Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Today President Bush said ‘the war on terror is unwinnable.’ He’s right. It was a mistake from the very beginning. You cannot fight a war against a noun. However, I think everyone would agree waging a war against Al Qaida and associated organizations is a very good idea. Unfortunately, it just doesn’t have that snappy ring to it, does it? We took out Afghanistan & the Taliban, the only state openly supporting Al Qaida. Now what?
It is not a situation that lends itself to military victories in the classic sense. We are fighting a very loose organization, not a state. It is a situation that demands superb intelligence collection, specific strikes by special forces, and on a larger scale, political savvy.
Our traditional allies are very much behind the US in this conflict, the war against Al Qaida.
Now Iraq, that’s another matter, and it has nothing to do with Al Qaida or terrorism.
By the way, ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction,’ or WMD, is a term that appeared after the initial trial balloons about Iraq’s nuclear weapons were discredited. A nuclear Iraq? That would have been a problem. When that obviously wasn’t in the cards (yes, we all knew that prior to going in, remember?), the term ‘WMD’ appeared. It’s a red herring. Chemical weapons and biological weapons are extremely unlikely to fall into the hands or to be useful to terrorists.
Remember the problem- Al Qaida and nukes. That’s what has to be kept apart.

For me - Ed has outlined exactly why I won’t be voting for Bush.

In my judgment, the Democratic Party just doesn’t have the stomach to stand up to the terrorists. But Bush is a fighter.

From where I stand - Bush doesn’t seem to have the stomach to stand up to terrorist either. Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, and other than real-estate, neither did Afghanistan. Our governments total lack of resolve is shown by complete unwillness to take on the sources of terrorism: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Isreal/Palistine. I’m just going to assume that you and I will completly disagree on a correct path, but to this point I have seen 0 resolve by this president to take real action in any of these countries. Bush talks a lot of game about not letting opposing countries stand in the way of America - but this seems only to be the case when the country doesn’t really matter. Wheres our hardline with the Saudis? Wheres our hardline with the Pakistanis when they let AQ Khan go?

What I see from Bush is the most simplistic stance on terrorism possible. “he said we would go after the terrorists” as though there was some Die Hardesque cadre of ‘terrorist’ to be had, and once we got them all - we win. There seems to be no public discusion of the fact that terrorism is movement. We focus sigularly on people like Bin Laden as the source of all terror - without discussing the factors that make them powerful. Alone Bin Laden is nothing - why do thousands of people die for him, and perhaps millions agree with his movement?

If this is the issue of the election - I dont see how I could vote for Bush.

Afghanistan had everything to do with terrorism. It was a country offering a haven to Al Qaeda.

I’ll vote for Bush because I simply do not trust the liberal Democratic approach (like Kerry) to dealing with islamic terrorists. These pacifist attitudes like “we need to understand them” …. “we’re creating new terrorist everyday” make me want to hurl. With that kind of passivity we would have never went after the Nazis or the fanatical Japanese.

Kerry represents a large number of people that actually think the number one issue facing this country is health care and outsourcing jobs. Oh yeah… they don’t want France and Germany to hate us. I almost feel sorry for moderate and conservative Democrats. They are stuck with this guy. They don’t want Bush, but they definitely aren’t excited about Kerry.

Uh, Aldaron… we DIDN’T go after the Nazis or Japanese until they finally struck Pearl Harbor. up until that point we REFUSED to engage regardless of how the rest of the world was struggling .
I think Dan has a great point. It’s an organization not a country.. not one nation . It’s not the climate of any other war, no clearcut enemy and behaving as if it is simply arrogant.

To defeat your enemy you need to understand them. This isn’t a question of getting “cozy” with Al Quaida, so you can sit around drinking cognac… it’s about understanding what motivates them , what their goal is how they recruit. And ya know if they are recruiting Islamic youth, as more and more Islamic kids watch their parents die in the name American “Liberation”, … explain to me exactly how joining an organization that promises to avenge their families deaths and earn them a place in heaven would not be inviting…..

Aldaron, one doesn’t need to worry about the war on terrorism which will be fought in perpetuity, because if Bush wins again, his permanent tax cuts combined with token deficit cutting will kill us domestically, economically, and totally erode any competitive advantage we still have in the globalization process. And that will be done in his next 4 years, putting us past a point of no return. The demise will take 10 to 20 years, but the point of no return will be the 10 Trillion dollar debt level Bush’s next term will inevitably result in.

I don’t think Kerry is any better choice in the long run. But Kerry can be flexible and is not locked into promises he must keep or lose face. Bush, is now recanting a number of former positions and policies, and is rapidly losing credibility, but, on domestic and economic policy he is as rigid as ever and that spells domestic and competitive doom for America’s future.

