think he is checking to see which way the wind is blowing. No one in their right mind can honestly say he has been direct in his approach to supporting, opposing, supporting, opposing the Iraq war.

I’ve presented solid reasons why I dont think Kerry can pull off what he claims he can. Do you have solid reasons for thinking he can, other than that he is not Bush?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 23, 2004 10:22 AM

In fact, where has the UN ever been effective?

Hmm… East Timor? Kosovo? Bosnia? Herzegovina? Prevlaka? Sierra Leone? If you’re asking a serious question, you can look it up.

But Troy I know you’re not serious. You’re asking a rhetorical question, and you believe the correct answer is: never. You’re quite wrong. How about the first Gulf War? That was pretty effective at removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

There’s no doubt that the UN is most effective when led by the United States. Too bad President Bush was uninterested in leading the UN into Iraq.

Bush’s neo-con advisors - including Dick Cheney - believe that the United States doesn’t need the UN or NATO for legitimacy when taking military action around the world. They believe in creating ad-hoc coalitions of like-minded nations for any particular action.

If you want to argue Bush’s foreign policy and the legitimacy of military action on those grounds, fine. If you just want to cap on the UN, you’re going to have to do your homework.

BTW, here’s a previous article I submitted on reforming the UN.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 23, 2004 10:30 AM

Do you have solid reasons for thinking he can, other than that he is not Bush?

Hmm… joe, that’s actually one of the best reasons. I’ve offered two very good reasons in my article. You’ve offered a really pathetic analogy, a flawed opinion, an untruthful statement, and to claim that Kerry’s very clear path to success in Iraq is “meandering” just tells me you didn’t see the speech or read the transcript.

If you want to spout off with an opinion joe, that’s fine. But don’t try to pass that off as “solid reasons.”

Posted by: American Pundit at September 23, 2004 10:38 AM

The UN is a corrupt organization and I don’t want them there either. As far a NATO, many nations who are members of NATO are in Iraq now. You say kerry can’t offer any proof that he could do better. But I should still vote for him?
Newspaper headlines are not proof that Bush is failing. I speak to soldiers who have been there, they overwhelmingly support Bush, tell the bad AND good that is going on in Iraq and don’t want the UN being any part of it.
Under clinton and his views, troop morale was at an all time low. How would kerry and his views be any different.

Posted by: kctim at September 23, 2004 10:39 AM

I agree that the broad strokes of Kerry’s plan are similar to Bush’s objectives. Looking at them at a high level, it’s clear that Bush wants to do the same things.

First, the President has to get the promised international support…

Second, the President must get serious about training Iraqi security forces….

Third, the President must carry out a reconstruction plan…

Fourth, the President must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year…

How can Kerry claim to do these things better than Bush?

Well, the first and most obvious argument against the President is his track record so far in meeting these goals. We can make this case regardless of who his opponent is. The fact is that Bush has not succeeded very well in any of these objectives. When an employee fails to meet the goals you expect of him, you fire him. That’s the simplest argument in a nutshell. Not only has he failed to make adequate progress towards these goals, he has not demonstrated the ability either to adapt his strategy or to be honest with the American people about the progress of our mission. He has failed to hold anyone accountable for the failures and missteps in the invasion and reconstruction operations. Finally, he has shown continuous misjudgement about the nature of the military and intelligence situation, going back all the way to the “planning” before the war. If he is re-elected, I guess we can expect four more years of collosal mistakes, embarassments, and deceptions.

Okay, so the current guy’s a consistent flop. Is the new guy going to be any better? How will Kerry be better at these goals?

Well, there are some key positions that Kerry has taken and will implement as President that this President will never do. Kerry has taken several positions that radically distinguish him from Bush’s team, and that will certainly make a huge difference towards securing international support. Here are a few:

—> Kerry will convene an international summit of Iraq’s neighbors to discuss the future security situation in the region. Bush should be doing that right now, while so many leaders are here in the United States for the new UN session.

—> Kerry will allow foreign companies, including those who did not participate in the invasion, to bid (competitively even!) on Iraq reconstruction contracts. Bush’s team not only locks out competition internationally, they lock out competition within the US itself.

—> Kerry will raise the world’s perception of America’s moral authority by firing, punishing, and condemning those Americans who would commit torture and those who would even defend the idea. He certainly would not have his lawyers prepare a case in defense of torture, as Bush inexcusably did.

—> Kerry will actually talk about Osama bin Laden, and will use that rhetoric to give foreign leaders the political support they need to provide support to America’s real war against terrorism. Bush refuses to even mention Osama’s name, much less invite other countries to join us in tracking him down.

Bush’s team is either immovably ideologically opposed to these ideas or lacks the international credibility, clout, and authority (i.e., nobody trusts him) to carry them out. I’ll admit that Kerry’s campaign speeches sometimes oversimplify this difference when he suggests that all we have to do is change Presidents and the world will love us again, but it’s not far from the truth: Nobody wants to work with Bush because nobody trusts him

I’ll close with a quote from Richard Perle, one of the President’s chief architects of the Iraq invasion. He said this exactly one year ago yesterday:

“A year from now, I’ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush.”

Perle is insane. Totally insane. This is the kind of delusional mind that is running our country. Kerry’s right, these guys do live in a “fantasy land”. The argument that anyone would be better than Bush isn’t too far off the mark. Kerry actually has both concrete plans and new ideas for the details of bringing peace to Iraq. Bush has neither.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 23, 2004 10:40 AM

kctim, you have all the proof you need that Bush is a failure, but you’re still going to vote for him?

The troops that went into Afghanistan in December 2001 were Clinton’s troops. They were trained and equipped under his presidency. Looking back at the military under Nixon, Ford, and Carter, I don’t think you can honestly say that under Clinton “troop morale was at an all time low.”

In fact, based on statements by serving officers like Marine Lt. General James Conway, I’d say Bush’s failed policies are responsible for the current disillusionment of many US troops in Iraq.

Bush is flailing in Iraq. Kerry has a clear plan for success.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 23, 2004 10:49 AM

Go ahead. Bring in those leaders and give them authority. Let them all fight over the way things should be done in Iraq and who should make the most money off of the situation.
Don’t even ask the people of Iraq. They aren’t smart enough to know what they want or need. After all, they let Hussein and his henchmen rule for years.
Money makes the world go ‘round.

Posted by: Dawn at September 23, 2004 10:52 AM

Haha! So Dawn, you think that under a UN mandate, the Iraqis will have less say in how their country is run than they do now?

All of the reconstruction contracts go to US firms. The US is in charge of internal security (such as it is). The US is in charge of Iraq’s foreign policy. Iraq is being governed by a US-appointed interim government consisting of a bunch of exiles who are back in the country for the first time in thirty years, and being led by a Prime Minister that worked for both the CIA and Britain’s MI6.

Please.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 23, 2004 11:05 AM

BTW, seriously, what’s the objection to running Iraq as a UN mandate? I don’t hear anyone screaming to remove UN mandated troops from East Timor or Sierra Leone? What’s the difference?

Posted by: American Pundit at September 23, 2004 11:17 AM

> Don’t even ask the people of Iraq.

Funny you should say that, Dawn, because that’s exactly what the Bush Administration is doing. Naomi Klein wrote an excellent peice about this in this month’s Harpers (“Baghdad Year Zero”), I suggest that all WatchBloggers read it for an economic perspective on how the Bush Administration has failed and even betrayed the Iraqi people in the name of proving an economic ideological theory.

One of the first actions taken by Paul Bremer when he got to Iraq was to issue an order allowing American corporations who were being given reconstruction contracts to reinvest 100% of their financial gains outside of Iraq. That’s right, if an American company makes money managing a floundering Iraqi corporation, they can take that money outside of Iraq and re-invest it elsewhere, resulting in a net capital loss for Iraq and its people.

Also, because so many of Iraq’s industries were socialized under Saddam (that is, government managed or regulated), the American neocon Milton Friedman-influenced occupation strategy was to totally dismantle them and essentially give their assets (factories, inventories) to American companies.

These two strategies have led to a growing, and now probably universally-held, perception among the Iraqi people that the Bush Administration is looting Iraq. The funding for the insurgency is beleived to be coming in large part from Iraqi businessmen who resent this capital drain and want to see it stop, businessmen who want to restore local, Iraqi control of Iraqi industry.

Dawn, you probably didn’t realize how right you were. And you’re voting for Bush?

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 23, 2004 11:17 AM

Cf, don’t forget about the $20 billion in Iraqi oil revenue that Bush’s CPA mismanaged. A recent KPMG audit found that after the CPA took over Iraq’s oil for food program, $20 billion was improperly or totally unaccounted for.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 23, 2004 11:27 AM

I never said that someone else couldn’t do it better. Kerry has not said how he will get those people to help. Reading what he says isn’t good enough - I want to watch him say it.
The Iraqi people should have the jobs. Not the rest of the world no matter who is in charge.
You really believe that the UN can do the job? Don’t the leaders have to agree on the mandate first?

