Republicans & Conservatives Archives

Right on! Kerry’s advocating that we stick with a previous status quo is both delusional and dangerous—that status quo was shattered on 9-11 and that’s one clock you can’t turn back. His refusal to recognize this is what makes him the darling of the Anti-American European left, their allies in the American media, and the last best hope of Islamic fascists everywhere. I don’t question Kerry’s patriotism, mind you, and don’t even say that he isn’t advocating in good faith what he thinks are better policies—there’s no need to villify and degrade him in the same manner Democrats do Bush on a daily basis. But that doesn’t mean we can’t point out that Kerry’s ideas are a grave danger and that they represent a shocking willingness to unilaterally surrender in a war we are already beginning to win. You can prosecute the war the enemy started, as long as it takes, or merely lose that war, cut and run, allow your enemies to declare victory and regroup(as Clinton allowed to happen in Somalia) and then brace yourself for the next attack by emboldened terrorists. The enemy will never defeat America on the battlefiled, but we could just defeat ourselves at the ballot-box.

What problems has invading Iraq solved?
What had Iraq to do with the war on terror?

This was a war that many members of the administration had lobbied for pre 9/11. What happened in New York was sikceningly used to pursue an agenda perculiar to this administration.

In terms of a strategy for fighting the war on terror invading Iraq was a monumental mistake. It has alienated a number of US allies needed to fight the war. It has removed a lot of the legitimacy once associated with the war on terror. Made the US and UK intelligence services look inept, and their governemnts dishonest. It has irreparably damaged Tony Blair. I believe it was timetabled and rushed through to fit in with the coming election and as a result, the post war planning and implemenation has been shambolic. This whole sorry episode is a disgrace. Any concern mouthed by the adminsitartion for the Iraqi people is nothing but lip service.

It was an unprinicpled act executed by an unprincipled administration. US strategic interests and meddling had enabled Saddam to take power and persectute his people, and US strategic interests had him removed. As an example of social Darwinism at its ugliest, US & UK involvement in Iraq takes some beating.

I have to disagree Martin, America can’t hope to “win” the war against terror, at least not the way it’s currently going about it. While bombing other countries back to the stone-age I’m sure has some short term benefit the long term outcome is that you drive more people to agree with the terrorist point of view, and give them far more willing volunteers who are quite happy to die for the cause.

America is now stuck between a rock and a hard place with this war, if you stop attacking people the terrorists will declare a win (see we drove back the infidels, we stopped them) if you continue to attack you drive more support for the terrorists, and it’s a continual fight, one which I don’t believe the US can continue to support for any massively prolonged timeframe without massive tax increases, drafts, and other such measures.

While waiting for my little girl to finish choir practice last week, I found an old copy of Newsweek from just before the start of the Iraq War. In was an article which made the case for war and the possible outcomes by Fareed Zakaria.

One thing that is missed in most people’s analysis of the War is the positive result of ending the policy of containment in the Middle East. This policy has led to millions of people being ruled by Dictators and terrorists, and certainly added to the Anti-West sentiment that prevalent in the region. It also has been the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths and tortures, and it required the U.S. to use its military might to protect a country like Saudi Arabia.

My hyperlink paste didn’t work, so click my name for the article. As Fareed said, “I’ll take my chances with change.”

Which countries, may I ask, have been “bombed back to the stone age?”

The stone age would be an improvement in these places (which we are currently pouring billions of dollars into to build—not rebuild, mind you, but build).

So who is it, I ask, who is merely paying lip serive to the best interest of Iraqis. I guess Saddam’s plastic-shredders, pograms and childrens’ prisons were more to your liking? Is it really so awful that for the first time in generations that Iraqis may be able to get educations and real jobs? That there’s a real possibility emerging of participating in constitutional government? None of these things will be easy or happen overnight, but in the rush to bash Bush lets not pretend that Saddam’s removal isn’t going to be a lot better for them (and us) in the long run.

The old candard about “this being a war planned before 9-11” by “unprincipled” interests is really incredible. Clinton planned for such a war too, you know, and had already made clear that regime change was the official US policy goal toward Iraq. Not planning for it would have been a gross dereliction of duty.

Oh, but such thoughts are despicable, aren’t they? Even thinking about such things could tempt one to pull that lever for George Bush!