Ed Koch was an idiot when he was mayor and he’s an idiot now that he’s no longer mayor. Some things never change.

But the party activists who nominated him would compel him to back down once he was in office.

Anybody who saw McCain and Guliani tonight will have a real crisis of conscience if they even think about pulling the lever for Kerry.

“we REFUSED to engage regardless of how the rest of the world was struggling.”

As if someone like you would have supported and engagement in early 1940…..

Uh, Stephanie… you seem to be showing your ignorance about history. We were engaged covertly long before we entered actual war. Besides, isn’t that a moot point? The fact is we entered and defeated them. My point still holds. With the “we’re just creating more terrorists” argument, the same could have been said about WWII when we were killing them.

David… I respect your opinion but you and I are just going to keep disagreeing over and over again. You are a socialist, progressive, or whatever you’re calling yourself these days, and I am not. I agree with you on one point though. Kerry certainly isn’t locked into one position. He’s proven that many times.

Anybody who saw McCain and Guliani tonight will have a real crisis of conscience if they even think about pulling the lever for Kerry.

Why? Because two partisan Republicans gave a speech supporting their candidate? Ridiculous.

McCain’s speech was well written and well delivered. It was strong, sensitive (heaven forbid, Dick Cheney), and poignant. If anything, it showed that the GOP made a colossal mistake when they railroaded John McCain in 2000 to get Candidate Bush into the driver’s seat.

Giuliani repeated the same criticisms of Kerry— using the same half-truths and falsehoods that have been used before— that have failed to hurt Kerry in the six months the GOP has been trying. I used to think Giuliani was better than that.

Giuliani’s imagery of a unified nation immediately following 9/11 was powerful. Too bad neither he nor anyone else at the convention cares to explain how the Bush Administration let that unity shatter to pieces.

If they had left McCain’s tone in place, what you say would be true. I didn’t always agree with him, but when I did part ways, I felt much more regretful about it. McCain’s speech resonated with that post 9/11 dream of unity, of common cause and common fight, of a world with many more sides than just the two partisan platforms. McCain adeptly explained why he was willing to help Bush get re-elected. I could entitle it “Why, despite my differences, I support Bush”

If McCain’s speech seemed to center on a common dream, Giulani’s seemed to just be a rude awakening, Rudolph bringing back the harshly negative reality of how Bush has operated over the last few months.

Eric,

I am not expressing sympathy here, but you Republicans could’ve done better than Ed Koch. To me, he’d be the bastard child of Dick Morris and James Trafficant.

I’d be also better if you had any actual American voters (non-Investor class, non-white and not unemployed maybe?), who would also declare a switch in allegiance.

Seems we’ve fallen into a routine, where I respond to one of your posts, offer up a direct response (usually with a sourced link), and get absolutely no response. Here I go again!

MoveOn.org has produced TV ads with just the kind of folks I was talking about. Except, they are ex-Bush voters switching to Kerry!

MoveOn.org Real People

You also continue to question John Kerry’s plan for National Security, Terrorism and the Iraq War. Insisting Kerry ‘…has not laid out a consistent plan’. Chances are, I’ve already suggested this link:

www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security

The non-specific platitudes and disingenuous generalities of Ed Koch, will not wash anymore with the 50% percent to 39% percent of voters of a ‘wrong track’ mindset.

Welcome back Martin.

Guiliani’s speech was clear and concise. No offence to Don or Stephanie but you are illustrating the true divide here. The war on terror does not end with Al Qaeda. As you said the enemy is not a single nation or group— it is not any single ‘loose organization’ either.

I was watching MSNBC’s after hours with Scarborough and Reagan and I think Ron Silver, who I’m sure is not a conservative, said it quite emphatically, that we are engaged in a prolonged ideological struggle like that which we had with communism. Democrats seem not to understand that there even is an enemy outside of a single organization. What’s more it is my contention that they do not understand the enemy at all as evidenced by democrats saying that any action might ‘create more bin ladens’.

How will a policy that does not address the total lack of freedom, equality, and opportunity in the middle east, that does not address the problem of totalitarian governments and in fact encourages the status quo in the middle east, ever hope to change the ‘recruitment’ for terror?

Here’s a portion of Guiliani’s speech:

But the reasons for removing Saddam Hussein were based on issues even broader than just the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

To liberate people, give them a chance for accountable, decent government and rid the world of a pillar of support for global terrorism is something for which all those involved from President Bush to the brave men and women of our armed forces should be proud.

President Bush has also focused on the correct long-term answer for the violence and hatred emerging from the Middle East. The hatred and anger in the Middle East arises from the lack of accountable governments.

Rather than trying to grant more freedom, create more income, improve education and basic health care, these governments deflect their own failures by pointing to America and Israel and other external scapegoats.