Just who would Kerry have put into the interim government?

We can all say what we would have done different.

I am going to watch Kerry and Bush very close in the Foreign Affairs debate. I hope you will too. With an open mind - not with a Bush blows and Kerry is great attitude. Just so you are clear - I am not a Bush lover.

Posted by: Dawn at September 23, 2004 11:31 AM

AP: When I listen to TV and read the headlines, Bush is a failure. When I talk with the people who are actually there, and have no political agenda, I hear both sides. A lot more good is happening than bad.
I served under Reagan, Bush1, clinton and Bush2. clinton severly damaged the military and the morale of the troops. Please don’t refer to us as clintons troops. That is why around 90 some percent of the military voted against clinton. The troops in Afghanistan are the same ones in Iraq today. They are short on equipment and training because of all the military cuts in the 90s.
Conways remarks are right on cue. The military is always hampered because of “PC” decisions. But he did not say he did not support Bush or his views on Iraq. kerry will act the same way on these matters, then the right will be whining.

Cf: Thanks for alittle info on where kerry stands on this. I have not seen many of it before and will research on those.
Your four differences are really interesting to me, but the rest is just your opinions and I respect that.
Your first diff. is really appealing, I wonder why Bush has not done that yet. Good call.
The second diff. is one I disagree on. I am not for world govt. I do not think our enemies and non-supporters should profit at our expense.
The third diff. is just one of your opinion and hope.
Your fourth diff. is also a hope, but one that should be done.

Good call Dawn!

Posted by: kctim at September 23, 2004 11:35 AM

AP, that’s ironic because if you’ll recall the Administration’s early rhetoric, Iraq’s oil revenue money was supposed to pay for the occupation and reconstruction. It wasn’t supposed to just disappear.

Instead, just yesterday the Pentagon announced that they have been tapping into our $25 billion Iraq contingency fund, money designed to be spent in a dire unforeseen emergency (I guess the insurgency was “unforeseen”?).

And a week ago they took $3.5 billion away from Iraqi water and power projects to help pay for more security. Not a bad short-term decision, mind you, but shouldn’t they have thought about this in advance?

The cost of this war is spiralling far beyond anything Bush’s team ever projected, at least publicly. Has anything gone according to their fantasy plans?

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 23, 2004 11:40 AM

Thanks for your comments, kctim. I wanted to quickly focus on this one:
> The second diff. is one I disagree on. I am
> not for world govt. I do not think our
> enemies and non-supporters should profit at
> our expense.

First of all, there is nothing “world government” about allowing foreign companies to compete for contracts in Iraq. It’s just business. Free-market business!

And there is an added bonus, too: Part of the Kerry plan, in fact, is to make the participation of foreign businesses contingent on their nations’ leaders agreeing to forgive once and for all all of Iraq’s debt to them. It’s a very good trade-off, and one that will benefit everyone involved.

It seems to me that by denying non-coalition countries the opportunity to compete to give Iraq the best possible deal (and to dramatically undermine the perception that America is looting Iraq), that we are putting ideological beleifs ahead of what is obviously the best thing for the Iraqi people and, in turn, ahead of what is best for America. I understand your concern that we would seem to be rewarding those who did not stand by us when we invaded, but is punishing Russia more important than succeeding in Iraq? Not for me it isn’t.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 23, 2004 11:51 AM

Cf: We will just have to agree to disagree on how that one works. I said world govt. because most are saying the world should be allowed to profit in the rebuilding of Iraq. I disagree with that, I think the supporting coalition, who took all the risks, should be at the forefront. But that is just a side note to this topic.
Thanks for the info.

Posted by: kctim at September 23, 2004 12:03 PM

The UN can sometimes maintain peace, but cannot establish it. The UN cut and ran out or Iraq right at the start. Some of the UN successes mentioned by American Pundit (Kosovo, Bosnia, Rwanda) if he UN calls these successes. . well. Kosovo was specifically not authorized by the UN (fear of Russian veto) Bosnia is the place where UN peacekeepers watched as Muslim men and boys were led to their deaths. Peace was not established until NATO replaced the UN, along with more lethal rules of engagement. In Rwanda, the UN stepped in about the time everyone who was likely to be killed had been killed. They patrolled the graveyard. A year from now we will be talking about Darfur in the same vein. I can’t think of any important situations where the UN actually established peace. As for keeping the peace, the U.S. pays 57% of all peace keeping UN operations. 57% sort or makes them U.S. operations – with blue helmets.

The same logic goes for foreign contractors. The U.S. is paying for most of Iraqi reconstruction. (By the way, most of this “reconstruction” is not from the recent war. The Iraqi infrastructure was going to hell for ten years.) The U.S. should have some say as to how it spends its money.

Posted by: Jack at September 23, 2004 02:43 PM

I should point out that all this peacekeeping is but a SMALL part of the UN. UNICEF, AIDS Prevention, Women’s Rights, Food Aid, etc. Before you go bashing the UN, you should learn more about it beyond your little universe.

You should also know that while the US and NATO did indeed do the physical work in Kosovo and Bosnia, the UN did a lot of behind the scenes work to help the process along.

As for foreign contractors go, just about everybody thinks the US is there because of Iraqi Oil. They look at the 100+ other Dictators that still exists and just don’t believe the Saddam line.

Aldous.

Posted by: Aldous at September 23, 2004 11:06 PM

Aldous
I was not trashing the UN, just pointing out its obvious shortcomings in response to an overly optimistic assessment.

I did make a mistake in my peace keeping number. It is only 27% that the U.S. funds, still impressive, but not the majority. But in my “little universe” the United States is still the largest contributor to the UN and has been every year since its creation in 1945. We provided more than $3 billion in contributions, both cash and in-kind, to the UN system in 2002. (In-kind contributions include items such as food donations for the World Food Program). The United States funded 22 percent of the UN regular budget, as well as more than 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. Additionally, the United States provides a significant amount in voluntary contributions to the UN and UN-affiliated organizations and activities, mostly for humanitarian and development programs.

To your last point, most of the world thinks the war is about oil and most of the world is wrong about the details. It is about oil in the sense that oil = money = power to destabilize the world economy. That is one reason Saddam Hussein was more of a threat than other little nasties (Robert Mugabe and Alexander Lukashenko leap to mind) around the world and Saddam had a proven record as a destablizer. But the war was definitely not about oil in the sense of the U.S. taking it. Saddam was willing to sell all the oil he could at below market prices. If it was about cheap oil, we had that option. Beyond that, Iraq produces only $20 billion of oil when things are going well. As many people have pointed out, the U.S. will spend ten times that much, so even if we got every drop of Iraqi oil at no cost to us, we would be spending $200 billion to get $20 billion. War used to be directly profitable to the victor. Not any more, at least to the U.S. The U.S. might have gone into Iraq for the wrong reasons, but greed was not one of them.

We also have to get over the idea that there is so much wealth to be had in the Middle East. For individuals this is true, but not for countries that must be concerned with the whole picture. The U.S. makes a lot more money from peaceful trade with even relatively small European countries than from the Arab world. The UN (they are good at reports) found that ALL THE ARAB COUNTRIES COMBINED HAVE A GNP SMALLER THAN SPAIN’S. These are poor countries in a poor region and the U.S. doesn’t make much money in poor places. If were only about the money, we wouldn’t bother. The Middle East important for the strategic energy resources, not the wealth per se.

Posted by: Jack at September 24, 2004 12:07 AM

I wonder if anyone would care to explain how Kerry’s attack on Allawi, basically calling him a liar and a fraud, fits into Kerry’s grand strategy of “sensitive diplomacy?” In attacking Bush for the purposes of his own domestic election chances, how can he justify burning bridges with Iraq’s leaders?

No matter what anybody thinks of Allawi, he’s all Iraq has right now—he’s commited to achieving democratic elections—and I find attempts to undermine him in they eyes of the world and other Iraqis to be destructive reckless and ultimately contemptible behavior. What possible good can come from attacking Allawi? Kerry is so blinded by his personal ambitions that he’s willing to make Iraq’s already difficult road even more difficult.

If Kerry won, how could he possibly now work with Allawi (or all the other countries he has called “a fraudulent coalition?”). Does he really think that the UN, who has said they WON’T help, is going to ride to the rescue after he’s attacked, demeaned and alienated everybody else who IS helping?

Also, I’d just like to note: the same people who loved Kerry’s Iraq speech at NYU also thought his convention speech was a thing of utter beauty. At that time Kerry was up a few points in almost all the polls. Some speech! This is yet another example of media/leftist cheerleading for Kerry which is totally out of touch with reality.

Posted by: Martin at September 24, 2004 12:24 AM

The UN can sometimes maintain peace, but cannot establish it.

