Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Sorry Eric, you are plainly taking Kerry’s words out context to suit your own agenda. He was not against the invasion of Iraq based on the information he was provided by the Whitehouse and the Intel. communities. He was and is still against the idea of invading nations which in turn will require nation building and entail long term hostilities without U.N. and NATO backing so as to reduce the costs both human and economic for Americans.

Up to this point you accurately report on Kerry’s position. But as for the the assessment of his contradictions, this appears disingenuous. Kerry’s words which you make appear contradictory, had a context. There were a number of bills before the Senate which Kerry voted on and the context of the bills is required to give fair reporting of Kerry’s votes and positions. He voted against the 87 Billion for our troops not because he did not want to support our troops and give them what they needed, he voted against it because an alternative bill would have repaid some of that money back to American taxpayers and if the enough Senator’s voted against the first bill to defeat it, another bill authorizing 87 billion or even more for our troops would have come forward with the provision that some of the money be repaid by Iraq for rebuilding their infrastructure.

You can call it nuanced, I call it watching out for the American tax payer and public interest, something the Republicans in the House and Senate seem to have lost sight of from time to time.

When Kerry’s votes and words are put into context they make very consistent and good sense. Of course, a lot of folks are watching Bush’s ads and believing them despite the fact that they are so perverted from the truth that they are making news in their own right. Too, Kerry’s ads have not been much better. This is politics.

But, it is nice to get straight facts and contextual honesty and there is fortunately a lot of media and books and news covering the undistorted facts that articles like this which mix fact and fiction do not concern me that much.

It is just so disingenuous to report Kerry voted against the 87 Billion support package for Iraq and our troops without providing the context and the alternative bill Kerry was hoping to vote for.

BTW, being a C-span junkie, I watched that debate on the 87 Billion package and know first hand there was another bill waiting in the wings that would repay a part of the 87 billion. It is a matter of Congressional Record so this is not just a liberal slant. It is recorded fact.

Comment deleted for critiquing the Messenger not the Message — WB Manager

I could go line by line and rebut it, but every point you try to make is either based on an apparently deliberate mischaracterization of Kerry’s positions, or repeatedly rebutted on this site and elsewhere, so I’m just going to try to reply to the gist of your article.

As far as I can tell,

1. I guess you didn’t get the memo. President Bush is desperately trying to turn the nation-building duties over to the UN. He’s finally come around to Kerry’s way of thinking. Flip… Flop.

2. You don’t always win just by showing up. This may be the first time Bush has experienced that. He and Powell made a half-hearted presentation to the UN delegates and then didn’t address their concerns over the validity of the information presented. Even so, the UN Security Council voted unanimously for the first resolution.

As it became clear that Saddam no longer had WMDs and was not a state sponsor of terrorism, Bush did not try to work with the UN delegates of countries whose citizens were against an invasion without firm proof of the charges Bush was making. If Bush had waited three more weeks for the inspectors to finish up and announce that Saddam was not fully in compliance with the first resolution, the delegates could have used that as a credible 3rd party case for war, rather than appearing railroaded by Bush. Since both Bush and Tenet have taken great pains to say that neither one of them characterized Iraq as an imminent threat, no one understands why he couldn’t have waited three weeks. But Bush stated his terms to the UN delegates clearly: either fully back the US, no matter what the inspectors find, and no matter what you or the citizens of your countries believe, or be irrelevent.

I just read an interview with Annan’s assistent where he’s crowing about the UN being validated because Bush is begging on hands and knees for them to take over. Maybe you want the kind of President whose poor judgement subjects our country to that kind of ridicule, but I don’t.

As for the efficacy of a UN force, there were Middle Eastern countries that would have supported a UN sanctioned resolution to remove Saddam. Several Middle Eastern countries say they’ll support a UN mandate for Iraq now. There’s no way you can make the argument that a coalition that included Middle Eastern countries wouldn’t help our position.

3. Kerry has repeatedly stated that military action is part of his plan to eliminate terrorist threats. You may want to go back and read your article. Where you make the argument that Kerry is for a “purely law enforcement” response, the quote you cite contradicts your argument.

4. That’s how we got in this mess.

Lee:

You claimed that “If Bush had waited three more weeks for the inspectors to finish up and announce that Saddam was not fully in compliance with the first resolution…”, then he could potentially have had the UN’s backing. This is a patently false assumption.

The UN’s history with regard to Saddam was one of harsh rhetoric followed by inaction, followed again by more harsh rhetoric. Saddam caught on quickly. Its like the traffic cop who gives you a tongue lashing but no ticket—-the rhetoric wears off fast, and then you drive fast.

The reality is that had Bush waited those 3 weeks, the UN would have had another reason to forego action. After all, they had 12 years to practice allowing Saddam to “negotiate” his way out of issues.

Please don’t forget this sequence in the mid 90’s:

UN inspectors claim Saddam has VX gas—Saddam denies it.