Hmmmmmmmm…. back to the old Iraq debate. I think both sides need to accept some things. First, Bush and the adminstration lied, and exagerated to make the case for the war. There is really no substantial connection between Saddam and Al-queda, not many weapons or programs, no uranium from Niger, or whatever else made this war intergral for our safety. Second, afte the dust settles the people of Iraq, and quite possibly the whole middle east will be better off as a result of this war. You can disagree with this if you want, but if you do your probably deluding yourself so it’s easier to hate Bush. Third, unquestionably more people in the world now hate or disrespect the US and how we conduct our foriegn policy. That makes it harder to conduct international efforts like the war on terror. (The point about whether this causes more terrorism is highly controversial, you can make it if you want, but just try to justify it with something more than “it’s logical”. It’s also fair to say that somebody is less likely to cross you if you kick their ass! “It’s logical” as well.) Fourth, dictactors are nervous, and around the world understand that Bush won’t take too much shit. Five, oil was a huge part of the war. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, the world needs oil, but really I don’t think problems in the middle east would matter to any US politician, no more than African problems and genocides, except for the fact that the got a whole lotta black gold.
Think what you will about the war, but the prevailing opinion about this war among conservatives is that without it the US would have been taking a grave risk and it was absolutely necesary and that liberals are unrealistic and not willing to face real problems. Not true. We could have contained Iraq with no inevitable danger the US. The opinion among liberals seems to be that evil Bush is absolutely destroying the world, and that this war could never be justified by what it achieves. Not true.
My personal opinion, Bush lied on too many fronts, he should lose the election becuase of it, but in history books the war on Iraq will end with more positive effects than horrible consequences.

Martin-
it’s me martin agian!
you said:

“is it really so awful that for the first time in generations that Iraqis may be able to get educations and real jobs?”

Come on Martin the capitalized, do think that Iraqis have been without work for generations? Or should I say REAL work. Iraqis have jobs they have lives just like if not better than most of the world. Iraq is not the stone age either, they are garbage men, plumbers(yes plumbing, not very stone age,) atheletes, writers, artists, engineers, ect. Those people that we say we are helping, they overwhelmingly wanted the U.S. to have no part in rebuilding THEIR country.

Imagine for me Martin the capitalized that you grew up and lived in Iraq. You with me? Well let’s say that you wanted Saddam out, what may I ask would you want to do about it? Would you want a foreign country to detroy your country? simply to remove one man from power with no one else to take over?

Thousands of innocent Iraqis killed, to remove one man.

Are our intrests worth that?
martin

Mini-me martin, hello. You (and the others) raise important questions. If the candidates conduct themselves as well in the coming months, then hopefully the country will have the debate about these issues that we need. First of all, I don’t believe that supporting the Iraq war puts one in the position of slavishly supporting every word or action of George Bush, or supporting every detail of how the war was and continues to be conducted. But I reject totally the idea that “Bush lied.” What did he lie about, I wonder? WMDs is the usual answer, I suppose, but at worst Bush was mistaken about that(as was every intelligence service in the world, not to mention Clinton, Chirac and John Kerry). Did all of these people lie? The Nigerian plutonium thing comes the closest to a “lie,”—there, I’ll admit it—but the whole case never hinged on that one detail and the broader picture, that Hussein WAS seeking nuclear material, is more important.

An analogy: during World War II, Roosevelt received intelligence reports that the Nazis were close to developing an atomic weapon. This became a factor in initiating the Manhattan Project on a rushed basis and, we now know, was a factor in accelerating demoralization/ infrastructure-destroying attacks on German cities. It turns out that Roosevelt was wrong about the extent of the Nazi program, but he would have been grossly negligent to assume otherwise. Did Roosevelt lie? Was it somehow monstrous to ratchet up the fight against the Germans?

Before you say this a far-fetched comparison, and at the risk of sounding like a broken-record (this has been repeated SO many times before), Hussein was KNOWN to desire these weapons and was KNOWN to have used them. The only reason he was unable to continue producing them was sanctions that cost many lives and a massive US military presence next door that had been maintained for ten years and couldn’t have been maintained forever.

Yes, thousands of civilians may have died during the war, and nobody’s cheering that fact. But thousands died before the war under Hussein, and I’ve seen statistics which show that at the rate Hussein was murdering opponents, more lives have already been saved on balance.

And finally, I dispute your assertion that Iraq was “destroyed” by America or that they “overwhelmingly want us to have no part in rebuilding their country.” What is your evidence for either of these claims? According to every report I’ve seen, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are afraid we’ll leave before we rebuild their country. They want us to leave eventually, yes, and Bush is certainly trying to hasten the day when we can. He wants us out of there as soon as possible. Join me, little m, in support of our heroic leader.

We do not face a cohesive enemy, but a number of loosely connected, differently situated enemies. With Global scope, comes global complexity, and with that comes the complexities of dealing with the separate issues.

Few Americans sympathized with Saddam. Fewer still with the Taliban. The suggestion that the mainstream left wasn’t seeking to kick their asses too is ludicrous. Two problems though.

Both deal with insufficiencies in the Bush Policy. One, Bush echoed his father’s failure, and failed to pursue Osama Bin Laden until his capture. That he remains free and alive is a black eye on those who sold us the war on terror. I hear now that we are turning up the pressure on Osama Bin Laden. It’s about time. For two years, we have sat by and let the Taliban and Al Quaeda regroup. If this is our war on terror, then the planners of it need to take their Ritalin, because they let a gigantic distraction get in their way.

None of the arguments for urgency and pre-emption depended on the everyday suffering of Irag’s citizenry. Everything that was made to argue for the haste taken in the attack was based on Stockpiles of chemical weapons, and terrorists being harbored by Iraq.

We have not found either one. The threat we attacked Iraq for, that we ignored the real threats of Al Quaeda for, are nothing but exaggeration and misinformation. What makes this worse was that Bush and his allies in the government basically butchered our intelligence gathering apparatus in order to attain their war.