Duh, Jack. Kerry is proposing a NATO force under a UN mandate. The same system you rate as effective in Kosovo. I’m not sure why the concept is a problem for you. It’s a common sense application of a successful system.

Kerry is also right about opening up the bidding process for contractors. If you want other countries to pony up some troops or cash, you need to give them a stake in success. Bush is not doing that,

The Bush administration has abandoned the idea of giving the United Nations more of a role in the occupation of Iraq as sought by France, India and other countries as a condition for their participation in peacekeeping there, administration officials say.

Right now the EU sees Iraq as Bush’s Folly,

“Most people want to help Iraq but not in a way that rewards Bush,” says a senior EU diplomat.

EU policymakers, who view almost all current American initiatives with suspicion, will be ready to give “more credit” to the future actions of a Democratic presidency even if the policies are not too different from current ones.

Jack,

Beyond that, Iraq produces only $20 billion of oil when things are going well. As many people have pointed out, the U.S. will spend ten times that much,

Bush’s economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey got fired for predicting that the war would cost about $200 billion. The administration firmly believed Iraqi oil would pay for the invasion and the occupation - and then some.

Does he really think that the UN, who has said they WON’T help, is going to ride to the rescue

Yes Martin. And there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence - including one report in this article (you might want to read it, it’s pretty good) - to back it up.

Kerry has said on a couple occasions that he’s had private assurances of goodwill from leaders of countries which support the US, but despise Bush.

Let’s see that quote one more time. It says it all:

“Most people want to help Iraq but not in a way that rewards Bush,” says a senior EU diplomat.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 24, 2004 02:31 AM

>Cf: We will just have to agree to disagree on >how that one works. I said world govt. because >most are saying the world should be allowed to >profit in the rebuilding of Iraq. I disagree >with that, I think the supporting coalition, >who took all the risks, should be at the >forefront. But that is just a side note to this >topic.

To date virtually all the money spent on reconstructing Iraq has been Iraqi, rather than US, money. If we are spending our own money and want to make sure that any profits accrue to coalition countries then fine, but, short of a mandate from the Iraqi people to do the same, while we are spending Iraqis’ money we have an obligation to get the best deal possible, i.e. open up bidding as widely as possible.

It is quite simply not out right to decide who profits from the Iraqi money we have been spending.

Posted by: Grimble at September 24, 2004 03:19 AM

Chris,

First of all, there is nothing “world government” about allowing foreign companies to compete for contracts in Iraq. It’s just business. Free-market business!

Please explain why the offensive attitude toward outsourcing jobs here in the US in order to compete in a global market and the intense desire to make contracts available to foreign companies for a “free market”. Is there a contradiction here perhaps? Or is there a difference that I seem to be missing?

Posted by: MAW at September 24, 2004 03:20 AM

Martin

I wonder if anyone would care to explain how Kerry’s attack on Allawi, basically calling him a liar and a fraud, fits into Kerry’s grand strategy of “sensitive diplomacy?” In attacking Bush for the purposes of his own domestic election chances, how can he justify burning bridges with Iraq’s leaders?

It seems that Kerry is up to his same old tricks of chastising the military and the people that are in the trenches. Gee, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Posted by: M at September 24, 2004 03:34 AM

Sorry, the above post was mine.

Posted by: MAW at September 24, 2004 03:37 AM

AP,

Kerry is also right about opening up the bidding process for contractors. If you want other countries to pony up some troops or cash, you need to give them a stake in success.

I think France, Germany and Russia made plenty off that Oil For Food fiasco to waive whatever they believe is owed to them. They’ve already gotten their stake. At the expense of sick woman and children. You’ll get no tears from me on that one.

Besides are you telling me that France is ready to send in all 2000 of their troops. WOW!

Maybe Russia perhaps, especially after they have been hit so hard recently. But I am not holding my breath on France!

And Kerry thinks Bush is living in a Fantasyland.

Posted by: MAW at September 24, 2004 03:47 AM

I think France, Germany and Russia made plenty off that Oil For Food fiasco

The conspiracy theories never stop, do they? If the allegations are true (they’re based on evidence “found” by Chalabi - the guy who admitted he lied to Cheney about Saddam’s WMD in order to provoke an attack on Iraq), they implicate foreign (including US) and Iraqi private individuals and corporations.

If you think a large number of foreign policy decision makers in major EU countries were influenced by a few billion that some of their countrymen were receiving from Saddam, then you must also believe Haliburton convinced Bush to invade.

The simpler and more plausible explanation for EU reluctance to aid in Iraq is that Bush pissed ‘em all off.

BTW, here’s a fact sheet on French Armed Forces I just googled. They’ve got about 350,000 troops.

So, I guess the concensus from the Bush fans is: Bush has completely failed at bringing the UN and NATO into Iraq, so it’s impossible.

It seems pretty obvious, and there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence to back it up, the problem is Bush. Remove Bush and all kinds of things become possible.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 24, 2004 04:38 AM

M, all that is apparent is that you have less concern for the welfare of our troops than Kerry or Bush does. At least both of those gentlemen are trying to find away to bring them home where it is safe - you seem awful liberal with other people’s lives in harm’s way - “Aw, leave ‘em there, they are fighting for me” I can almost hear you say. Your position on this issue stands many heads lower than Kerry’s or Bush’s.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 24, 2004 05:04 AM

MAW, if you have been keeping up with the news out of Iraq, the reporters there are saying the Iraqi people view Allawi as an American stooge, and don’t trust him - they are not talking about insurgent’s either. Report was on MSNBC.

Ever see a parrot talk. That is what Allawi sounded like. Nice touch though for the speech writers to give Allawi’s script a 5000 number for trained Iraqi troops, police, etc., and Bush 10,000 to read. Kind of gave the appearance the speeches were written by different folks for just about 30 seconds. Then back to parroting. Dead giveaway.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 24, 2004 05:09 AM

David, I thought that was an interesting part of Bush’s speech, too. But Bush said 100,000, not 10,000.

Nearly 100,000 fully trained and equipped Iraqi soldiers, police officers, and other security personnel are working today.

It’s interesting because in Kerry’s speech he points out,

Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces.

But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained, by the administration’s own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program.

Maybe Bush is off the wagon again. I could understand it. Everything is going so poorly, it must be frustrating for him.

And then Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) says he won’t vote for Bush. Instead, he’s going to write in Bush’s Dad’s name. If there’s anything to the psychobabble about GW’s relationship with his Dad, that’s got to be a kick in the balls too.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 24, 2004 06:10 AM

Martin wrote:
> I wonder if anyone would care to
> explain how Kerry’s attack on Allawi

What Kerry attack on Allawi? I’m not disputing you, I just haven’t heard of such an attack. Perhaps you can provide a link? Thanks!

MAW wrote:
> Please explain why the offensive attitude
> toward outsourcing jobs here in the US in
> order to compete in a global market and
> the intense desire to make contracts
> available to foreign companies for a “free
> market”. Is there a contradiction here
> perhaps?

It’s quite simple, really. First, Kerry is not against outsourcing, he is against essentially rewarding companies for outsourcing by giving them tax shelters and breaks.

Secondly, in case you haven’t noticed Iraq is not part of the United States. American workers and German workers are both equally foreigners in Iraq. Iraq simply doesn’t have the skills to do their reconstruction themselves, so obviously foreign contractors are necessary - nobody’s disputing that. The contracts being given to American companies are for work being done in Iraq, and is being paid for via the Iraqi economy and by me and you, the American taxpayers. Therefore it’s best to allow as many companies as possible - from as many countries as possible - to compete so that the best price and best service possible is reached.

> I think France, Germany and Russia made
> plenty off that Oil For Food fiasco

Even the worst of those not-yet-proven allegations don’t claim what you’re suggesting. Even if it’s all true, which is quite possible, at worst a few billion dollars was scammed by a handful corrupt individuals, mostly by Saddam Hussein himself. The money was not stolen by “France, Germany and Russia”. It was mismanaged by the UN and probably stolen by people working along the UN supply chain. Please don’t tell me that you’re saying that if a citizen of country X stole money, then all corporations from that country should be locked out of competitive bidding for contracts in Iraq.

Far, far more money is missing from what the Pentagon (that is, you and me) paid Halliburton in the past 12 months than was stolen from the UN in the past 12 years. Think about that. By your logic, American corporations, too, should be locked out since they can’t seem to account for billions of our dollars, either.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 24, 2004 10:20 AM

If you have the time (50 minutes) I suggest you watch the entire speech. It is available via CSPAN, the JohnKerry.com, and my site.

Posted by: Goose3five at September 24, 2004 11:02 AM

M, all that is apparent is that you have less concern for the welfare of our troops than Kerry or Bush does. At least both of those gentlemen are trying to find away to bring them home where it is safe - you seem awful liberal with other people’s lives in harm’s way - “Aw, leave ‘em there, they are fighting for me” I can almost hear you say. Your position on this issue stands many heads lower than Kerry’s or Bush’s.