Inspectors FIND VX gas, whereupon Saddam says it was left over from before, but ispectors prove that it was newly made. (No, i dont know the science of HOW they prove these things…)

Saddam claims the VX gas wasnt even weaponized so what difference does it make, whereupon UN inspectors prove it to actually BE weaponized.

Finally….finally…Saddam agrees to have the UN destroy the VX gas.

That is standard UN policy—and Bush decided that enough was enough. Comply or be dealt with—no more harsh and empty rhetoric—just consequences for his actions

MR. RUSSERT: If you were elected one year from now, will there be 100,000 American troops in Iraq?

SEN. KERRY: It depends on what the situation is you find on the ground on January 20th of 2005.

Can we trust that Kerry’s policy positions will stay the same? It depends on what the situation is.

It amazes me that you are criticizing Kerry for not having a detailed plan for Iraq in a year when the President doesn’t even know who he’s transferring authority to in two months. It’s absolutely impossible to know what Iraq will be like in a year, so it’s absolutely impossible to say exactly what Kerry’s response will be. The best we could get are reassurances that Kerry is flexible enough to deal with the situation and an understanding of Kerry’s guiding principles. We have that.

As the Daily Howler notes about criticism of that exact exchange,

Kerry went on to say that, upon inauguration, he would “immediately reach out to other nations in a very different way from this administration.” But how could anyone sensibly prescribe troop levels for “one year from now?” Only a fool would find fault with that answer.

Eric, it’s called keeping your options open, something Bush doesn’t do. He’s too wrapped up in plans and ideologies, too loyal to one outlook to understand that the world doesn’t fit itself to our beliefs. Plans go off track, derailed by unforseen consequences and outcomes, ideologies can blind us.

And Bush lets them. It’s not that Bush’s flaws are unique, but that his peculiar temperament and upbringing makes him especially vulnerable to getting fixated on one idea or opinion above others. He’s a rigid thinker, and a rigid policy maker. In engineering, as in policy, flexibility is often desireable, even for structures where the idea of flexibility doesn’t immediately come to mind.

The WTC towers were able to absorb the impacts of jumbo jets hitting them at hundreds of miles and hour, and not topple over, for example. Most buildings that reach into that range have to be that flexible, if only deal with the winds hitting the broad faces of the building and pushing on them. Why not just stand still and take it? Because a structure that is too rigid will take on force, and the stresses, instead of being absorbed and distributed, will instead settle on some crucial point in the structure, which will fail, damaging or perhaps even bringing down the structure as a whole.

War plans and ideologies are just like that. Bush has no give, so time and again, things around him break as the stresses on international relationships, military operations, fiscal balances and other things grow too great, and are absorbed too poorly by the administration, rigid in it’s ideology.

Excellent analogy, great context.

Up to this point you accurately report on Kerry’s position. But as for the the assessment of his contradictions, this appears disingenuous. Kerry’s words which you make appear contradictory, had a context.

David, I report, you decide. As you say, I am reporting the facts. I hardly think that my interpretation of the facts is in any way disengenuous. You may not agree with it but let’s not call it disengenuous when it is my opinion.

The context.

There’s always a context with Kerry. That’s the nuance.

He voted against the 87 Billion for our troops not because he did not want to support our troops and give them what they needed, he voted against it because an alternative bill would have repaid some of that money back to American taxpayers and if the enough Senator’s voted against the first bill to defeat it

The context is, he voted against to oppose the President’s tax cuts? He couldn’t support our troops because the President’s tax cuts needed to be repealed?

Couldn’t we just as easily ‘pay’ for the $87 billion by cutting domestic spending?

Dave, I don’t really know if Kerry’s explanation washes. I’m not sure that is his real motivation on this. He voted for the authorization for war before the primaries. He voted against the funding for the troops during the primaries when it looked like anti-war-Dean might sweep the field. Seems a bit opportunistic to me.

…there was another bill waiting in the wings that would repay a part of the 87 billion…

There may have been another bill. There are thousands of bills that never get passed for one reason or another. But was that bill going to pass a Republican House and Senate? For instance, did you know that Rep. Major Owens put forward a bill to repeal the second amendment in 1992?

He voted for it, before he voted against it. Did he change his mind? Yes, he did. Yet, he says it was a vote for principle.

…if I’d been the deciding vote, we would have sat down at a table, we have worked out exactly how we were going to do this intelligently and we would have had a better bill. That’s how you change policy. You stand up for principle. That was a vote for principle.

In other words, if his vote mattered he would have voted for it. Sadly, Kerry voted less for principle than he did for political positioning.

MR. RUSSERT: If there’s another bill to provide money for the troops, you’ll vote against it again?

SEN. KERRY: It depends entirely on what the situation is, Tim.