And meanwhile, Osama Bin Laden Remained free. No concentrated searches, no permanent uprooting of Al Quaeda hierarchy. It still attacks our interests abroad, and now exploits the lawless situation that our pennywise, pound-foolish approach to invading Iraq created.

Even now, there are no guarantees that Iraq can function as a sovereign country the way we’ve set it up. Bush’s occupation may be close to suceeding in doing it, but the thing is, they never had to let things approach so close to failure.

Any theory of policy that would allow such blatant disregard for careful, measured and effective military and foreign policy is one that I have to reject no matter how glorious it’s aims are, no matter how dangerous the opposition is. This is not World War II, where a war of brute force can succeed. This is a war that will likely take place on the streets of the world for some time to come. If we do not use all the tools at our disposal that we can, we will do worse than present ourselves as a paper tiger- our wasteful expenditure of resources, and failure to address the real problem will turn us into one.

I am for a strong America, but I know strength, like anything else, can be wasted if used improperly.

First of all, I don’t believe that Kerry will go back to a pre-9/11 doctrine. He doesn’t have the political backbone to take on that controversial of a debate. This is proven by his latest Time Magazine statement.

TIME: So, if we don’t find WMD, the war wasn’t worth the costs? That’s a yes?
KERRY: No, I think you can still—wait, no. You can’t—that’s not a fair question, and I’ll tell you why. You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn’t mean [transforming Iraq] was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go. You have to have that distinction.

TIME: You’ve criticized the pre-emptive nature of the Bush doctrine.
KERRY: Let me emphasize: I’ll pre-empt where necessary. We are always entitled to do that under the Charter of the U.N., which gives the right of self-defense of a nation. We’ve always had a doctrine of pre-emption contained in first strike throughout the cold war. So I understand that. It’s the extension of it by the Bush Administration to remove a person they don’t like that contravenes that.

The rest of the interview is here

He never takes the strong position all of the anti-Iraq folks talk about here, yet they all think Kerry is the guy who was against the war the entire time. I don’t understand how the Democrats came up with this nominee. He has disagreed with so many of their views and then seemingly come back to the light. How can anyone trust him?

I don’t understand this at all, but I guess it is because I am rather strange. In a presidential election, I don’t vote on issues, even though I tend to be a Conservative. Sure if a candidate said he ate babies (exaggeration) I wouldn’t vote for him, but I could care less what he thought about the economy, Iraq, social security… because I know that Congress and the Courts will have their say in that. What I truly care about is leadership skills, trust and belief in what he says. Love him or hate him, Bush will stick to what he believes in, even in the face of criticism. Bush would stand up well to Harriet Truman’s quote “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

To finally sum up the point of this babbling post, people against the Iraq War might find that they will be betrayed by Kerry, so they should be careful for what they wish for… anything but Bush.

What problems has invading Iraq solved? What had Iraq to do with the war on terror?

….We do not face a cohesive enemy, but a number of loosely connected, differently situated enemies. With Global scope, comes global complexity, and with that comes the complexities of dealing with the separate issues.

Partisanship and or political correctness may be getting in the way of seeing a point about who the enemy is and how to fight them. We know where the enemy is. It is not restricted to one country, but it is predominantly in one region. That region is the middle east. Iraq is part of the problem in the middle east. A combination of factors including oppressive governments and a religious movement that threatens to completely take over the legitimate religion of Islam is our enemy. We must fight it there and reverse those conditions.

Is there risk in the President’s strategy? Yes. There are risks to any action. Even doing nothing carries a risk. I believe the greater risk is in believing that if we are nice we will someday win over the terrorists.

Therefore, if one knows the place of battle and the day of battle, he can march a thousand li and do battle.

If one does not know the place of battle and the day of battle, then his left cannot aid his right, and his right cannot aid his left; -Sun Tzu

If we try to limit our risk by taking no chances this ‘war on terror’ could drag on for a century. The invasion of Iraq was not reckless, nor was it launched purely to gain control of oilfields there. It was a measured and calculated response to the events of 9/11.

America is now stuck between a rock and a hard place with this war, if you stop attacking people the terrorists will declare a win (see we drove back the infidels, we stopped them) if you continue to attack you drive more support for the terrorists, and it’s a continual fight, one which I don’t believe the US can continue to support for any massively prolonged timeframe without massive tax increases, drafts, and other such measures.

I probably disagree with this argument the most. Defeating the enemy has a point. It is to effect a cessation of their will to fight. One might choose to believe that some men have an inexhaustible will to fight but all men have their limits. It took a Nagasaki and a Hiroshima in Japan. In the middle east it may well be enough to deliver freedom and a chance for a better life.

Imagine for me Martin the capitalized that you grew up and lived in Iraq. You with me? Well let’s say that you wanted Saddam out, what may I ask would you want to do about it? Would you want a foreign country to detroy your country? simply to remove one man from power with no one else to take over?

Thousands of innocent Iraqis killed, to remove one man.