David, all of Kerry’s statements to me are just repeats of his actions post Vietnam. He just wears a suit now instead of fatigues. Nothing less, nothing more. Sorry if this disappoints you.

Posted by: MAW at September 24, 2004 11:23 AM

MAW, if you have been keeping up with the news out of Iraq, the reporters there are saying the Iraqi people view Allawi as an American stooge, and don’t trust him - they are not talking about insurgent’s either. Report was on MSNBC.

Actually David, just this week on CNN I saw a piece on soldiers patrolling streets and it was just the opposite. Gee, how do you suppose that happened? Interesting. And on CNN yet. Oh and did I say, just his past week? Posted by: MAW at September 24, 2004 11:28 AM

Chris,

It’s quite simple, really. First, Kerry is not against outsourcing, he is against essentially rewarding companies for outsourcing by giving them tax shelters and breaks.

So this would be called giving Corporations a tax break. Correct?

Secondly, in case you haven’t noticed Iraq is not part of the United States. American workers and German workers are both equally foreigners in Iraq. Iraq simply doesn’t have the skills to do their reconstruction themselves, so obviously foreign contractors are necessary - nobody’s disputing that.

So this is a good thing right?

The contracts being given to American companies are for work being done in Iraq, and is being paid for via the Iraqi economy and by me and you, the American taxpayers.

And this is a bad thing right?

Therefore it’s best to allow as many companies as possible - from as many countries as possible - to compete so that the best price and best service possible is reached.

But you don’t like outsourcing right?

Am I the only one confused here?

Posted by: MAW at September 24, 2004 11:48 AM

Chris,

Even the worst of those not-yet-proven allegations don’t claim what you’re suggesting. Even if it’s all true, which is quite possible, at worst a few billion dollars was scammed by a handful corrupt individuals, mostly by Saddam Hussein himself.

So you were content with letting this go on? And you saw nothing wrong with Saddam building palaces when children starved and went without medicine while others blamed the US for sanctions? This was a good thing right?

It was mismanaged by the UN and probably stolen by people working along the UN supply chain.

And this supply chain money never got into the hands of terrorists right? Is this your position? Just so I can understand better.

By your logic, American corporations, too, should be locked out since they can’t seem to account for billions of our dollars, either.

I am not sure that I am the one having the logic problems here.

Posted by: MAW at September 24, 2004 11:59 AM

It’s quite simple, really. First, Kerry is not against outsourcing, he is against essentially rewarding companies for outsourcing by giving them tax shelters and breaks.

So this would be called giving Corporations a tax break. Correct?

Secondly, in case you haven’t noticed Iraq is not part of the United States. American workers and German workers are both equally foreigners in Iraq. Iraq simply doesn’t have the skills to do their reconstruction themselves, so obviously foreign contractors are necessary - nobody’s disputing that.

So this is a good thing right?
The contracts being given to American companies are for work being done in Iraq, and is being paid for via the Iraqi economy and by me and you, the American taxpayers.
And this is a bad thing right?

Therefore it’s best to allow as many companies as possible - from as many countries as possible - to compete so that the best price and best service possible is reached.

But you don’t like outsourcing right?
Am I the only one confused here?

Posted by: MAW at September 24, 2004 12:02 PM

>> at worst a few billion dollars was scammed
>> by a handful corrupt individuals, mostly by
>> Saddam Hussein himself.
>
> So you were content with letting this go on?

No, why in the world would you ever say something like that to me, or to any other American??

My point was not to defend the crime, but to point out that the crime was not of such magnitude and scope that every single Russian, French, German, etc. company, even those who are 100% innocent of any wrongdoing, needs to be punished for it.

> And you saw nothing wrong with Saddam
> building palaces when children starved and
> went without medicine while others blamed
> the US for sanctions? This was a good thing
> right?

Your personal insults and baseless attacks don’t help anything. What is your point? Are you trying to argue that because a Frenchman robbed Iraq, and because Saddam robbed Iraq, that now Halliburton has the right to rob Iraq? Or are you simply looking for every juvenile opportunity you can find to accuse me of being a Saddam-loving child-killing monster? I don’t understand what you’re arguing here, or why you would think that such preposterous and slanderous accusations help advance the WatchBlog debate.

>> By your logic, American corporations, too,
>> should be locked out since they can’t seem
>> to account for billions of our dollars, either.
>
> I am not sure that I am the one having
> the logic problems here.

1) MAW thinks that French companies should not be allowed to compete for Iraqi reconstruction contracts because French companies and individuals are accused of skimming billions of dollars from the Oil For Food program.

2) American companies and individuals are also accused of skimming billions of dollars from the Oil for Food program. Even worse, American companies are accused of skimming billions of dollars from Iraqi reconstruction projects.

3) Therefore MAW should think that American companies should also be excluded from competing for Iraqi reconstruction projects.

It’s quite simple. If you stop trying to figure out ludicrous ways to imply that I am a Saddam Hussein sympathizer you might actually see that the words I wrote actually say something of substance.

>> It’s quite simple, really. First, Kerry is
>> not against outsourcing, he is against
>> essentially rewarding companies for
>> outsourcing by giving them tax shelters
>> and breaks.
>
> So this would be called giving Corporations
> a tax break. Correct?

Um, yeah. That’s what I said. Your point?

>> Secondly, in case you haven’t noticed Iraq
>> is not part of the United States. American
>> workers and German workers are both equally
>> foreigners in Iraq. Iraq simply doesn’t
>> have the skills to do their reconstruction
>> themselves, so obviously foreign contractors
>> are necessary - nobody’s disputing that.
>
> So this is a good thing right?

Um, no. It’s just the way things are. I was just describing the facts. It’s reality. I was making the point that it’s okay for Iraq to outsource to foreign countries since they don’t have the resources internally to do the same work. What was your point?

>> The contracts being given to American
>> companies are for work being done in Iraq,
>> and is being paid for via the Iraqi economy
>> and by me and you, the American taxpayers.
>
> And this is a bad thing right?

Um, no again. Again, this is just a description of reality. I’m just stating the facts in the above sentence.

Therefore it’s best to allow as many companies as possible - from as many countries as possible - to compete so that the best price and best service possible is reached.

> But you don’t like outsourcing right?

NO, I’m not against outsourcing! Neither is John Kerry! Jeez, it’s like you simply don’t read. We’re against rewarding companies for outsourcing.

And your whole point doesn’t make any sense because we’re talking about outsourcing work from Iraq (not from America, from Iraq!) who desperately needs foreign corporate help, yet America is currently telling them that (a) they can only get the help from us, (b) that they can’t ask companies from other countries to compete for a better price and better service, and (c) that we can charge them whatever the hell we want, and (d) that if we make tens of billions of dollars disappear in the process, that’s tough luck.

To the average Iraqi, this looks a lot like embezzeling - or, quite simply, looting. This gives the insurgents and their financial backers even more incentive to attack us. Open competition will alleviate this perception, and it will produce better service and better prices. This is how good capitalism works. Right now, we are implementing an oligarchy or a kleptocracy, which is bad for everyone.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 24, 2004 12:33 PM

No, why in the world would you ever say something like that to me, or to any other American?

I say this because it appears that you did not approve of toppling the regime in Iraq no matter what the reasons.

My point was not to defend the crime, but to point out that the crime was not of such magnitude and scope that every single Russian, French, German, etc. company, even those who are 100% innocent of any wrongdoing, needs to be punished for it.

I am going to assume that you meant ‘even those that are not 100% innocent’, therefore would this include American Companies?

Your personal insults and baseless attacks don’t help anything. What is your point?

I am trying to determine if you consider the invasion wrong or just the fact that this Administration choose to not reward countries that were not part of the coalition?

I can see from your statement that you think the quality of foreign companies might be better suited to perform certain tasks, do it better and cheaper. But I am trying to fit this into your concept that when companies in the US do this it is not a good thing and should be rewarded by giving them a tax incentive for not doing this. Is this correct?

Just trying to get my bearings on what might be Kerry’s position on all this. Honestly, its like watching a loose firecracker spinning around. It seems you have a better understanding of his positions and you would be able to explain them.

So my question still stands about the invasion. If you knew all the skimming of Oil for Food money was going on and it went into the hands of unscrupulous people, perhaps terrorists, would you still have been against the invasion?

And no, I do not believe that French companies should not be allowed to compete for Iraqi reconstruction because they stole money. I believe they should not compete because I don’t remember seeing any of their 350,000 troops there. And because of their deliberate attempt to keep Saddam in power.

As for your second point about American Companies skimming money from Iraqi reconstruction, are you retracting your position about not being 100% innocent?