Lee,

…every point you try to make is either based on an apparently deliberate mischaracterization of Kerry’s positions, or repeatedly rebutted on this site and elsewhere…

I think it characterizes him perfectly. Your interpretation of his positions is obviously skewed by your political preferences.

1. & 2. You’re right. Bush has tried to get the United Nations involved in this the entire time. If it were not for the rank corruption of the UN and several members of the UN who had cozy fiduciary conflicts of interest with Saddam we would have had a multilateral coalition. Unfortunately, as happens now and then, those parties did not disclose their conflict-of-interest with this issue as they should have done. Do you think that city councilmembers shouldn’t recuse themselves when they are voting on issues before the city that affect their own financial interest? Or maybe you prefer to apply that standard only to Supreme Court Justices?

Waiting wouldn’t have changed anything on the part of aforesaid partners of Saddam.

…Annan’s assistant … crowing about the UN being validated because Bush is begging on hands and knees for them to take over…

Actually it shows that Bush has been consistant all along. He decided that it would be better if the UN could be involved. They refused. It had to be done and now the UN has to get involved in order to save it’s own ruined credibility.

There’s no way you can make the argument that a coalition that included Middle Eastern countries wouldn’t help our position.

I am not arguing that. I agree with the President on this. It would have been better to have united front. Unfortunately financial gain is more valuable to some than world peace.

3. Kerry is an opportunist. He says what he thinks people want to hear. I included that quote in my argument. Kerry thinks the war on terror isn’t primarily a military operation. I’m not sure what this means if not relegating military action to the last ‘last resort’. Would Kerry have even gone into Afghanistan? I’m not so sure now. The anti-war protests began immediately after it was clear Bush meant to invade Afghanistan.

4. Kerry has no fresh ideas to get out of this ‘Vietnam-like quagmire’.

Hey joe.

You claimed that “If Bush had waited three more weeks for the inspectors to finish up and announce that Saddam was not fully in compliance with the first resolution…”, then he could potentially have had the UN’s backing. This is a patently false assumption.

Umm… No it’s not.

And thanks for the weaponized VX example. Clinton used that as one of his reasons for pulling the UN inspectors out of Iraq and bombing the crap out of all suspected WMD sites.

Republicans promptly cried, “Wag the dog!”

Here’s an good postmortum of the diplomatic process leading up to the invasion of Iraq. It’s an excellent start on getting better informed on the subject.

Stephen,

Eric, it’s called keeping your options open, something Bush doesn’t do. He’s too wrapped up in plans and ideologies, too loyal to one outlook to understand that the world doesn’t fit itself to our beliefs.

Here’s where I think you’re wrong, Stephen. You have claimed that Bush doesn’t listen to other alternative views. Well, he does and his cabinet reflects that. The hullabaloo around Woodward’s book exposes some of the one sided interpretation of your arguments. Bush doesn’t have a chorus for advisors. What kind of chorus would Kerry have?

If Kerry were to be President and he were to finally make a decision on something, will I be able to characterize it as ideological by the standard you’ve set? Or will he never make an ideological decision?

It’s all well and good to say that your political opposition’s worldview is hogwash, or the world doesn’t agree with his beliefs, but it is not a substantive argument. I can easily assert the same. You are defining good policy as something not based on your own worldview.

You set up a standard in which Republicans must never make decisions based on their philosophy or experience. Will Kerry govern outside of his own worldview?

Plans go off track, derailed by unforseen consequences and outcomes, ideologies can blind us.

Of course they do. The assertion that Bush doesn’t know this is absurd. The election is the first example of unforseen consequences and outcomes in his Presidency. The beginning, I think, of the liberal left’s ferocious animosity towards him. Ideologies can indeed blind us to things that do not fit into the precise box we have created about someone.

Bush has done a great job of letting the tide ebb and flow around him. His best characteristic might just be his steadfastness, his resilience in the face of so much tragedy, terror, and testing.

Ahh, Eric.

Couldn’t we just as easily ‘pay’ for the $87 billion by cutting domestic spending?

Was that particular funding bill proposed by the Republicans? Um.. Nope. The President and Reps in Congress decided to borrow the money from Communist China to fund the war (and the irresponsible tax cuts, too).

If it were not for the rank corruption of the UN and several members of the UN who had cozy fiduciary conflicts of interest with Saddam we would have had a multilateral coalition.

I’m always puzzled by the argument that almost every European country, and countries like Cameroon, Angola, Chile, Guinea, and Syria were all unwilling to remove Saddam because Russia and France were making money. They would have stood to make even more money by supporting the US and sharing the spoils. No, Eric. That viewpoint just doesn’t make any sense.

Actually it shows that Bush has been consistant all along. He decided that it would be better if the UN could be involved. They refused. It had to be done and now the UN has to get involved in order to save it’s own ruined credibility.