Are our intrests worth that?
martin

martin,

You’re right. We could have done what we were doing. Sanctions. Which we were told was killing thousands of Iraqi’s. That strategy left us with ‘one man’ still in power and thousands of Iraqi’s killed. With thousands more to be killed every year on into the future under ‘one man’.

The country was destroyed before we removed Saddam. Aren’t they better off with a promise of a future without him?

Better an imperfect liberation than a perfect tyranny.
Better an imperfect democracy than a perfect police state.

Stephen, I think your position regarding the war on terror as really a police action against disparate elements is a reasonable one, and one I’m glad to argue. This is exactly the debate that needs to be had. I disagree strongly with that view because I’m afraid such police actions, as we tried in our response with the first WTC bombing, are temporary staying actions at best, mere postpostments of the next dramatic attack. As Eric argues, what’s needed is a deep and profound alteration of the situation on the ground in the Middle East—without which, with the undemocratic West-hating pathology of that area together with the possibility of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, 9-11 may come to look like child’s play. So this is what Bush is attempting—a grand strategy, a long and forward looking attempt to change the facts on the ground.

On to your other point, namely that the fact that Osama remains free is a black eye on those who sold us the war against terror. How is it so obvious that Osama would be captured or in custody now if weren’t for Iraq? You seem to just uncritically assume this is true. Bin Laden is, by most accounts, well-hidden in Pakistan, with Pakistani and American forces hounding him constantly. Iraq or no Iraq, he’s just one piece on the chess-board. He may never be caught,unfortunately, but if the Middle East is altered, if the dominoes continue to fall like they already have in Libya, like there are hopeful signs that they may in Iran, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon etc, then Bin Laden’s pathetic existence on borrowed time may become actually irrelevant. Yes, this may the war Bin Laden wanted—now he’s got it. Let’s see if he can win against the determined force of America. He can’t. He won’t, and eventually he’ll be shown to be the futile pathetic criminal he is, the destroyer of his own cause.

Sebastian, I think you have a naive idea of the political, social, religious,and linguistic complexity of the middle east. It’s easy to bunch them together, But the reality on the ground, the reality we have to face, is that complexity. In some cases, open, armed conflict will be our only option. But sometimes we’ll be able to talk ourselves into another ally instead. Other times, a precise police action or special forces deployment will do the job. To take open battle as our only option time and again will only serve to lose those opportunities, along with American lives, wealth and prestige.

The loss of the first will certainly test our stomach for this kind of warfare, and if results are not forthcoming, it could have a chilling effect publically speaking on the willingness to face our enemies with full strength.

The second and the third losses will be dangerous to our national security. If our fiscal condition worsens to the point that we can’t afford to fight our wars right, the terrorists will win, and we will be vulnerable. The more we lose the last, the more we lose support from allies, and fear from our enemies. Our inability to keep order in Iraq must be the source of much delight for our enemies overseas, and much exasperated “I told you sos” from our allies.

Discretion is the better part of valor, as Shakespeare once wrote. We must be brave, but not rash, and Iraq was a rash war to get into. Had we been more discrete, had we listened to those public servants who made careers of patient, precise, and accurate analysis, the war would have not been fought, or at least not fought in such an errant fashion.

All over the world, people suffer, unfortunately. The question of what is a just war can be seen in whether the chaos we create by launching the war exceeds the chaos we confront. If our involvement in Iraq ends in a bloody ethnic civil war, then history will not smile on Bush’s pre-emptive war, and much doubt will be cast on any similar pre-emptive actions. It has already come to pass.

Risks must be taken with greater care than what Bush has. We cannot simply hope for things to turn out our way, we must plan for things to go awry. The administration didn’t. It took the NeoCon analysis at face value, a mistake that echoes the NeoCon’s own excessive trust in Ahmed Chalabi and his organization. (the two, in fact are probably connected)

Action in contradiction of the facts is reckless by definition, and foolish by nature. We can believe whatever naive things we want to, echoing that line from Goethe that if one is bold, great forces will come to one’s aid, but in the end Bush has a responsibility to people not to risk so much on so little, and come out with such insufficient results for the bargain.

I advocated dealing with the complexity of the real world not to foster inaction, but appropriate, bold action whose force will not be slowed or blunted by the state of affairs. We should take risks, but they should be measured, considered risks, not uninformed, unready ones.

Better a late liberation than a failed one, Better a late democracy, than a stillborn one.

Martin-
Police action is not the sole means I would use. But it’s important nonetheless. I think you should watch Frontline’s The Man who Knew ( click here) if you want to see the potential effectiveness of good old fashion footwork.

It’s not merely convictions and the like, it’s the tracing of evidence and suspects back up the hierarchy, and the disruption of their plans that result. We cannot afford to leave police power out of the equation, because they can be on the ground as a presence in our country in a way that the military and our intelligence services mostly can’t be.

As for Bin Laden, you catch him because he has made himself into a huge symbol, the King of a network of terrorists. He gains prestige the longer he evades or forces, the longer he can thumb his nose at us.