To the average Iraqi, this looks a lot like embezzeling - or, quite simply, looting.

I am assuming that you have some knowledge as to how the average Iraqi feels. Since you are there and have first hand knowledge of all this and it is not simply an opinion.

This gives the insurgents and their financial backers even more incentive to attack us.

Do you really believe they need a reason to attack us other than the fact that we are a democracy and have liberties? So beheadings and car bombings are all a result of this and not because we are just who we are, Americans?

Gee, just trying to figure out what all the fuss is about. Sorry to get you so upset. Trying to keep an open mind here. That’s all nothing more.

Posted by: MAW at September 24, 2004 01:39 PM

> I say this because it appears that you did not
> approve of toppling the regime in Iraq no
> matter what the reasons.

Would you approve of America invading South Korea or Iran tomorrow? If not, then should I assume that you think that those countries are joyful places led by wonderful human beings? Should I assume that you are a spy? A traitor? An enemy sympathizer? Of course not. Please afford me the same benefit of the doubt that I afford you regarding our respective levels of patriotism.

I would totally have approved of toppling Saddam if I was convinced that the weapons inspectors in March of 2003 were either (a) being denied access to every place they wanted access to, or (b) they found significant WMD stockpiles. Unfortunately for your side of this argument, the fact is that in March of 2003, the inspectors were being allowed into nearly every location they wished, they were growing in numbers every day, and they were very obviously on their way towards finding out what we now know to be true: there were no WMDs and that Saddam was not a threat.

> I am going to assume that you meant ‘even those
> that are not 100% innocent’, therefore would
> this include American Companies?

I really don’t know what that sentence is supposed to mean. I was arguing that it’s stupid to use the various national origins of the Oil for Food program’s criminals as a basis for determining who is permitted to assist in Iraq.

> And no, I do not believe that French companies
> should not be allowed to compete for Iraqi
> reconstruction because they stole money.

Flipflop! (MAW: “I think France, Germany and Russia made plenty off that Oil For Food fiasco to waive whatever they believe is owed to them.”)

> I believe they should not compete because I
> don’t remember seeing any of their 350,000
> troops there.

Even if it’s the best thing for Iraq? You are putting your sense of revenge ahead of what is best for Iraq. If the American companies are best for Iraq, let them prove it by competing and winning their contracts.

You are essentially treating the contracts as a benefit or reward for participating in the invasion. That is, you think the contracts are America’s “spoils”. Don’t you see how wrong that is? And how such an attitude would look unseemly to an Iraqi citizen? Or to an Iraqi businessman who wants to do be able to do business with non-American companies, as they have been doing for years?

> I am assuming that you have some knowledge
> as to how the average Iraqi feels.

Of course it’s just my point of view. I know at least as much as you do about “how the average Iraqi feels”. I read the news, I read special investigative reports. I am extremely well informed, but ultimately everything we say here is just our opinions. Your observation could be written about every single thing ever posted here about Iraq. But even the most basic common sense will tell you that any Iraqi who knows the facts (that all the billions of dollars in contracts are going to American companies, that billions of those dollars are missing, and that those companies are not investing one dime back into the Iraq economy) would think there was some hanky-panky going on.

> If you knew all the skimming of Oil for Food money
> was going on and it went into the hands of
> unscrupulous people, perhaps terrorists, would you
> still have been against the invasion?

Um, I fail to see how an invasion would be the best solution for stopping the stealing in the UN Oil for Food program.

> Do you really believe they need a reason to
> attack us other than the fact that we are a
> democracy and have liberties? So beheadings
> and car bombings are all a result of this
> and not because we are just who we are,
> Americans?

Damn right that’s what I believe. If you think the beheadings are because of “who we are”, then you have a seriously simplistic (even cartoonish) view of the political reality in Iraq. It’s not simply good versus evil. The insurgents are not mindless animals, nor are they vampires, zombies, or robots. They are an organized movement, led by poweful people who actually have political and military objectives. They want to frighten the American and coalition forces (and the American companies rebuilding Iraq) into leaving Iraq so that the leaders of the insurgent groups can seize control of the country (or some portion of the country). It’s age-old warlordism, people fighting to grab power. (It’s sad that I have to say this, but in light of your previous insulting comments about me I guess I have to: I am not endorsing the insurgents when I say that they are not mindless animals.)

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 24, 2004 03:25 PM

Would you approve of America invading South Korea or Iran tomorrow? If not, then should I assume that you think that those countries are joyful places led by wonderful human beings? Should I assume that you are a spy? A traitor? An enemy sympathizer?

Yes I would approve of invading those countries if they were in violation of UN Sanctions for the past 12 years. Just to put it simply.

And do you mean North Korea and not South Korea? Or are you being facetious. Hard to tell.

I would totally have approved of toppling Saddam if I was convinced that the weapons inspectors in March of 2003 were either (a) being denied access to every place they wanted access to, or (b) they found significant WMD stockpiles.

So you would have been in favor of it, if stockpiles of WMDs were found and not because of any humanitarian efforts such as Bosnia? And you also believe that the inspectors had free reign in Iraq with no interference or delays or sabotage in their inspections. Much like Quadafi did when he allowed inspectors in. You are convinced that this happened?

Flipflop! (MAW: “I think France, Germany and Russia made plenty off that Oil For Food fiasco to waive whatever they believe is owed to them.”)

And this is a flipflop because I think that some foreign companies/individuals stole money from the Oil For Food program or sold them weapons illegally and should be held accountable by waiving their debt. Interesting.

It’s not simply good versus evil.

Do you not believe that there is good and evil in this world? Or do you believe that everyone is justified for their actions regardless of how insidious and repulsive, as long as it is what they believe and is in their political or military objectives?

(It’s sad that I have to say this, but in light of your previous insulting comments about me I guess I have to: I am not endorsing the insurgents when I say that they are not mindless animals.)

I don’t recall saying anything about you. I merely asked questions. And trying to get some background on why you feel so strongly in favor of Kerry?

One last question before I sign off today. What would your opinion of Bush be today if we had been attacked after 9/11 by some chemical or biological weapon that was traced directly to Iraq? Hypothetically of course.

Posted by: MAW at September 24, 2004 04:15 PM

> Yes I would approve of invading those
> countries if they were in violation
> of UN Sanctions for the past 12 years.

Fine, but would you be in favor of invading them tomorrow, since both of them are clearly and flagrantly taking daily steps towards posessing a nuclear weapon? That’s all I was asking. The point was to demonstrate the difference between (a) being opposed to invading and (b) loving Saddam Hussein. If you’re opposed to invading North Korea tomorrow, it doesn’t mean you love Kim Jong Il.

Actually, I’ll be honest: my real point was to give you an opportunity to apologize for suggesting that I actually like Saddam Hussein. Which apparently you have no intention of doing.

> So you would have been in favor of it, if stockpiles
> of WMDs were found and not because of any humanitarian
> efforts such as Bosnia?

Yes, there was no humanitarian crisis in Iraq, not anything like there was in Kosovo (now we’re even: I mistyped “South Korea”, you mistyped “Bosnia”). Saddam hadn’t committed any mass killings since 1992. That’s a fact. Again, I’m not saying he doesn’t deserve to be punished for his crimes, but I am saying that invading Iraq wasn’t going to stop anything because no particularly bad oppression was occurring in Iraq that isn’t happening every day, say, in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and sadly even now Russia. If there was mass killing or genocide happening in Iraq, I’d be much more open to the idea of invading to stop it. But it wasn’t happening.

> And you also believe that the inspectors had free reign
> in Iraq with no interference or delays or sabotage in
> their inspections. Much like Quadafi did when he allowed
> inspectors in. You are convinced that this happened?

Yes, I am convinced of this. The three weapons inspector reports issued between the passage of Resolution 1441 and the invasion all painted an extremely positive picture of the progress of the inspections. Iraq’s compliance in March of 2003 was probably 90% as good as Quadafi’s was when he opened his kimono. And, contrary to what you probably believe, Quadafi’s compliance took more than 5 years to achieve. Bush gave up on the inspections in Iraq after only 4.5 months.

And, most importantly, and as you appear to forget, there were no WMDs in Iraq!

> And this is a flipflop because I think that some foreign
> companies/individuals stole money from the Oil For Food
> program or sold them weapons illegally and should be held
> accountable by waiving their debt.

You didn’t say that companies should waive their debt, you said that the countries should waive their right to compete for contracts. Frankly, the individuals in question, if found guilty, shouldn’t just have their debts waived - they should be imprisoned!

And in case you didn’t know, Kerry’s plan would require all countries who want to compete for Iraq reconstruction contracts to waive all of the debt owed to companies in their country. It’s a great trade off, and it is inexplicable why the Bush Administration doesn’t do the same thing.

> Do you not believe that there is good and evil in this
> world?