Wow! That is some big spin! So yes, Bush was consistent. He was going to invade whether the UN was involved or not. Are you conceding you’re argument that Bush tried really hard to create a true international alliance? He could have, but he didn’t.

And the UN doesn’t want to get involved. The other part of that article (in the International Herald Tribune last week) quotes Annan’s assistant as saying that they’re reluctant to get involved now because it’s a clusterf&%k. I think it’s a testament to the UN member’s commitment to peace that those people are getting involved as much as they are, considering the slap in the face Bush gave them.

In any case, it’s George Bush who has the ruined credibility, so now he’s begging the UN to legitimize his adventure.

I am not arguing that. I agree with the President on this. It would have been better to have united front.

Actually you’re agreeing with Kerry. And if it’s not a new idea for you, then you’re more realistic than the President who has just recently adopted Kerry’s stance.

Kerry thinks the war on terror isn’t primarily a military operation. I’m not sure what this means if not relegating military action to the last ‘last resort’.

Why don’t you email him and ask. He’s a nice guy. In the meantime, I can tell you. Military action wouldn’t be the last resort, it would be the last part in an operation. Law enforcement and the CIA would develop intelligence about a threat, then military Spec Ops would go in and take out the bad guys. If the bad guys are in the US, then SWAT teams would handle it. The only reason to call in the armored divisions is to shut down a state that is sponsoring terrorism.

I’m pretty sure you’re not advocating that we should have sent the 1st Armored to invade the London suburban flats where the British just caught some terrorists. It would have been overkill, and the Brits wouldn’t have appreciated it.

I suspect you have the same position as Kerry on how terrorism should be fought. You just dislike him so much personally (for some reason, I doubt you’ve met the man), that you’d prefer to mischaracterize him.

Since everyone here absolutely knows the outcome of the invasion of Iraq. We don’t have to live until the future because all the FACTS are here.

Eric, what you call nuance and flip flop in Kerry, you call openess and listening in Bush.

A fact is that over 700 U.S. soldiers have died, thousands injuered, over 10,000 Iraqis have died.

A fact is that it is likely more will die.

You say that Kerry is/was against the war. Frankly, only a psychotic or psycopath would be FOR any war.

Bush has adjusted his stance on International involvement because he realizes he is in an intractable situation. He is also running for President.

The reality is we do not know at this point if Iraq will proceed to democracy, or some form of a republic, or devolve further into chaos.

A lot of senior analysts think it was poor stragety to invade Iraq. Some do not.

Bush nor Kerry will operate in a vacuum. They both have numerous advisors.

Kerry is unproven in the Presidency just as Bush was in 2000. For me the choice is about agendas. They both take polls to adjust their message to the public.

Frankly, I don’t believe Bush has performed well. He certainly hasn’t persued a conservative fiscal policy. He seems to lack international skills. We are deeply involved in Iraq and cannot easily walk away without spawning even more terror upon the world. Kerry will have a Republican Congress to deal with, but may offer a political means to internationalize Iraq.

Bush has created a serious foreign policy situation that will take at least 10, maybe 20 years or more to play out. What we have to decide in November is whether this is a sensible policy to proceed with. My fear with Mr. Bush is that he may well entrench us further in an effort to hide any missteps or failures of his policy choices. It is his unwillingness to answer straight forward qustions,lack of sincerity and his administrations attempts to hide their agenda that most concern me.

There are no “facts” that can tell us the future.

Yes, all Politicians lie, but this one is rolling dice that are killing people while he tries out his theories.My nephew turned 18 today.
I once believed in the vision of leaders who were strong and bold. I voted for Nixon and for Ford. I still believe strength is necessary in the world. Bush is beginning to look brash and desperate.

My own theory is that America needs to look to other sources of energy such as solar, geothermal, wind and nuclear to ween us off middle east oil. The fight for oil will only intensify over the ensuing years.

Greg, it was pleasant to see us in agreement on so many issues. The question of alternative energy is how to subsidize the price difference until innovation and economies of scale and broadened markets make it competitively priced with carbon based energy sources?

Normally I would vote to have the government subsidize R&D and even some cost difference offsets. But in the current fiscal mess Congress and Bush have put us in, I can’t seem to justify pushing the 10 Trillion dollar national debt at the end of this decade up any further.

Eric your rebuttal makes clear that you are unwilling to accept the facts even when they are a matter of public record. That makes discussion difficult. Had the non-loan version of the bill failed, the ammended version providing loans to Iraq instead of giveaways would have come up for vote. A number of Democrats and even a few Republicans wanted the loan version, including Kerry. Regrettably, a lot Republican arm twisting took place and a couple Republican votes changed sides.

Why ponder what a person’s motives are when the facts on record. Kerry voted for ammending the bill to the loan version which did not make it. Then, consistently, voted against the tax payer giveaway version. If I can give Bush credit for his prompt and decisive incursion into Afghanistan, can you not give credit where the record indicates it is due on consistency if nothing else?