And yes, one piece can matter. In Chess, no matter how many pieces are on the board, if King is put in check, the game is lost for the other side. Without the organizing structure of Al Quaeda, without those connections, many of the individual groups lack the power and finance to carry out their acts on their own.

Now is not the time to naively assume that we can let Bin Laden escape. We do that, and he strikes us again, it will do much to demonstrate our vulnerability. Do you want that?

In some cases, open, armed conflict will be our only option. But sometimes we’ll be able to talk ourselves into another ally instead. Other times, a precise police action or special forces deployment will do the job. To take open battle as our only option time and again will only serve to lose those opportunities, along with American lives, wealth and prestige.

Stephen, in exactly what instance do you advocate open armed conflict?

Besides, we have in fact been using all of the above options you mention. The President ‘talked ourselves’ into an ally in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The President used special forces and limited troops in Afghanistan. The President used open armed combat in Iraq. I’d say he’s using all the options you say we should be using.

Our inability to keep order in Iraq must be the source of much delight for our enemies overseas, and much exasperated “I told you sos” from our allies.

Iraq was a rash war to get into. Had we been more discrete, had we listened to those public servants who made careers of patient, precise, and accurate analysis, the war would have not been fought, or at least not fought in such an errant fashion.

The same allies who may have been so because of their complicity in financial dealings with the regime of Saddam Hussein? The same public servants who sipped mint tea juleps, never left their hotel, and then proclaimed that Saddam never tried to buy nuclear material in Niger? The same kind of yellow cake which were in fact found in Iraq?

George McClellan was a patient and precise public servant who was revered and popular as a general and who was averse to getting his men killed in battle. Unfortunately, you can’t win battles by avoiding them. You can’t defeat the enemy by never engaging him.

Both Saddam and Osama apparently did not believe that the US would actually send in forces to get them. One of cardinal rules of war is fighting the enemy on the battlefield of your choosing. We cannot sit around waiting for the enemy to attack us. There is rashness and then there is complacency.

Therefore, if the enemy is at ease, be able to exhaust him;

if the enemy is well fed, be able to starve him;

if the enemy is settled, be able to move him;

appear at places where he must rush to defend, and rush to places where he least expects. -Sun Tzu

Osama is a symbol. It may be useful to keep Osama alive as a symbol. (i.e. “Bring. It. On.”) He will be caught eventually, just as Saddam was caught. Our failure to catch him during the Clinton Administration was due to the public servant aversion to risk which may have been understandable at the time for not wanting to rock the boat too much diplomatically speaking. But there comes a time to rock the boat. After 9/11 was that time. Wait too long and the window of opportunity passes. You must strike when the iron is hot. There is such a thing as timing.

Far from being rash, Bush waited and went to our allies to get them on board. They balked. They chose not to trust us. I happen to think that French and Russian financial concerns with Saddam were a factor.

The question of what is a just war can be seen in whether the chaos we create by launching the war exceeds the chaos we confront. If our involvement in Iraq ends in a bloody ethnic civil war, then history will not smile on Bush’s pre-emptive war, and much doubt will be cast on any similar pre-emptive actions. It has already come to pass.

The proof that your criticism is awry is that we are not launching pre-emptive wars willy nilly around the globe. We are not bombing North Korea. A country in need of profound liberation which I hope we will get to eventually. No. We are focused on the war at hand here. The middle east. A region ruled by fascists and religious fanatics. A religion threatened to be overtaken by a totalitarian ideology that believes in killing as a form of worship. An ideology which has power because we have allowed ourselves to be involved only with those ‘recognized’ corrupt governments at a level those same patient and precise public servants feel safe dealing with.

This is part of the problem with allies in the middle east. Witness our present allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Not stirling examples of human rights with whom we would wish to be represented by. Nor examples of governments which we want to prolong.

Big M-“Join me, little m, in support of our heroic leader”——-Don’t hold your breath!

Listen I have enjoyed reading this debate, I think that we’ve screwed up largely over the past 15 years with Iraq, and to say that this war was better than sanctions is like saying that life in prison is better than the death penelty. That may be true but I don’t want life in prison.

I honestly don’t know what we should do in Iraq now that we are in the place that we are in, but this war felt forced, and I felt like America was being hoodwinked by the GW Bush admin.
martin

Kerry is showing his true colors! What right does he have to pass judgement on Bush? The word of God tells us that we have no right to judge others! God does not show partiality! Kerry will reap what he has sown! Is this really the kind of person we need running our country? If he can’t even handle himself with proper conduct during the election how is he going handle himself like a decent adult as president during a crisis? Kerry does not have christian morals! CHRISTIAN VOTERS, DO NOT WASTE YOUR VOTE ON THIS MAN! No one with any sense would vote for Kerry! Who does he think he is anyway? Showing his ignorant additude to the public can not possibly help him come election day! I know that there are many people out there who find Kerry’s heathen comments funny but, whoever thinks that is just as ignorant as he is! This is why america is going to hell in a hand basket! It’s because to many people are ruled by there flesh and their emotions rather than by the spirit of God! Whoever does not get their heart right with God is in big trouble! Without having a relationship with Christ, people are not going to handle themselves in a decent manner! If Kerry was a decent person, he would not have made those arrogant remarks! He will find himself spending eternity in the lake of fire right along with anyone else who does not have a sincere walk with our Lord! Going to church and believing in God is absolutely worthless and a waste of time if you do not apply the word of God to your life and have an itemate relationship with God’s one and only son! FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD! (James 2:26). The word of God also instructs us to do unto others as we would have done unto us! Kerry obviously does not apply the word of God to his life!!!