But blaming these scapegoats does not improve the life of a single person in the Arab world. It does not relieve the plight of even one woman in Iran.

It does not give a decent living to a single soul in Syria. It certainly does not stop the slaughter of African Christians in the Sudan.

The changes necessary in the Middle East involve encouraging accountable, lawful governments that can be role models.

This has also been an important part of the Bush Doctrine and the president’s vision for the future.

Have faith in the power of freedom.

People who live in freedom always prevail over people who live in oppression. That’s the story of the Old Testament. That’s the story of World War II and the Cold War.

That’s the story of the firefighters and police officers and rescue workers who courageously saved thousands of lives on September 11, 2001.

President Bush is the leader we need for the next four years because he sees beyond today and tomorrow. He has a vision of a peaceful Middle East and, therefore, a safer world. We will see an end to global terrorism. I can see it. I believe it. I know it will happen.
cbsnewyork.com

John Kerry would like to fight the war on terror with the same failed European model. Even now Chirac’s government is ‘in crisis’over two kidnapped journalists.

A threat by a militant Islamic group in Iraq to murder two French hostages unless Paris abandons a law banning muslim headscarves in schools was being treated as a national crisis by the French government last night.

After two emergency sessions of the government, the Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, met with President Jacques Chirac in the Elysee Palace last night. The President also sent his Foreign Minister, Michel Barnier, to the Middle East to help gain the hostages’ release.

…Although France has a history of negotiating with terror groups and paying ransom demands for hostages, the country’s political leaders were united yesterday in condemning the political “blackmail”.

…The interior minister, Dominique de Villepin, called an emergency meeting of France’s muslim consultative committee yesterday morning. Afterwards, they called on “anyone with a share of responsibility for the fate” of the journalists to free them immediately. nzherald.co.nz

This isn’t France. The US will never be France. Kerry’s policies do not rely on a failed European model. Kerry’s policies include the use of the military where it is appropriate and the best part of the European model where it is appropriate— It’s called diplomacy — and we need it more than ever in this world.

Unfortunately, Bush has lost the ability to negotiate on our behalf with the rest of the world. If we want to truly wage war on terrorists, we will need to make more friends than enemies. Bush’s way has made us more enemies than friends. That is the unfortunate reality Guiliani conveniently ignored in his speech.

Guiliani asks us to believe in the power of freedom. I do. However, saying we have liberated nations does not neccessarily make it so. I argue that the only judge of freedom is those we seek to liberate. Once the people of Iraq and Afghanistan agree that they are free - then perhaps they will be. Once they agree that we are the one’s that facilitated their freedom, then perhaps I will agree that we have facilitated it. Thus far we have facilitated a deadly power vacuum in both countries in which the people suffer greatly while major players vie for control

Further, Guiliani makes the same mistake the Bush administration made in deciding to go to war— He reduces the root causes of anti-american sentiment and terrorism itself to bad governments that need replacing. He buys into Bush’s supremely simplistic idea that the US can use the military to yank out governments like rotten teeth and somehow replace them with the good dentistry of American know how and economic strength. That completely self-absorbed vision of America is what led to the current “catastrophic success” in Iraq.

My friend, we live in an age when our good intentions, a belief that we live in a Norman Rockwell painting and a faith that other countries want exactly what we want are the bricks in the road to hell for us and others.

We are dealing with something dark and complicated. It will take someone with a strategic mind to address it. George Bush has thus far shown no cleverness, no ability to win friends to our side. He has shown an incredible, clownish willingness and ability to offend the very hearts and minds we are supposedly liberating.

Give me John Kerry any day.

“Kerry’s policies include the use of the military where it is appropriate…

I think the question a lot of people have is when does Kerry think it is appropriate? This is a man who voted against the 1991 war with Iraq even after the UN sanctioned it.

“US can use the military to yank out governments like rotten teeth and somehow replace them with the good dentistry of American know how and economic strength”,/i>

The next time you are in Germany or Japan, look around.

I support going into Iraq. It was part of a bigger picture on dealing with rogue, oppressive states that destabilize that region in a post-September 11th world. Give it time. I think that my position will be a lot easier to defend in 10 years that yours.

Someone like me , Aldaron? quick wirth that one.. Personal attacks so endearing and seemingly not the point of this whole blog .
As to my “ignorance When I speak of ENGAGE I mean it in the active verb form to
en·gage    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-gj)

v. intr.