Kerry’s vote on that issue showed him to be a far more fiscal conservative than Bush has ever been while in office. Kerry was trying to save tax payers money and hold down the debt. Bush and his supportive Congress now have us at 10 Trillion dollars by the end of the decade (CBO or OMB, forget which). That some cannot even remotely hope to recovered by a healthy economy as conservative and liberal economists now agree.

Lee,

Was that particular funding bill proposed by the Republicans? Um.. Nope. The President and Reps in Congress decided to borrow the money from Communist China to fund the war (and the irresponsible tax cuts, too).

No. But it is Kerry who was playing politics with funding for our troops. It’s quite clear that that is what he was doing by his own admission.

I haven’t the slightest idea what borrowing Communist Chinese money is in reference to.

…Cameroon, Angola, Chile, Guinea, and Syria were all unwilling to remove Saddam because Russia and France were making money. They would have stood to make even more money by supporting the US and sharing the spoils. No, Eric. That viewpoint just doesn’t make any sense.

For one, Cameroon, Angola, Chile, Guinea, and Syria are not permanant members of the security council with veto power. They were lobbied heavily by France, the counterweight to US policy. They did vote for resolution 1441, but refused to carry through with what it said.

…Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions…

Decides, … to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council…

Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, …the Government of Iraq shall provide … not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes…

Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Decides to remain seized of the matter. -Resolution 1441

After 12 years, how much longer should they remain seized of the matter? It seems that as long as the Oil-for-food program was bringing in the cash for the UN they were fully prepared to be seized of it for some time more.

He was going to invade whether the UN was involved or not. …Bush tried really hard to create a true international alliance? He could have, but he didn’t.

Really, Lee, if Bush knew that the UN wouldn’t go along would he have gone to the UN in the first place? If he had a reasonable expectation of creating a true international alliance then it is not correct to say he didn’t even try.

…quotes Annan’s assistant as saying that they’re reluctant to get involved now because it’s a clusterf&%k. I think it’s a testament to the UN member’s commitment to peace that those people are getting involved as much as they are, considering the slap in the face Bush gave them.

Would that slap in the face be asking them to be involved, enforcing their own resolution, or in taking away a profit stream for the UN?

In any case, it’s George Bush who has the ruined credibility, so now he’s begging the UN to legitimize his adventure.

Except that the Bush is not implicated in selling the Iraqi people into bondage. Ensuring their continued slavery for petro dollars. “No blood for Oil,” indeed.

Actually you’re agreeing with Kerry. And if it’s not a new idea for you, then you’re more realistic than the President who has just recently adopted Kerry’s stance.

No, I think the Iraq people are better off without Saddam Hussein. The criticism of Bush that he is a ‘unilateralist’ is false. What would Kerry have done if after ten months of the UN saying yes, yes, they suddenly said no when it came time to enforce the resolution? When it came time for diplomacy to end and action to begin?

SEN. KERRY: Not primarily. Tim, Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda…

MR. RUSSERT: This is the war on terror, Senator.

SEN. KERRY: But let me just finish.

MR. RUSSERT: The war on terror is a law enforcement, not military…

SEN. KERRY: No. I said “primarily.” And here’s why. If you don’t know—if you’re going to fight an intelligent war on terror, you don’t want to fight it here in America. You do want to fight it abroad. You want to fight it where the cells are originating.

”..where the cells are originating.” In the middle east? Is he saying his war on terror will include sending in troops to Syrian territory if that’s where a terror cell is and performing a quick strike? Or does he just mean Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, in which case the war on terror is over because as we all know that’s the only legitimate military target in the war on terror.

And in order to know who they are, where they are, what they’re planning and be able to go get them before they get us, you need the best intelligence, best law enforcement cooperation in the world. Now, I’ve always said once you know where they are, will you use the Delta Force or SEALs or Rangers or Special Forces of some kind? Absolutely. And I will not hesitate to use those forces effectively.

So, after you know that they are bad actors and that they mean you no good you send in the special forces to do a strike. Why not just cruise missile then? That would save even more soldiers lives. What he left out here is regular army, meaning no more invasions of countries.

I’m pretty sure you’re not advocating that we should have sent the 1st Armored to invade the London suburban flats where the British just caught some terrorists. It would have been overkill, and the Brits wouldn’t have appreciated it.

And you’d be right. Why would we invade London? But it brings up a good point and that is how will Kerry deal with having terrorists in other countries who do not want to cooperate with extraditing them? Military strikes?

I suspect you have the same position as Kerry on how terrorism should be fought. You just dislike him so much personally (for some reason, I doubt you’ve met the man), that you’d prefer to mischaracterize him.