…I think that we’ve screwed up largely over the past 15 years with Iraq, and to say that this war was better than sanctions is like saying that life in prison is better than the death penelty. That may be true but I don’t want life in prison.

I honestly don’t know what we should do in Iraq now that we are in the place that we are in, but this war felt forced, and I felt like America was being hoodwinked by the GW Bush admin.
martin

martin,

Do you see the future of Iraq as life in prison? What do you think is going on over there? Are you assuming that we are now going to oppress them as Saddam did, or is it that you think they cannot govern themselves in the same way we ‘cvilized’ people do? The Iraqi people are proud and many in the past had been highly educated. I have high hopes for the Iraqi people. There are a million things which could go wrong. But there are a million things that could go wrong in any country. Just think about a western nation called Germany and the national socialist party.

The sanctions effectively made the Iraqi people hostages of our policy. They were hostages of saddam in truth, but the effect of the sanctions was seen as shifting the blame to us. Many things have changed, and will change as a result of the liberation of Iraq. I agree that there are risks. The risks of doing nothing are greater.

Melissa,

I think you were looking to comment on another story - Kerry owes apology…

I think I’ve been abundantly clear on my standards. I supported Bush’s war when I thought he was being honest with me, when I thought there really was a danger. But I was only convinced of that through false evidence, sweetened up with eloquent presentation.

Warning signs that the case being made was in fact false, existed prior to our entry into the war. A responsible approach would have been to develop the case for action from the facts. The facts, as our intelligence estimates indicated, were decidedly against the case that the office of special plans put forward.

The consequences of building a case on percieved threats rather than confirmed threats have been quite terrible. It has gotten our soldiers killed, as well as innocent Iraqis. It has us underestimating the enemy, and overestimating the luck we’d have in getting cooperation from the Iraqi people.

It has had us invade a country on the justification of a terrorist/nationalist conspiracy, involving extant chemical and biological weapons, and a working nuclear materials refinement process, only to find no such conspiracy in place prior to our invasion, and no such weapons and support facilities in existance. We found the barest of samples, and a whole bunch of bureaucratic nonsense, which Bush’s people term in their doublespeak to be weapons of mass destruction program related activities. Why no talk about stockpiles? Why does David Kay, the armchair general, who above everybody else said he possessed the weapons, no longer believe that to be true?

Throughout the posts you’ve pepper me and others with quotes from The Art Of War. You’ve echoed grand general statements on this war that the president and the NeoCons have put forward. To me, it’s a great example of things easier said than done, and people not willing to put forward the effort to do things right.

Since Iraq is supposed to be the model for future interventions, it is fair to call into question the effectiveness of the campaign, and to even bring to view the real world economic limiting factors on such things, including the cost of the current war and friction with international laws and organizations. The fact that we really haven’t been able to move forward from Iraq, as hoped is indicative of the failure, not the validity of the NeoCon foreign policy in general, and the war in Iraq specifically.

Although corruption probably did play a large part in the stymied progress on inspections, so did the disrespect and disregard shown by Bush. In fact, it could be said that the two fed on each other. Additionally, without the distorting effects of the Office of Special Plan’s bypass of the defense and Intelligence apparatuses, European military and intelligence officials found little to trust in Bush’s evidence, and therefore little reason to indulge in Bush’s paranoia and selective attention.

Add to that a level of very undiplomatic language used publically, during their deliberations, and what could the sane response be? When somebody tries to marginalizes you as unwilling, as part of Old Europe, as insensitive to the situation of a stricken country, what is one supposed to do, put an arm over Bush’s shoulder with a pasted on grin? Bush’s approach was intentionally keyed to putting a wedge between us and the European powers, a decision now probably regretted in the context of the help that America is not getting.

Everywhere, it seems, Bush wants to put some kind of dividing line where. Civilization vs. Barbarism, Old Europe vs. New(code for western europe vs. the east) Willing vs. unwilling, and so on and so forth, until it seems that every hand is raised against us, and the only place we can turn is the leadership of George Bush, and those who throw their lot in with him. It’s not even all of America, for once again, an administration has started considering some of it’s own citizens enemies without their first demonstrating themselves as such.

And while he proves how tough he is, and how tough his America is, our economy, our culture, and our connection to the rest of the world is weakened and starved, and we are made more, not less vulnerable to attack.

…I supported Bush’s war when I thought he was being honest with me, when I thought there really was a danger. But I was only convinced of that through false evidence, sweetened up with eloquent presentation.

Forgive me, Stephen, for being skeptical. Your arguments are not of one who wants to believe the President but just can’t stand being ‘lied to’. I say this not to impeach your character but to question your version of events.