1. To involve oneself or become occupied; participate: engage in conversation.
2. To enter into conflict or battle: The armies engaged at dawn.
3. To become meshed or interlocked: The gears engaged

I was not refering to the Lend Lease Act of 1941 NOR the promise from Roosevelt to Churchill to become involved soon after the Triparte Act, but actual waged combat . Which did not publically come until we were finally attacked. Besides America’s Standard Oil was STILL supplying oil to Germany well into 1940 as well as during the war but I digress….

point still holds? what point is that exactly? Yes, we defeated the Nazis , yes and the Japanese .
Two SPECIFIC regimes in charge of countries, fighting in relatively traditional method. Armies, armaments the like.
And as far as making terriosts goes yeah that argument can be made … perhaps that did not happen on account of the Yalta conference and the support of the huge Russian army as well as Britain in occupation.
Imagine support from other countries .. because ya know making allies is so the Bush administrations forte…

Chris Dykstra said: “My friend, we live in an age when our good intentions, a belief that we live in a Norman Rockwell painting and a faith that other countries want exactly what we want are the bricks in the road to hell for us and others.

We are dealing with something dark and complicated. It will take someone with a strategic mind to address it. George Bush has thus far shown no cleverness, no ability to win friends to our side. He has shown an incredible, clownish willingness and ability to offend the very hearts and minds we are supposedly liberating.”

And very well said, indeed!!

Eric is proud of his President’s inflexibility, dogged determination to stick to a course regardless of success or failure, feedback, or alternate courses of obvious greater benefit. As you point out so well, terrorism, behavior of the human species which is as inherent as war itself in the species, is a very complicated challenge when it has no home state, no single national boundary or sponsor state. It will take a mind and cabinet capable of chess like strategy and tactics to minimize the terrorist threat against our nation. I’d be surprised if GW Bush could even win a game of checkers even half the time.

Kerry as one conservative here already admits, has the asset of flexibility. Kerry, Nader, or a number of other persons like Mc Cain or Jack Kemp, or even Newt Gingrich, could and would be able to adjust and adapt strategy and tactics as needed against terrorists intent upon making the U.S. their target. GW Bush has more then demonstrated this lack of flexibility. Many here tout Bush’s rigidity as a strength. But, one only need to view what happens to a tree that will not bend in the wind to understand what a strength flexibility can be.

Ahem……………

Stephanie, I don’t know from what point you are trying to argue from and it appears neither do you because you are all over the place and in the end agreed with me. When I say “someone like you” I’m referring to the people who sit back now and say things like, why Iraq?”….“what about North Korean?”… “what about Iran?”… what about all the other dictators in the world?”…….. as if they would support any kind of action in those places. “Why Iraq?” has been well-defined for those willing to listen. You may not agree with the reason, but don’t say the case was never made.

This constant characterization by the left that we have no allies is grossly distorted propaganda that is repeated over and over again. What they are really talking about is France and Germany. Its insulting to so many other nations that agree with us on the Iraq issue.

Don and Stephanie-

I was going to write something in response to your posts, but Eric (and Ron Silver and McCain and Rudy) already said it for me.

Guiliani’s speech was clear and concise. No offence to Don or Stephanie but you are illustrating the true divide here. The war on terror does not end with Al Qaeda. As you said the enemy is not a single nation or group— it is not any single ‘loose organization’ either.

I was watching MSNBC’s after hours with Scarborough and Reagan and I think Ron Silver, who I’m sure is not a conservative, said it quite emphatically, that we are engaged in a prolonged ideological struggle like that which we had with communism. Democrats seem not to understand that there even is an enemy outside of a single organization. What’s more it is my contention that they do not understand the enemy at all as evidenced by democrats saying that any action might ‘create more bin ladens’.

That really is the root cause to our differing views.

Bert,

I wish I could respond every time… but it’s getting harder lately. Time is money as they say.

You have two points here. One is that Ed Koch ‘switching sides’ means nothing because he’s irrelevant? I don’t know. Koch is a democrat. He is liberal on social issues. But on this one issue of the war on terror and foreign policy he sees a clear divide between the two parties. Take it for what it is or minimize it if you want to. The point is that there the Presidents policy is a legitimate one that crosses party lines.

There are others besides Ed Koch. Ron Silver also spoke, forcefully too I might add, at the Republican Convention last night. He cannot be considered a conservative by any means. But I guess you should consider him a neo-con now.

And what about Joe Leiberman? We didn’t see him at the democratic convention. He isn’t endorsing Bush, but he does agree with the policy on Iraq.

I am not expressing sympathy here, but you Republicans could’ve done better than Ed Koch. To me, he’d be the bastard child of Dick Morris and James Trafficant.

I’d be also better if you had any actual American voters (non-Investor class, non-white and not unemployed maybe?), who would also declare a switch in allegiance.

Your second point is that any criticism of Kerry’s national security non-plan is somehow wrong because it is critical.