Kerry, for the most part, has copied what Bush is actually doing. Do we need law enforcement? Yes. Do we need intelligence? Yes. Will Bush hesitate to send in special forces if he thinks there are Al Qaeda somewhere? Absolutely. Will Kerry think hard about it? Perhaps too hard? Perhaps too long? Will he ask permission first before sending the Army Rangers into Iran or Syria for a limited Strike? He has offered highly partisan criticism of aspects of the way Bush’s policy played out, but no substantive difference can he make.

If anything, the aspects of Kerry’s policies I might agree with are also Bush policies. The question that remains in my mind is does Kerry mean it? Or is he just saying what he needs to to get elected?

Eric,

But it is Kerry who was playing politics with funding for our troops.

From where I’m sitting it looks like the Republicans were playing politics by refusing to consider how to pay for it.

The China reference is regarding the government’s deficit spending. When the government spends more than it takes in through taxes, it has to borrow the money. China is the biggest lender of money to the US government.

They did vote for resolution 1441, but refused to carry through with what it said.

1441 doesn’t say that the UN will invade if Iraq doesn’t comply, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about here.

After 12 years, how much longer should they remain seized of the matter?

Only as long as as it takes for Bush to step up to the plate and lead them. He still either won’t or can’t work with the UN. Maybe you haven’t noticed, but the UN has never done anything of consequence without being led by the President of the United States. The UN is an arm of US foreign policy. Bush Sr. new how to work it, as did every president since it’s inception. Maybe 43 should ask 41 how it works.

Really, Lee, if Bush knew that the UN wouldn’t go along would he have gone to the UN in the first place?

It’s well documented that Bush went to the UN at the urging of Blair. If he had really wanted a UN operation, he wouldn’t have had to be coerced.

there’s a really good Fareed Zakaria article in the latest Newsweek that covers the subject.

Would that slap in the face be asking them to be involved, enforcing their own resolution, or in taking away a profit stream for the UN?

It would be, insulting them for questioning his WMD “intelligence”. Has Bush apologized to them for that? It turned out the UN was right to question the intelligence, didn’t it.

The criticism of Bush that he is a ‘unilateralist’ is false. What would Kerry have done if after ten months of the UN saying yes, yes, they suddenly said no when it came time to enforce the resolution? When it came time for diplomacy to end and action to begin?

It sure is easy to win an argument when only you know what someone “really” means, regardless of what that person says. I think it’s called arguing with yourself.

”..where the cells are originating.” In the middle east? Is he saying his war on terror will include sending in troops to Syrian territory if that’s where a terror cell is and performing a quick strike?

If that’s a serious question, then yes. He means fighting terrorism where cells are originating. Which word didn’t you understand?

Speaking of Syria, why did Bush refuse to implement Congressionally approved sanctions on them, anyhow? A country that we know killed 241 US Marines in Lebanon, has WMDs and is a state sponsor of terrorism? Oh, yeah. US companies just set up $34 million of new business there.

And you’d be right. Why would we invade London? But it brings up a good point and that is how will Kerry deal with having terrorists in other countries who do not want to cooperate with extraditing them? Military strikes?

Or covert surveillance until they move to a place we can strike or arrest them. The same way Bush is dealing with it. The difference being, with Kerry as president, there would be fewer countries unwilling to work with us.

If anything, the aspects of Kerry’s policies I might agree with are also Bush policies. The question that remains in my mind is does Kerry mean it? Or is he just saying what he needs to to get elected?

I’m assuming you mean anti-terrorism policies. Besides realizing that a good relationship with other countries is paramount (terrorists are caught every day in other countries, not in the US), then yes. Their policies are pretty similar, now that Bush has realized that a UN presence is desperately needed in Iraq. Counterterrorism tactics are pretty much a “duh” issue. There’s pretty much only one way to do it that makes sense.

I know that either candidate will do whatever is necessary to protect the United States from terrorists. Unfortunately, Bush got temporarily sidetracked by a wacky ideological adventure and he seems to be having trouble getting his intelligence community sorted out.

Terrorism isn’t the only issue we face in the US. There are other long-term issues that need to be dealt with. So far, I like Kerry’s ideas better.

Eric, If I remember what’s in Woodward’s book correctly, the secretary of state was among the last people to know. It’s also common knowledge that access to the president on a day to day basis is rather limited. Paul O’Neill recalls many meetings being scripted, instead of people freely discussing the issues at hand.

Bush is a president who thinks he knows what’s best. Unfortunately, all he knows are what certain not-that-disinterested parties tell him. He’s on record with Woodward and others with saying that he dislikes elites, that is experts, academics and intellectuals, precisely the people he’d need as alternatives to his own admittedly limited experience in a variety of fields. Instead he has the special interests over, like with the energy conference.

Problem is, what if those people are wrong, or acting purely out of selfish interest? Then public policy will not be enacted according to what’s right, but instead will be stubbornly defined according to counterfactual information and analysis. Consistency is only a virtue in relation to other virtues.

Lee,

China is the biggest lender of money to the US government.