Hell yeah. There are lots of evil people in the world. Lots of them. But by simply thinking that they are evil and that they are attacking us because we are good is pure ignorance. It allows you to ignore any information that allows us to figure out how to defeat them more intelligently. They are trying to acheive political objectives, so if we can defeat them politically we can make it more difficult for them militarily. For example, allowing more international involvement in Iraq’s reconstruction would diffuse the perception that America is looting Iraq. We can undermine them politically and thus undermine them militarily.

> Or do you believe that everyone is justified for their
> actions regardless of how insidious and repulsive, as
> long as it is what they believe and is in their
> political or military objectives?

How can you ask such a question when in my very next sentence I tell you that I do not beleive that!?!? MAW, please, please, stop assuming the worst of me.

> I don’t recall saying anything about you. I merely
> asked questions. And trying to get some background
> on why you feel so strongly in favor of Kerry?

Gimme a break. You directly implied that I sympathised with Saddam. Just a second ago you slanderously implied that I thought that beheading civilians can possibly be justified. More examples:

—> “it appears that you did not approve of toppling the regime in Iraq no matter what the reasons”

—> “you saw nothing wrong with Saddam building palaces when children starved and went without medicine while others blamed the US for sanctions? This was a good thing right? “

> What would your opinion of Bush be today if we had been
> attacked after 9/11 by some chemical or biological weapon
> that was traced directly to Iraq?

It depends on how he reacted afterwards. It’s an incomplete hypothetical question, but I’ll try to humor you: If we were attacked by a WMD that was traced back to Saddam’s regime, then I’d be in favor of invading Iraq. And I have no doubt that Bush would have found forming a coalition a hell of a lot easier, too. Just like I was in favor of invading Afghanistan. What do you think I am, some kind of pacifist?

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 24, 2004 07:27 PM

Cf, I’ve learned to just walk away from a MAW exchange. He’s in his own little world.

Goose3five, thank you VERY MUCH for the link to John Kerry’s NYU speech.

Watch it. Now. To paraphrase our next First Lady, “If you don’t like it, you’re an idiot.”

Posted by: American Pundit at September 25, 2004 12:17 AM

AP: MAW’s a she. Aintcha MAW?

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 25, 2004 12:54 AM

Yep Chris, that I am. A proud mother of four, 2 boys, 2 girls and 5 grandchildren, 4 boys, 1 girl.

Just an average American woman that raised four children as a single parent. Just trying to figure out what people see in someone as hard to figure out as Kerry. For the life of me, I just do not understand it. But I keep trying.

Perhaps I am a victim of living through the 60’s and watching for the second time in my lifetime, the bitterness and divisiveness that Kerry once used as his rally cry and is using again today.

I shake my head in wonder, scratch my head and say “have they all have forgotten” or are they just too young to know!

Posted by: MAW at September 25, 2004 02:24 AM

Chris,

Fine, but would you be in favor of invading them tomorrow, since both of them are clearly and flagrantly taking daily steps towards posessing a nuclear weapon?

I am in favor of exactly what Bush is doing today. Getting the support of surrounding neighbors, China, South Korea and Japan to put pressure on North Korea. A lasting and permanent solution and not a $5 billion payoff that was doomed from inception.

Again, when the UN gets around to handling this situation and passes resolutions of any substance and NK continues to snub their noses at the International Community, then yes, I would take further action.

Actually, I’ll be honest: my real point was to give you an opportunity to apologize for suggesting that I actually like Saddam Hussein. Which apparently you have no intention of doing.

No need for me to apologize. I never meant to suggest you actually like Saddam.

but I am saying that invading Iraq wasn’t going to stop anything because no particularly bad oppression was occurring in Iraq that isn’t happening every day, say, in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and sadly even now Russia.

Are any of these countries in violation of any UN resolutions? I could check but somehow I think not. If they were and they had threatened or invaded neighbors and used biological weapons on their own people, then I would say yes, action should be taken.

And, contrary to what you probably believe, Quadafi’s compliance took more than 5 years to achieve. Bush gave up on the inspections in Iraq after only 4.5 months.

Was he in violation of UN sanctions also? And did he have 150,000 troops sitting on his border? Seems that Saddam did not do all this as willingly as you would like to suggest. Wouldn’t you agree?

And, most importantly, and as you appear to forget, there were no WMDs in Iraq!

Do you mean stockpiles? Or that there never were any WMDs? And you knew this before going into Iraq? You knew this all along before we went in? You disagreed with Kerry even. Interesting.

You didn’t say that companies should waive their debt, you said that the countries should waive their right to compete for contracts.

I believe they should waive their debt and not be allowed to compete for contracts. Yes, that is what I think is appropriate in this situation.

Frankly, the individuals in question, if found guilty, shouldn’t just have their debts waived - they should be imprisoned!

And exactly which court should these people be tried in? The one Milosevic is being tried in perhaps?

It’s a great trade off, and it is inexplicable why the Bush Administration doesn’t do the same thing.

Maybe because it doesn’t make much sense to reward people that cost American lives by not supporting UN Resolutions. Sends a very bad signal? Wouldn’t you agree? Probably not. If France, Germany and Russia had supported us, we may never have had to send in any troops. Saddam relied on those countries supporting him, not us. However, we will never know now will we?

For example, allowing more international involvement in Iraq’s reconstruction would diffuse the perception that America is looting Iraq.

And who exactly believes this? France or Germany maybe? Certainly not the 30 countries that are there now. You perhaps? Oh, of course that would keep me up nights.

They are trying to acheive political objectives, so if we can defeat them politically we can make it more difficult for them militarily. For example, allowing more international involvement in Iraq’s reconstruction would diffuse the perception that America is looting Iraq. We can undermine them politically and thus undermine them militarily.

Just to be perfectly clear, what exactly are these political objectives? Headscarves, release women in prison, stop helping in the reconstruction? Sorry if I am not clear about their political objectives other than to behead and blow up people in line to enlist in a police force or just plain inflict terror and mayhem I am not hearing a clear message. Are you?

I am truly missing something here! Please be a bit more specific about what their political objectives are. This could help me in this process of understanding the left a little more.

And I know for a fact that you despise Saddam, any right thinking (no pun intended) would. My questions were strictly rhetorical. Not to imply that you have any sympathy for Saddam.

It depends on how he reacted afterwards. It’s an incomplete hypothetical question, but I’ll try to humor you:

I am not asking how you would feel about him after he took action. I am asking you to stop for a moment and think about the type of outrage that would swell across this land if nothing had been done to Saddam to thwart an attack. If Bush was severely chastised for not doing anything before 9/11 where Afghanistan was concerned, can you agree that the outrage would have been enormous where Saddam was concerned and inexcusable? And even I would not have voted for him. Hard to believe huh?

Keep in mind I am a moderate but have strong views on taking military action.

A couple more questions. What do you suppose would have happened if Bush had not taken such a deliberate stance on Iraq and France and Russia pushed to have sanctions lifted? Would you agree that Saddam would be empowered to act even more a fool than he already was?

Do you think if the inspectors had given him a clean bill of health the world could have let out a great sigh of relief and we could have rested easy at night?

If we had pulled out our troops after inspectors had given this clean bill of health what do you suppose the demeanor of Saddam would have been especially since there is no way of absolute certainty that he had no weapons or the means to reinstitute his weapons programs.

Why do you still support Kerry after his strong statements in the past that Saddam should be taken down and was totally in favor of regime change? And now, he speaks publicly, while there are soldiers on the ground and risking their lives, about how wrong this action is. How do you suppose they feel when and if they hear this?

I know some are hearing it now because my two nieces are in San Diego with their husbands, one in the Navy, the other in the Marines. The one in the Marines has three children and will be going back to Iraq in March for 6 months.

For the record, he is an avid Bush supporter and this is his second tour in Iraq. He believes in this cause. He can see the bigger picture here.

Too bad there are those of us sitting on couches and sleeping in our own beds with our families that do not.

Posted by: MAW at September 25, 2004 04:06 AM

Why do you still support Kerry after his strong statements in the past that Saddam should be taken down and was totally in favor of regime change? And now, he speaks publicly, while there are soldiers on the ground and risking their lives, about how wrong this action is.

Except that Kerry has never said removing Saddam was a mistake.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 25, 2004 10:19 AM

Thans AP for that answer. You are correct he hasn’t. And for the record, I don’t think of him so much of a flip flop any longer. I now consider him a waffler.

This is because his base is so split and he needs to find a way to appeal to the avid anti-war crowd as well as the moderates.

Hard thing to do, but he has no choice.

Posted by: MAW at September 25, 2004 11:23 AM

I haven’t heard Kerry pandering to the anti-war crowd. Maybe you could provide a link. He’s been really straight about saying we need to stay the course in Iraq. He talks about pulling out US troops only when they can be replaced with NATO troops.