You also continue to question John Kerry’s plan for National Security, Terrorism and the Iraq War. Insisting Kerry ‘…has not laid out a consistent plan’. Chances are, I’ve already suggested this link:

www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security

The non-specific platitudes and disingenuous generalities of Ed Koch, will not wash anymore with the 50% percent to 39% percent of voters of a ‘wrong track’ mindset.

I’ve read much of John Kerry’s web site. The problem with Kerry is that this is not the full version of John Kerry. The parts of it that I would like are obviously there as Koch said to play to moderate and conservative voters. I’m okay with that, but is it the real John Kerry? How can you tell when he takes both sides of an issue at different times?

Is John Kerry for wars that have a multilateral coalition but against wars that do not have a sufficient coalition? Then why did he vote against the first Gulf War? And then later say he was for it when it was a resounding success? Did John Kerry have reservations about invading Iraq and using force to remove Saddam Hussein? Then why did he vote for the authorization of force, and ipso facto declaration of war, when it was popular, but then later say he was against it?

Again, you may not agree with it but it is a valid criticism.

The post WW II are both Germany and Japan are great examples of applied American know how and economic strength. I have visited both countries often. I felt proud to be an American every time.

But theses examples are not apt comparisons to our current occupation of Iraq. If you recall, both the occupation of Japan and Germany came on the heels of five years of iternational warfare that consumed the globe. We fought that war because we were attacked by a self-identified, aggressive opponent. When we finally arrived in those countries The US was the clear victor over a vanquished enemy. We had something we sorely lack in Iraq - it’s called legitimacy. All players cocernened - German and Japanese citizens as well as every single other country in the world - recognized our status as iterim government.

That’s what allowed the generosity of the American people to shine and the power of American capitalism to transform.

Iraq isn’t the same. Iraq didn’t attack us. Our public justification for being there was unclear at best and false at worst. We have little international support. The Iraqis themselves do not want us there and don’t recognize the authority of our government beyond the barrel of a gun. The environment in which the promise of American capitalism and democracy can work is not present in Iraq.

The Republican urge to make romantic comparisons between WWII and the current war on terror is what I mean when I say that it is an ineffective strategy to believe we live in a Norman Rockwell painting.

I think you’ve bought into the New York Times version of what is happening in Iraq right now. It’s not an accurate representation and neither is your characterization of post-war Germany. The “werewolves” continued to blow up trains, buildings, and kill soldiers with sniper fire well into 1948. Sounds a little bit like Iraq doesn’t it?

Yes, the Werewolves were active after the end of the war. They weren’t a realistic threat to anything because they lacked popular support and they opposed an internationally recognized interim goverment. If we merely faced Werewolf-like organizations in Iraq, things would be dandy.

But we are not, in any sense, in control of Iraq.

Please tell me you recognize the differences between what you wish would happen and what actually is happening.

It would give me hope.

Eric & George, I think you hit the nail on the head in identifying the fundamental difference between the path preferred by another Bush administration versus the one preferred by a Kerry White House. We’re in agreement on the necessity for taking out Al Qaida & related organizations, as well as their Taliban hosts. But where to go from there? How can national security be assured, and ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,’ encouraged in the Middle East?
I would strongly argue against the methodology advocated by Giuliani and the Bush administration- not the goal itself. With Kerry, the long-term goal can be achieved peacefully. The Bush administration has attempted to achieve that goal with a military invasion.
Don’t get me wrong, as much as I admire the morality of non-violence, I’m not a pacifist. I served in the USAF, SAC, as a B-52 Radar Navigator (in other words, a bombadier) from 1980-1986. I’m very aware violence can and does solve some disputes on a very permanent basis.
In Iraq, in the First Gulf War, US bombing killed an almost imcomprehensible number of Iraqis. Initial US estimates were one million Iraqis dead. (They don’t show clips of B-52 bombing raids- single laser-guided bombs are very technologically sexy, unlike the horrible effectiveness of burying thousands upon thousands upon thousands of Iraqis in their desert bunkers with carpet bombing). To this day Saddam insists one million Iraqi soldiers died in the First Gulf War. During the Clinton administration, estimates of Iraqi dead were estimated at 250,000. Shortly before the US invasion, that number was downgraded again, to 100,000 killed. In the last invasion, somewhere between 25,000 to 50,000 Iraqi soldiers died, and another 10,000 civilians.
Unfortunately, most of those dead Iraqis have relatives, and most aren’t willing to be good sports when their loved ones die. Is it any wonder the occupation is going so poorly.
My point? The US can bring about ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ by following the Bush doctrine of Pre-Emptive War, and simply killing enough of those who oppose us. We just haven’t killed enough Iraqis yet. As Guiliani put it so eloquently, “have faith in the power of freedom.” Eventually the survivors will get the idea, just as they did in Germany and Japan. We can install, by force, governments in the Middle East that are accountable. Giuliani didn’t spell it out quite that brutally, but that’s where the Bush Doctrine takes us. Following the Bush Doctrine will bring us into a war with Iran soon. We’ll win. We’ll kill the Iranian terrorists on their turf. Same goes for the Syrian terrorists. We’ll replace them all with friendly governments, eventually.
Who should we vote for? Bush or Kerry? Should we vote for Kerry, limit the campaign to an intelligence-oriented, special forces type warfare against specific terrorist organizations, while engaging the rest of the Middle East with negotiation? Or take the Bush Administration’s route. If the latter, let’s decide right now. In order to fulfill the vision described by Giulani, just how many Iranians will we need to kill?