Let’s look at Kerry as a prime example. John Kerry voted for the invasion of Iraq at the time. Not because the President lied to him but because everyone knew that Saddam wanted WMD, had WMD, and wanted to make more WMD. This is not something that only the Bush administration made up to justify the war. Every world government including France had the same intelligence. The fact that you and Kerry supported the war at that point says more to that fact than anything, because if it were just the Bush Administration claiming it I doubt you or Kerry would have believed it.

Now that it seems the intelligence handled, vetted, and put forward by the Clinton Administration mind you, was wrong, WHOA! -Bush lied! Pardon me but that’s a bit of a stretch and quite a spin.

Let’s talk about the danger Saddam posed. Evidently because he didn’t have a nuke so he wasn’t dangerous after all, right? That’s analogous to the police getting a tip that a man wanted by police has a gun and is holed up in somebody’s house. But when the police show up he doesn’t have a gun so they let him go. Is it the gun or the criminal who is dangerous?

Iran will have nukes in a very short time. Will they use it themselves or will they use a proxy to deliver it? My mistake, the UN is on that one. Inspections will take care of it. Let’s let the process run its course.

..it’s a great example of things easier said than done, and people not willing to put forward the effort to do things right.

What is ‘doing things right?’ Some things are worth doing even though it is a challenge. Some risks are important enough to take. What I consider easier said than done is the Kerry plan for fighting the war on terror. i.e. “Bush is doing everything wrong, I’ll do what he’s doing better.” (Honestly besides getting UN approval before acting what else does he say he will actually do differently?)

The fact that we really haven’t been able to move forward from Iraq, as hoped is indicative of the failure, not the validity of the NeoCon foreign policy in general, and the war in Iraq specifically.

I disagree. We are actually doing very well. You sound like the media during the invasion. Every day I heard Tom Brokaw or some other talking head saying it looks like ‘we’re losing’, and ‘this could be a quagmire just like Vietnam’. Have we already failed in Iraq? Should we just pack it in then because you see it as a complete failure? Maybe we should continue with the plan a little longer and see how it turns out first before we decide that we’ve failed.

Although corruption probably did play a large part in the stymied progress on inspections, so did the disrespect and disregard shown by Bush. In fact, it could be said that the two fed on each other. Additionally, without the distorting effects of the Office of Special Plan’s bypass of the defense and Intelligence apparatuses, European military and intelligence officials found little to trust in Bush’s evidence, and therefore little reason to indulge in Bush’s paranoia and selective attention.

Wait, which came first? The corruption or Bush’s swagger? How did they feed on each other exactly?

Actually I think political ideology had alot to do with it. Specifically with France you have leaders more closely resembling Democratic-Party values and outlook. Who look at Bush as a typical American commoner too blunt to understand the nuances of real ‘diplomatique’. It’s not that they didn’t believe Bush’s evidence -because they had the same evidence! They just didn’t share the same view that removing Saddam was a good thing. The financial aspect was huge I’m sure. France is… or was the single largest arms supplier to Saddam’s despotic regime.

I’m sure Kerry and Chirac would get along nicely. They both understand the nuances of international diplomacy.

Look, I’ve supported every military intervention in the last fifteen years, from Panama, to this current war. This is the first time that I’ve really felt that my president fooled me into approving a war that wasn’t really justified by the facts. By inclination, I’m not a pacifist.

Neither is Kerry. Kerry went to Vietnam. Kerry supported military interventions like Panama, Grenada, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. As liberal as he is, he is not a peacenik by any stretch of the imagination.

John Kerry voted for the invasion of Iraq at the time. Not because the President lied to him but because everyone knew that Saddam wanted WMD, had WMD, and wanted to make more WMD.

Everybody knew the first part was true, but I think they only suspected the second. You can say everybody had the same intelligence, but according to other sources, they had people saying the WMD stuff was BS.

Your refuge is not admitting you were wrong, it’s using the ambiguities of other people’s mistakes, and of the the vast possibilities of the future in order to avoid answer question that relate to your responsibilities NOW.

Bush had his chance to test those theories for himself. He wasn’t prisoner to Clinton’s opinions or analysis. He had his chance! He could send people out and have them do the footwork in tracking down the truth of Saddam’s WMDs. I mean, in the light of 9/11, what was he doing trusting any intelligence as definitive, if it were coming from before that time?

A theory, to be useful , must face multiple tests of its assumptions and it conclusions, and either remain soundly supported by that evidence, or become modified in order to better model the reality that contradicted it. Time and time again, your approach to the failed conclusions of the NeoCons has been to drag out that central set of points that people were using before the war to justify it, and ignoring the evidence. It is this that has harmed the NeoCons more than anything else. It is the shear inability of them to admit their guesses were wrong that has provoked more skepticism than anything else. We don’t mind mistakes half as much as we mind people who fail to learn from them.

Let’s talk about the danger Saddam posed. Evidently because he didn’t have a nuke so he wasn’t dangerous after all, right? That’s analogous to the police getting a tip that a man wanted by police has a gun and is holed up in somebody’s house. But when the police show up he doesn’t have a gun so they let him go. Is it the gun or the criminal who is dangerous?