It looks like Bush is bending in the political breeze though. According to Bob Novak, Bush (if re-elected) is going to pull out all US troops next year no matter what, leaving Iraq in the hands of hastily trained Iraqi troops and police.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 25, 2004 11:42 AM

> I am in favor of exactly what Bush is doing today.
> Getting the support of surrounding neighbors,
> China, South Korea and Japan to put pressure on
> North Korea. A lasting and permanent solution and
> not a $5 billion payoff that was doomed from
> inception.

You should read the news more often, because the Bush Administration resumed the Clinton “payoff” strategy (the “Agreed Framework” of 1994), even after learning about NK’s violations. We are still sending them fuel and nuclear technology.

> And did he have 150,000 troops sitting on his
> border? Seems that Saddam did not do all this
> as willingly as you would like to suggest.
> Wouldn’t you agree?

Absolutely! I have never hesitated to agree that Saddam cooperated only because of Bush’s threat of war. The American troops right on his border indeed worked as I hoped they would. He was cooperating. Then, Bush blew his great triumph to peices by invading anyway.

>> Frankly, the individuals in question, if found
>> guilty, shouldn’t just have their debts waived
>> - they should be imprisoned!
>
> And exactly which court should these people be
> tried in? The one Milosevic is being tried in
> perhaps?

Why are you arguing with me on this? Do you think they should be allowed to go free, or are you just arguing for the sake of argument?

>> They are trying to acheive political objectives,
>> so if we can defeat them politically we can make
>> it more difficult for them militarily.
>
> Just to be perfectly clear, what exactly are these
> political objectives?

How many times do I have to repeat this: THEY WANT TO CONTROL IRAQ! How difficult is that? They are not killing us for ideological reasons. Radical islamic ideology helps the insurgents with their battle fervor and with recruitment, but their goals aren’t as abstract as “defeating the infidel”… their goals are concrete: They want to control Iraq. They want to control the nation’s people, the economy, the military. They want to control the oil. It’s power. It’s money. Ideology is only a part of it.

> What do you suppose would have happened if
> Bush had not taken such a deliberate stance on
> Iraq and France and Russia pushed to have
> sanctions lifted?

As I’ve said above and many many times before on WatchBlog, I credit Bush for taking a strong stance on Iraq. It was a good decision to apply military pressure on Saddam, and if you’ll recall a great many Democrats supported the application of military pressure on Saddam, including John Kerry. By February of 2003, Bush had succeeded in defeating Saddam Hussein. In February of 2003, we had already won. We won! But only a month later, in March, when Bush decided to proceed with the invasion anyway, we threw that victory away.

> Do you think if the inspectors had given him a
> clean bill of health the world could have let out
> a great sigh of relief and we could have rested
> easy at night? If we had pulled out our troops
> after inspectors had given this clean bill of
> health what do you suppose the demeanor of Saddam
> would have been especially since there is no way
> of absolute certainty that he had no weapons or
> the means to reinstitute his weapons programs.

Good questions. I am guessing from your questions that you think that If I had my way (or if Kerry had his way) that after the inspectors were done inspecting, that they would leave Iraq and that our troops would come home too, and that Saddam would be free to do whatever he wanted. Nothing could be further from the truth (do you really think the left is that stupid?)

Let me answer your questions very clearly, all based on the assumption that Bush didn’t invade in March of 2003, and that instead he allowed the inspections to continue:

First, Bush should have been ready to keep the 150,000 troops in the region, quite possibly for a very long time (maybe even for as long as they are almost certain to be there now that we’ve thrown the region into chaos).

Second, the weapons inspectors would not leave. Ever. In fact, there was never any plan for them to leave. The point of inspectors is to maintain a perpetual watch on Saddam’s WMD efforts. If keeping American troops breathing down Saddam’s neck would help maintain that perpetual vigilance, then I’d be all for it.

Thirdly, during this time, I’d definately be in favor of patiently but aggressively cultivating an anti-Saddam resistance movement in Iraq and elsewhere, undermining the regime and possibly leading to a kind of regime change that doesn’t result in 1048 (and growing) dead American soldiers and a violent quagmire for the people in the region that is likely to last for a decade.

Finally, if Saddam reverted back to his old ways, and started harassing the inspectors, ejecting them from the country, denying them access to suspected locations, attacking enforcement flyover planes, then I’d be open to the idea of attacking Iraq to bring them back into compliance, and if that failed, I’d be in favor of invading Iraq to acheive those goals.

And the beauty of the above plan is that if invasion becomes necessary, we can truly tell the world that it was the only way to make sure that Saddam wasn’t going to use WMDs on his neighbors. And, unlike last time, they might actually beleive us and want to help us.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 25, 2004 11:59 AM

I’ve had a busy week, so I just finally got around to listening to Kerry’s speech at NYU last night. I think it was best speech he ever gave, and if he sounds anything close to that in the upcoming debates, I think he could definitely go on to win in November.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 25, 2004 04:29 PM

“Instead of pushing for a larger United Nations role in Iraq as Kerry advocates, Bush has repeatedly rejected a more significant role for the UN”

And what makes the UN so special that we would actually want its help? I’d like a list of things that the UN has done that have had SUBSTANTIAL, POSITIVE consequences in Iraq. Oh wait, that’s asking the impossible.

Also, why would any American want a first lady that says, “If you don’t like it, you’re an idiot.” Can anyone say, “Retard?”

Posted by: semper at September 25, 2004 10:43 PM

Chris,

Well, the first and most obvious argument against the President is his track record so far in meeting these goals. We can make this case regardless of who his opponent is. The fact is that Bush has not succeeded very well in any of these objectives. When an employee fails to meet the goals you expect of him, you fire him.

Yes, if as a company executive, I hired a high-level employee to come in and fix problems that the company had been plagued with for a number of years and that employee followed the same old tired policies of the past to manage these problems, then I would fire that employee also.

On the other hand, if that employee took daring steps to correct these situations in a manner that may eliminate the problem altogether, I would expect certain things to be disruptive in the process but as a good employer, I would know that eventually the problem would be eliminated completely with enough patience. If I do not give this employee enough time to see the situation through, then I am a bad employer.

In essence, what you are saying here is that you would opt to hire another employee with nothing on his resume that would support his ability to make good on any promises that would make any substantial improvements except for the fact that he makes claims that he would be better at it.

I am looking to hire an employee that fixes problems by finding permanent solutions and not just manages problems.

Not any of the solutions that Kerry has offered in his 4-point plan offers any solutions then what is happening presently. Therefore, to replace one employee with another that offers nothing, would certainly make me a lousy employer.

How many times do I have to repeat this: THEY WANT TO CONTROL IRAQ! How difficult is that?

You are certain that it is only Iraq these evil people want to control? I am not and I do not want a President that would take that chance.

They are not killing us for ideological reasons.

Chris, if their reasoning is to control Iraq for power and control, why do you suppose they did not do this when Saddam was in power. You constantly state in your posts that he was no threat to anyone, yet these insurgents did not bother to invade him but choose instead to go up against the most powerful military in the world. Seems odd to me. But if you say so!

Oh, and why do you suppose these radical Islamic are waging war on the only sovereignties that are trying to install a westernized democratic form of government. This includes Israel. Do you think perhaps that is what they are fighting? Democracy! Just possibly?

By February of 2003, Bush had succeeded in defeating Saddam Hussein. In February of 2003, we had already won.

See the difference here is you would call that a victory. I would call it another temporary fix to an ongoing problem. Just like the employee situation I outlined above. Same old tired method of managing a problem rather than eliminating it and applying a permanent fix.

Good questions. I am guessing from your questions that you think that If I had my way (or if Kerry had his way) that after the inspectors were done inspecting, that they would leave Iraq and that our troops would come home too, and that Saddam would be free to do whatever he wanted. Nothing could be further from the truth (do you really think the left is that stupid?)

Ahhhh, I don’t think, I know. I know this because this is the policy of the 90’s when Osama was building his terrorist network. The same network that was empowered to crash planes into the WTC. It just does not work. Sorry. Oh and yes, I do think the left is that stupid.

And the beauty of the above plan is that if invasion becomes necessary, we can truly tell the world that it was the only way to make sure that Saddam wasn’t going to use WMDs on his neighbors. And, unlike last time, they might actually beleive us and want to help us

Your 4 point plan outlines exactly the plan of the manager that manages a problem instead of fixing the problem. Unfortunately, that plan ultimately cost more lives and more money in the long run than to fix it correctly in the first place.

To illustrate this, every single attack in the 90’s starting from the first WTC bombing and the ridiculous attempt to make the world think that we put those responsible away (Osama) to the last attack which was the USS Cole, was a direct result of having US troops in Saudi Arabia. So how again does this solve anything or keep us safe?