Bert, your Real People link didn’t work. Here it is again.

Republicans who switched to Bush.

-Cf

Eric,

So, let me understand how you’ve now altered the context of future debates, assuming I’m free to follow the example you set, in your reply.

Next time you link to the stated, public opinion or position of one of your candidates, I can now dismiss it as ‘…not the full version’ of that person’s viewpoint? That I can ignore the parts I agree with, because I’m being suckered?

And, can I now declare Bush’s position on Terrorism are not ‘real’, because 3 days ago the war on Terror could not be won, and now he says it can? Is this an example of taking both sides of an issue?

Let me clarify an assumption you made, also. The criticism of Kerry’s national security plan that I find wrong, is criticism that does not directly refute his stated and public position, which can be found only his website. Not a Washington Times article version of Kerry’s viewpoint, and not Ed Koch’s version.

Second, I did not call Ed Koch irrelevant. He is a buffoon and I skewered him pretty good. But, he has no credibility or respect, and as a proud gay man, I’ll never trust the word of a closeted homosexual.

With all due respect Eric, this is the kind of disingenuous misrepresentation, half-truths and skulduggery, that have lessen my desire to debate in this column’s Comment thread. I have apologized here for offending and misjudging others, acknowledge when I’ve been proven wrong, and will not challenge anyone without a solid argument.

> Next time you link to the stated, public
> opinion or position of one of your candidates,
> I can now dismiss it as ‘…not the full
> version’ of that person’s viewpoint?

It’s ridiculous. Kerry’s positions are right there in black and white, but Eric chooses to talk about the “flip flopper” the GOP wants him to say he sees. He’s talking about the oversimplified party-line strawman John Kerry, not the John Kerry who actually exists.

Here’s a question for the Bush supporters on WatchBlog: When you mock John Kerry for saying that he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it, are you willfully suppressing the part of yourself that knows what John Kerry meant (a Senate procedural vote), and willfully pretending to be less intelligent and less informed about the news than you actually are? When you use Kerry’s “sensitive” comment as evidence that he is soft on terror, do you actually think that that’s what he said, or are you simply hoping that a less intelligent reader of WatchBlog will fall for your oversimplification of the truth?

To see what I mean, the other day there was an interesting example of what this phenomenon looks like when the roles are reversed: Bush said we “can’t win” the war on terrorism, then some designated attack-dog Democrats jumped on him for it. Bush had actually said something intelligent and, indeed, nuanced about the nature of the war on terrorism, breaking free from his usual 4th-grader comic-book rhetoric (“evildoers”) and saying one of the very first non-infantile things he’s said about terrorism in a long time. The non-partisan in me was actually glad he said it, and I agreed with it. The Democrats, however, responded in the same way that the Republicans have been responding all along to Kerry’s “nuances”: they played stupid and pretended that they actually believed that Bush really meant “we are too weak to win”, then they tore into that strawman mercilessly. I was frankly disappointed in John Edwards for stooping to the Republican level and crtiquing his opponent for an opinion he knows full well that Bush doesn’t have. Unfortunately, however, this is what our political debate has become under the shadow of Rove: last time it was the “Al Gore said he invented the internet” lie (everybody with a brain knows that he never said that, but Republicans, even the ones with brains, peddled that story like crazy). Perfectly intelligent Republicans are willing to pretend to be ignorant morons in order to transmit and cement their simplistic political messages. This is what the Republicans do every day when they take perfectly reasonable statements by John Kerry (“sensitive”, “not primarily military”, “voted for before voting against”) and pretend that the words mean what a stupid person would think they mean. What’s sad is when usually smart Republicans play the same role. Does Rudy Giuliani really not understand what a procedural vote is? Does Dick Cheney really think that intelligence and law enforcement aren’t our primary tools for fighting terrorism?

It’s particularly sad when intelligent people on WatchBlog stoop to this, though.

> as a proud gay man, I’ll never trust the
> word of a closeted homosexual.