Oh. Ok. …?

Maybe you haven’t noticed, but the UN has never done anything of consequence without being led by the President of the United States. The UN is an arm of US foreign policy. Bush Sr. new how to work it, as did every president since it’s inception. Maybe 43 should ask 41 how it works.

So you’re saying that Bush hasn’t tried to use the UN as an extension of US foreign policy?

Do they know that they are supposed to be an arm of US foreign policy?

It’s well documented that Bush went to the UN at the urging of Blair. If he had really wanted a UN operation, he wouldn’t have had to be coerced.

Did Blair ‘coerce’ Bush? What threat of force did he use?

It would be, insulting them for questioning his WMD “intelligence”. Has Bush apologized to them for that? It turned out the UN was right to question the intelligence, didn’t it.

I thought they were an extension of US foreign policy?

Speaking of Syria… US companies just set up $34 million of new business there.

$34 million dollars is not very much money, Lee. I highly doubt that we refuse to enforce sanctions on Syria for $34 million dollars. Please.

Terrorism isn’t the only issue we face in the US. There are other long-term issues that need to be dealt with. So far, I like Kerry’s ideas better.

Look, we all all know that democrats and liberal progressives are politically opposed to Bush. This is the real reason they are insistant that he has been a complete failure, that he has created more terrorism, created a Vietnam quagmire in Iraq, has alienated the world, and allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen. End of story.

Stephen,

Bush is a president who thinks he knows what’s best. Unfortunately, all he knows are what certain not-that-disinterested parties tell him. He’s on record with Woodward and others with saying that he dislikes elites, that is experts, academics and intellectuals, precisely the people he’d need as alternatives to his own admittedly limited experience in a variety of fields. Instead he has the special interests over, like with the energy conference.

Problem is, what if those people are wrong, or acting purely out of selfish interest? Then public policy will not be enacted according to what’s right, but instead will be stubbornly defined according to counterfactual information and analysis. Consistency is only a virtue in relation to other virtues.

Your arguments against Bush continue to be based soley on your opposition to conservative philosophy. That in itself is fine, it’s your opinion. Yet, you continue to couch them as if they are due to incompetence and stupidity.

Your definition of correct and right public policy is limited to liberal democratic policy. If Bush bases his policies on the conservative experts, acedemics, and intellectuals around him it is insulated, stubborn, shortsighted, selfish, and wrong in your mind.

The fact that liberals fail again and again in being able to put aside their own political agenda when serving conservatives says something about the efficacy of a conservative having so called other ‘points of view’ in his administration. Will you require a Kerry administration to employ Newt Gingrich or perhaps Ann Coulter so that he can have other points of view in his cabinet?

I’ve noticed also that the only facts that exist for you are liberal facts. Every fact which damns Bush or paints him in a bad light are gospel, from whatever source, and anything else is just wrong.

It is kind of hard to argue with that, because we aren’t on the same playing field.

All politics aside, (for a very short moment), I like some of the things Kerry has said about Iraq since he wrapped up the primary. The trouble is that I don’t think he means it. This is the time when politicians move to ‘the center’ after securing their base. I honestly have some questions about what kind of a President he would be. I am obviously conservative/libertarian, Kerry is not.

He has also insulted Republicans by saying that republicans are the most, “crooked, you know, lying group that I’ve ever seen.” Is this multilateral policy in action?

Simply put, Kerry is too liberal for me. For Kerry compromise is not just a necessary evil, but a prerequisite for being yourself. Except when it comes to consevative policy, then it is all out war, no prisoners, no surrender.

This is not a new problem for Kerry. As Boston Globe reporters Michael Kranish, Brian Mooney and Nina Easton write in their newly published biography of the senator, despite instances where Kerry showed himself “a lawmaker willing to stand up to prevailing political winds … he is trailed by a reputation for political opportunism. … Unlike many who are driven to succeed in public life by a core belief system, the arc of Kerry’s political career is defined by a restless search for the issues, individuals and causes to fulfill a nearly lifelong ambition” for the White House.

The election is still six months away. But Kerry’s reputation has been built over 40 years. And the voters seem to be sniffing it out. -Seattle Times

Eric, it does you no good to criticize my side for being partisan with that kind of language. If all this is going to be is a partisan shouting match about who’s more uncooperative with the other side, I really have more important things to do with my life.

Neither of us are going to back down merely on the value of what either of us will say. But what we can do is raise issues of substance. Not mere rumors, not secondhand hearsay from people with an axe to grind, but facts we’ve done our best to work out.

Really, I’m a functionalist. I hate having to carve through the ideological junk of my own party just as much as I dislike carving through the junk of your party. The Newshour with Jim Lehrer is more to my taste than Now with Bill Moyers. Moyers may have some neat guests and stories every now and then, but really, I’m not that warm to the intrusion of the polemic on the journalism.