Posted by: MAW at September 26, 2004 02:09 AM

AP,

I haven’t heard Kerry pandering to the anti-war crowd. Maybe you could provide a link. He’s been really straight about saying we need to stay the course in Iraq. He talks about pulling out US troops only when they can be replaced with NATO troops.

Isn’t this the part where you try to convince the world that Bush is finally listening to Kerry! So my question is why in the world would I believe Kerry is going to do what he says especially if he offers nothing different as a solution?

Seems like a strange and drastic reason to vote for someone. Of course. Vote for someone that says I am going to do the same thing, only I am going to do it better! Just look at my 20 years in the Senate! Oh wait, don’t look there! Look at my 4 months in Vietnam. Oh wait, on second thought, better not look there either!

It looks like Bush is bending in the political breeze though. According to Bob Novak, Bush (if re-elected) is going to pull out all US troops next year no matter what, leaving Iraq in the hands of hastily trained Iraqi troops and police.

Really AP, Bob Novak is a doddering old fool that can’t even handle his own against Paul Begala. Please!

Posted by: MAW at September 26, 2004 02:23 AM

I’ve had a busy week, so I just finally got around to listening to Kerry’s speech at NYU last night. I think it was best speech he ever gave, and if he sounds anything close to that in the upcoming debates, I think he could definitely go on to win in November.

Yes, a very good speech indeed. And in the shadows of the real hero, JFK who said,

Ask not what your Country can do for you; ask what you can do for your Country.

Instead Kerry says,

Ask not what you can do for your Country, ask what your Country can do for you

But then there is all that gloom and doom that surely lifts up every good Democrat that thinks the glass is half-empty. There is nothing left to go around for them. It’s all gone. Those greedy Republicans took it all. You just can’t get a fair shake in this world. The Republicans are keeping us all down. Oh poor me.

Yes this is a sure fire winner alright. Just reeks of hope and optimism for all those victims out there!

This is my report on John Kerry’s speech.

John Kennedy must be turning in his grave!

Unbelievable!

Posted by: MAW at September 26, 2004 02:47 AM

MAW, you need to actually read or watch the speech. It’s pretty good.

In any case, how is your made-up message worse than, We are at war with al Qaeda, so “go down to Disney World in Florida. Take your families and enjoy life the way we want it to be enjoyed,”

Or,

“Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes.”

Now that’s inspirational.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 26, 2004 10:46 AM

MAW:
“This is my report on John Kerry’s speech.

John Kennedy must be turning in his grave!”

Did you even watch the speech? I don’t think you did.

“Unbelievable!”

Yeah, you didn’t mention Michael Moore or Clinton once!

Posted by: Adrienne at September 26, 2004 12:07 PM

I read his speech. It is full of pessimism and criticism. He knows no other way of being. He offers no solution except to place blame on those that are suffering and giving their lives. This is why he turns people off and is circling the drain.

His entire speech is full of gloom and doom and flies in the face of any thing the real JFK said. It is even a tragedy that he has the same initials. A mockery. Especially when Kennedy said, “I am the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris, and I have enjoyed it.” and made a feeble attempt to make the same analogy with Teresa… Now there’s a skerry thought.

When you read the real JFK’s speech and he said the following

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Kerry should perhaps say

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay no price, bear no burden, meet no hardship, support no friends, oppose no foe, and complain and criticize constantly in order to make sure that survival and the success of liberty is not achieved for anyone”

Now there is the real John sKerry.

Posted by: MAW at September 26, 2004 01:01 PM

Adrienne,

For what reason would I mention Michael Moore or Clinton in my post? What am I missing in that response?

Posted by: MAW at September 26, 2004 01:34 PM

AP,

I am not sure what you mean by going to Disney World. Are you suggesting that we should sit in our homes and be afraid to vacation? Or making sure the economy stays on the rebound?

Maybe you mean exactly the opposite of what JFK said about paying any price and bearing any burden. Like, not us, let the rest of the world be bothered, we have more important things to do. Just go back and read any speech by John sKerry. He keeps searching for a message and changes every day.

Sep 6, 2002 in the NY Times Op. Ed. “We Still Have a Choice on Iraq”

“If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community’s already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act.”

Oct 9, 2002 on the Senate Floor
“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.”

These were said during the run up to the war.

Oh, I get it, I should believe that he and he alone will get the International Community together and hold a summit of Iraq’s neighbors. All of his speeches, all of them are based on nothing except “Pick me, pick me. I can do it better!”

Maybe he should pay more attention. This is exactly what Powell is trying to do now.

And I should believe him why, exactly? Of course, because he is not George Bush. Good reason!

Posted by: MAW at September 26, 2004 01:38 PM

I read his speech. It is full of pessimism and criticism. He knows no other way of being. He offers no solution except to place blame on those that are suffering and giving their lives.

If you really read the speech and that’s what you got out of it, then I’ll leave you to enjoy yourself in your own little world there. Have fun!

Posted by: American Pundit at September 27, 2004 12:23 AM

If you are referring to this speech:

“Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis. “

“We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times – a 400% increase. “

“Falluja…Ramadi… Samarra … even parts of Baghdad – are now “no go zones”… breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shi’a cleric, Moktada al-Sadr, who’s accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad.”

“Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.”

“Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school.”

“Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys. “

You could call yourself a car by standing in the garage but that wouldn’t make it true. So If this is hope and optimism then I am Mary Poppins.

But then since it is Kerry and he is known for taking facts out of context and distorting the truth such as he did in the Senate Intelligence Meetings where every American Soldier committed rape, cut off ears, you know the rest. Do you really believe anything he says?

Besides, I prefer to believe General Abizaid instead.

“We are in fact moving in the direction that will allow Iraq to emerge as a democratic and representational state. I think that our military activities there have moved it ahead in a positive manner,” Abizaid told host Tim Russert on “Meet the Press.” “It’s a tough fight, it’s a hard fight. But we shouldn’t lose heart because there are difficult times. We know that there will be fighting through the elections.”

If you missed him on Meet the Press, and I doubt that, then read it. This is someone who is closer to the truth and is not running for a political office.

Ronald Reagan was able to make us feel hopeful and optimistic in spite of the terrible situation in the US during the Carter Administration. Even Nixon made a better case for ending the Vietnam War and it was 100 times worse than this.

Good grief, AP. You can’t see how gloomy and doomy this man is?

If Reagan could make Lemon aid out of lemons, then why wouldn’t Kerry. His strategy is to make his followers feel bad so they will vote for him. If this is his strategy then good luck if he wins. You have just elected Chicken Little.

Posted by: MAW at September 27, 2004 02:23 PM

Ahh… I see. You’re going to cherry pick quotes. How about this from Gen. Abazaid,

“We will fight our way through the elections.”

“It will be tough. It will be hard.”

“I am not predicting victory by January at the end of the elections.”

And Powell simply said this about Iraq,

“Yes, it’s getting worse.”

I’m surprised President Bush has refrained from attacking Secretary of State Colin Powell and Gen. Abazaid as “defeatists and retreatists” who are undermining the Iraq mission by emboldening the enemy.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 28, 2004 02:20 AM

AP,

Nobody ever said this war was going to be easy. Especially the Bush Administration. In fact President Bush said it would be difficult and arduous. It’s the left that has selective hearing and expects the Bush Administration to fix something, that has festered and emboldened itself for the past 12 years, and get it done inside of 18 months.

I hardly think any of the quotes you cited were that highly charged. Just realistic. Realistic is good but Kerry’s quotes are defeatist, and desperate and downright misleading, which is his forte.

My favorite:
“Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school.”

Really, rising above the hubcaps! It’s a good thing he isn’t describing the hurricane situation in Florida or he would convince the world that the whole of the United States is under water.

What is worse than his description of ‘ALL OF IRAQ’ is his solution which is the best yet and goes something like this….well it goes exactly like this….

“PICK ME! PICK ME! I CAN DO IT BETTER!

Sure, that is a reason why I would vote for him! NOT!

Posted by: MAW at September 28, 2004 03:22 PM

Nobody ever said this war was going to be easy.

MAW, Cheney told us the Iraqis would be handing out bouqets of flowers to the troops. I guarantee none of our troops want to get anywhere near a flower arrangement tossed to them by an Iraqi off the street. Chances are they’d shoot the guy anyhow.

And, Kerry doesn’t say the raw sewage appies to “all of Iraq”.

But you can’t deny that reconstructing sewage treatment plants is way behind schedule (by about a year). 780,000 cubic feet of human and industrial waste are flowing directly into Baghdad’s Diyala River every day. Bush won’t even acknowledge it, much less address it.

If you want to continue mocking your fantasy effigy of “evil” Kerry, go for it. I just don’t have the patience to deal with that kind of thing anymore.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 29, 2004 01:51 AM

Thanks for your response AP and I can only add this:

Intelligent people can and do disagree and I appreciate our exchanges.

Posted by: MAW at September 29, 2004 04:34 PM