Bert, your links don’t seem to work these days. You put your “a” tags in but you’re missing the “href” stuff. Dunno how that’s happening, but your link was so salacious it just begs to be fixed.

-Cf

It is not an enjoyable experience watching the Republican Party descend into the depths of propaganda and falsehood. Today’s disaffected Republicans once believed the GOP to be the party of principle. Any remaining claim to principle ended with Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

No informed person believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or terrorist connections to Al Qaeda and involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks.

It is not possible that the president and vice president of the United States, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the director of the CIA and the national security adviser could have believed such rubbish. Yet, each one of them told the American people, the U.S. Congress, the United Nations and our allies that they did believe it.

Did U.S. intelligence agencies actually convey totally false information to the highest government officials? If so, these agencies are the greatest threat to innocent people abroad and to the U.S. government’s credibility. Such incompetence is more dangerous than terrorism. The agencies should be immediately abolished.

Contrary to Bush administration propaganda, Saddam Hussein was precisely the type of secular Arab ruler who would feature large on Osama bin Laden’s hit list. Hussein brutally suppressed Islamic leaders, knocking off cleric after cleric, including Moqtada al-Sadr’s father, a grand ayatollah.

If Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction to give terrorists, the terrorists would have used them on Israel. The United States is a derivative target because of our alliance with Israel against the Palestinians.

Bush and Rumsfeld claim that they believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Yet, it is certain that the joint chiefs and commanding generals did not believe the falsehood. No general, no matter how incompetent, would have concentrated his invasion army in a small area adjacent to an enemy armed with WMD, when one weapon could wipe out the entire U.S. invasion force.

No one has been held accountable for the unjustified invasion of Iraq that has destroyed America’s standing in the world, and cost tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and thousands of American dead and wounded.

Don’t expect a demand for accountability from the public. A poll released Aug. 20 by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that 54 percent of Americans continue to believe Iraq had WMD; 35 percent believe that Iraq was closely linked to Al Qaeda, and 15 percent believe Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attack.

What does the persistence of such extraordinary falsehoods say about the U.S. media? How can a free people with First Amendment rights be so totally misinformed? The answer is that an independent media no longer exists in the United States.

Formerly independent media are now submerged into corporate chains where focus on advertising revenues means zero tolerance for controversy. In the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. media served as a propaganda arm for the Bush administration. The New York Times and Washington Post have since published mild apologies for neglecting their responsibilities, but the U.S. media has been muzzled by the “you-are-with-us-or-against-us” mantra.

Anyone who tells the truth is in the “against-us” camp.

Having gotten away with one invasion based on deception, the Bush administration is eager to repeat the offense. Last week, Undersecretary of State John Bolton used a Hudson Institute forum to repeat before a live C-SPAN TV audience the same lies — only this time it is Iran that has WMD:

“Today I’d like to speak about Iran, which has concealed a large-scale, covert nuclear weapons program for over 18 years, and which, therefore, is one of our most fundamental proliferation challenges. All of Iran’s WMD efforts — chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles — pose grave threats to international security.”

The grave threat to international security is posed by the Bush administration’s relentless war propaganda. Does Bolton really believe that a nuclear weapons program, with all its extraordinary requirements, could be concealed for 18 years?

There is total failure of U.S. diplomacy. Is the failure intentional? Does the Bush administration desire more war in the Middle East?

Every indicator reads yes. The United States has struck an aggressive stance toward Iraq, Syria and Iran — the three Middle Eastern countries that are not ruled by American puppets on the American payroll. Now that the Soviet Union is no longer a check on U.S. intrusions in the Middle East, the Bush administration intends to complete the colonization under the cloak of bringing “democracy” to Islam.

This is the neoconservative agenda. The same neocons who control the Bush administration have put forward this plan in written and spoken form for all to read and hear. They have informed us of their war intentions, and we are paying no attention.

If you favor the return of the draft and war without end, vote Republican.

Paul Craig Roberts

Okay, I’ll admit that my dislike of Bush’s policies makes me more likely to accept its content, but why isn’t there a Bush supporter out there who can write a post as eloquent and well thought-out as Mr. Roberts’? I’d just like a reason not to leave the country if Bush wins again.

I know first hand Alejo that you are not alone in considering an extended vacation in some other country if Bush is reelected. Others are threatening and planning a move as well, and a couple have told me this directly. There are 7.2 million American citizens currently living in other countries. That number may very well jump to 10 million after another 4 years of Bush.

When a ship is sinking, the best course of action is to swim to shore if shore can be found. One person I talked to is considering Canada but reports Canada is not embracing American immigration (hmmm….???) and South Africa and Australia have also been mentioned.