Ah, but the arrest was inevitable- The guy was a escaped convict, and that was provable, substantial fact. If the police had shown up and the person there wasn’t an escaped con, that would render the tip invalid, even if he had a weapon. This is more like some prank call saying that a man with a certain description is drunkenly waving a gun around a house, only to find the guy calmly watching television with not a weapon in the house. It doesn’t matter what the man’s record before that was. You might want to treat him with suspicion and take great precautions with him, but if he’s not committing the act the police came to the house to deal with, then one might be inclined to distrust the source the next time.

Of course, it wouldn’t be worth arresting the guy on it, because they could not demonstrate the validity of the actions, and the charges would probably not stick.

We’re committed now to Iraq, like a prosecutor whose hand was forced by an overzealous policeman. We’ve been handed a bad case, and it’s our duty to leave it better than we found it. But it didn’t have to be this difficult, expensive, and humiliating. The Regime change is hard to argue with, but the invalidation of our reason for fighting this war as a part of the war against terror isn’t. Neither is it insufficient numbers of troops, or the hideously off-base predictions about how the Iraqis, particularly in the south, would behave when America invaded, or any number of issues that other people in the defense departemt out of the special plans loop, could have told the army would be a problem. Even I expected there to be hesitation on the part of the Shiites in southern Iraq. Even I remembered our flip-flop on supporting their last uprising.

I do not want to be to harsh about this, but it seems you are willing to support a system that supports incompetence, on account of the fact that they agree with your aggressive stance on how America should wage war.

As I said before, I’m no daisy-in-the-rifle-pacifist when it comes to the military. I’m very comfortable about this nation taking military action, when necessary, when justified. You can pepper me with all the “When exactly’s” you want to as far as my thresholds on the subject, but let me tell you this: Had the army found Chemical Weapons, and Networks of terrorists in the Saddam-Controlled parts of Iraq, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I might not have ever felt it necessary to start posting on this site!

You can justify whatever you want to by what France or some other country did, but it was Bush choice to follow his prejudices and not the evidence, and his choice to invade, even as questions were being raised about the manner and the justification of the war.

God, America and the intervention and interference we love so much! How long will it take for us to learn from the mistakes of the past?
No good ever comes of poking your nose where it doesn’t belong.I think I need to move to a different planet.

Stephen,

I just don’t understand the turnabout. The fact that we have not found stockpiles of WMD does not negate the need to remove Saddam.

I think it’s the assertion that Bush outright and baldfaced lied that cannot be accounted for from the facts. You argue that perhaps he should have gotten new intelligence. How do you do that in a country with interlocking intelligence apparatus, and a dictator that might not have known himself that he didn’t have these weapons. For all we know what was left could be sitting in Syria right now.

The intelligence that we recieved from defectors, those we would assume are sane enough to want to get out from such oppression, was that Saddam did have these weapons.

Iraqi Generals debriefed after the liberation said that they didn’t have chemical weapons but the division next to them certainly did. Iraqis in the regime believed it. Saddam may have believed it.

In short, those American and British intelligence officers and political leaders who thought Saddam’s units were armed with WMD early this year, rather than his only retaining “just-in-time” production capacity, may have been neither foolish nor nefarious. It is one thing to make intelligence misestimates because of incompetence, weakness, or ideological bias—all would deserve strong censure. But it is quite another to succeed in the tough job of stealing secrets from a totalitarian government, and then for it to turn out that even if you were skillful and lucky enough to have had Iraqi generals as sources, they had themselves been deceived. -Trebach,org

We know that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. We destroyed bunkers and bunkers of it after the first Gulf war. The inspectors accounted for destruction of some more stockpiles of WMD. But there were a significant amount that was not accounted for.

This is not the same as fabricating evidence or taking obviously shoddy intelligence and purporting it as fact. Everybit of intelligence we had indicated the same thing. The Iraqis believed it to be true. Saddam denied it, and tried to frustrate any inspection to uncover actual weapons. Further confirmation that afforesaid intelligence would be true, you’d expect Saddam to try and conceal real WMD.

“Bush lied.” Is merely a pretext for demonizing him. The facts don’t bear it out. Kerry had the same intelligence, he voted for the war.

Maybe it’s because to me the WMD was only one good reason among several to remove Saddam. I just don’t understand your position of no longer supporting the war.

the analogy:

Actually, it’s more like invading Iraq was executing a warrant to search for weapons. We had good evidence that there were weapons, but we didn’t find them. The perp however is wanted for murder, extortion, torture, and funding terror. Should we let him go?

Kerry had the same intelligence

What is the basis for this assertion? As I understand it, senators receive intelligence briefings from the Executive branch and the military, both of which the White House runs. As the recent revelations about the Office of Special Plans have shown, the intelligence that came out of the military and the intelligence services was compromised by the political motivations of the White House. Bush had access to raw intelligence, but Kerry had access only to the intelligence filtered by what Bush wanted him to hear.