What convinces me about what Clarke says is not that he’s saying something bad about Bush. God knows there are enough people saying that. It’s the facts he can bring to the fore that do the convincing for me.

Now facts can be used by liberals, and they can be used by conservatives, but there is no such thing as liberal facts. Facts are facts, and if they are true, you have only two possible honest responses: Complete the context to the best of your ability, or just accept it as it is.

So do one or the other. If you don’t get me agreeing with you on the first, you can at least make it more difficult for me to hold my position without compromising towards your position. And if you accept the facts, you do two things: you cripple the notion of yourself as a ideologue to neutral observers, and you leave yourself room to argue on matters where there is genuine controversy or where you actually are explicitly right.

All debate takes time and effort. Like any other contentious encounter, picking the wrong debate can be genuinely harmful to what one values, and to one’s strength elsewhere.

Did Blair ‘coerce’ Bush? What threat of force did he use?

Removal of support for the Iraq adventure. A great majority of the British public didn’t support the war. A UN sponsored action would have made it much easier for Blair (and Chirac, and Schroder, and even Putin) to back it. As it was, without the second resolution, Blair just barely managed to hold on to power.

$34 million dollars is not very much money

Oh, that’s right. I forgot you’re insanely rich. :)

I wrote up the deal on my blog using a Reuters story and an AP report in the San Francisco Chronical. What’s your explanation?

Look, we all all know that democrats and liberal progressives are politically opposed to Bush. This is the real reason they are insistant that he has been a complete failure, that he has created more terrorism, created a Vietnam quagmire in Iraq, has alienated the world, and allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen. End of story.

Actually, Eric, you have that backwords. Bush is a complete failure, that’s why we’re politically opposed.

Stephen,

The problem with refuting many of your ‘facts’ is that they are second hand reports. For you, O’neil’s personal opinion of Bush is proof that Bush is isolated and philosophically challenged. I’d characterize that as hearsay, gossip, and inuendo.

I have no problem arguing with you about Iraq. It’s when you pull out these ‘facts’ about Bush being incompetent, uninformed, beholden to his one-sided advisors that you cease to be debateable.

You didn’t answer my question about this statement:

Unfortunately, all he knows are what certain not-that-disinterested parties tell him. He’s on record with Woodward and others with saying that he dislikes elites, that is experts, academics and intellectuals, precisely the people he’d need as alternatives to his own admittedly limited experience in a variety of fields.

…Problem is, what if those people are wrong, or acting purely out of selfish interest? Then public policy will not be enacted according to what’s right, but instead will be stubbornly defined according to counterfactual information and analysis. Consistency is only a virtue in relation to other virtues.

How shall we interpret this statement? If Bush has conservative advisors, (gasp!), then he is surrounded with ‘wrong and selfish people’. You are saying then that Bush must have advisors who agree with you in order for you to say they are ‘acting according to what’s right’.

While we are talking about facts. Exactly who are these advisors who are ‘not-that-disinterested’, ‘wrong’, and ‘counterfactual’? Which ones are acting according to their own self interest?

Which begs the question, is everyone who disagrees with you selfish and wrong? Can one be conservative and still be honestly analysing information… that is, disagree with your interpretation of the ‘facts’?

What if Kerry’s advisors are wrong, or acting purely out of selfish interest?

Stop it Eric. You’re blowing my mind, man! :)

This is unrelated to Iraq, but I saw it in the paper today and it underscores Stephen’s point about the political litmus test that Bush’s “objective” advisors must undergo.

An editorial published in Science magazine, where a group of scientists who had been on national advisory committees told of being vetted for political acceptibility by administration officials, sparked a flurry of “me too” letters.

A lot of them were from CDC committees like the National Centre for Environmental Health, the advisory committee on lead poisoning and prevention, the advisory committee on national human research protections, and the advisory committee on genetic testing.

Another letter writer, a distinguished professor of psychiatry and psychology, reported receiving a call from the White House about his nomination to serve on the National Council on Drug Abuse. The caller declared that he must vet him to ‘determine whether he held any views that might be embarrassing to the president’.

According to the professor, a series of questions followed, with the White House official keeping a running score. One example: ‘You’re two for three; the president opposes needle exchange (for intravenous drug users) on moral grounds, regardless of the outcome.’

Then the exchange took an even more chilling turn. The official asked the nominee whether he had voted for Mr George W. Bush, and, on being informed that he had not, asked: ‘Why didn’t you support the president?’

Nothing is gained - and much is lost - when a desired policy outcome is put first. This is why deciding which research projects to support has always been a matter for objective peer review, not politicians.

In fact, the applicable statute for all this - the Federal Advisory Committee Act - specifically requires that committees be balanced and ‘not inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority’.

I know you’re going to hit me for the the lack of names and dates, but the guy is just writing an FYI piece, not compiling a federal case.

And so am I.