Christopher,

Sorry about that! I guess, in my rush of anger to respond, I’m not paying close attention to getting the formatting right. Here’s the Koch link:

Closeted Ed Koch

And thanks Chris, for so eloquently expanding on my thoughts. In addition, I was heartened by the comments of posters Mr. Roberts and Alejo. And now, I’m gonna be blatantly honest again.

I was actually quite wary of returning here to read the responses to my very personal post. I truly was expecting to be mocked as ill prepared for this ‘level’ of debate. I do believe I perpetuate and validate such disingenuous discourse from Conservatives at WB, by continuing to return, argue and acknowledge such writing.

I’ve tried to respect and encourage participation of opinions from the Right here at WB, knowing full well the reason behind the constant lagging numbers of such brave souls.

Bert-

I feel the same way you do, that if we can respect each others’ opinions there is room for debate, but as soon as sniping or flaming starts all real discussion is over. It’s just party potshots. I try to be fair and non-inflammatory in my posts, and I wonder why I can find so few Bush supporters who are willing to extend the same courtesy. (Not to say there aren’t PLENTY of Bush bashers who aren’t equally haughty.)

IRAQ had everything to do with the war against terrorism the reasons we went to IRAQ were that

well there were actually actually four reasons for this war:

1. the real reason
2. the right reason
3. the moral reason
4. the stated reason

The “real reason” for this war, which was never stated, was that after September 11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world.

Afghanistan wasn’t enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there - a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured.

This terrorism bubble said that ramming planes into the World Trade Center was OK, having Muslim preachers say it was OK was OK, having state-run newspapers call people who did such things “martyrs” was OK, and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such “martyrs” was OK.

Not only was all this seen as OK, there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because America had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.

The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that Americans are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent their open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble.

Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But America hit Saddam Hussein for one simple reason: because it could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world.

And don’t believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government - and 98% of terrorism is about what governments let happen - got the message?

The “right reason” for this war was the need to go into partnership with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons of mass destruction that threaten the West were never Saddam’s missiles. The real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated young Arabs and Muslims who are produced by failed or failing Arab states - young people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a decent Iraq as a model for others - and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which are what really threaten us.

The “moral reason” for the war was that Saddam’s regime was an engine of mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own people, and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.

But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the war, and (rightly) felt that it could never win public or world support for the right reason and the moral reason, it opted for the stated reason: the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to America.
Bush stuck with this WMD argument for PR reasons.

Once the war was over we saw the mass graves and the true extent of Saddam’s genocidal evil, my view was that Bush did not need to find any WMDs to justify the war for me. I still feel that way and so should you. Bush didn’t take America into this war..terrorists did. And if it turns out he fabricated the evidence for this war (which I don’t believe I think it was evacuated by the time we attacked) does it matter the reason? Many people balk at the thought that we (America) are the “Police of the World.” In reality we have been given that charge.

America’s future, and the future of the Middle East, rides on the West building a different Iraq.

9/11 changed things, we could no longer wait around for terrorists to attack us. We had to attack them and keep them running. Thats just basic warfare.

No Saddam wasn’t the guy who flew planes into buildings but he was the one who harbored, payed and instigated what he could to involve terrorists in other aspects.

On 9/11 many people died.On 9/11 the whole world changed.On 9/11 America had to change. On 9/11 America opened her eyes.
We must not forget that.

bush simply has everything kerry doesn’t ,
probably even more

In reference to “The Doctor is in” that is the biggest load of patriotic horseshit I have ever heard. HELLO HELLO ?? 50 years ago entire cities were decimated; the world doesn’t really care anymore about the 2 buildings.
This is why…
You don’t understand what your own government does overseas, on a long list of events, look at Iraq for example. There’s now more that 13,000 official civilian deaths. Are you going to read their names out too at your little ground zero gatherings?
If your too short sighted to see what the Arabs are rebelling against (i.e.: US Foreign Policy) then your in for a long war, a very long one. One which will have no winners no matter how many “Mission accomplished” speeches Bush gives.

Try and understand it is not about the Arabs envying your wealth and freedom or trying to destroy it as your government spoon feeds you, but about attacking back for the past 30 to 40 years for your atrocious foreign policy.
If you dont think your country historically has an atrocious foreign policy I suggest you do some research. Treat those how you wish to be treated.

Last year, God inspired me to write a book about the vulnerability of the U.S. to nuclear disaster, and stating why God will choose George W. Bush to run this country for 4 more years. That book is called “FIRESTORM!” and can be ordered on-line at Amazon.com or Xulonpress.com or at your local bookstore. The bible states that God sets up one, (kings and leader) and puts down another. Ultimately, it is God that decides the outcome of elections, but you need to know why he is choosing Bush. Order you copy today! Author - Lawrence W. Corob