Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.

That’s interesting. I can take the same statement, alter to emphasis, and make it sound totally different. Cool!

It doesn’t change what he said.

“…we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.”

He doesn’t say Saddam was better.

When all is said and done, Allawi is a Bush Appointee. What do you expect him to say? Yankee, go home? He has no local support and his powerbase rests on the 130,000 man US force in his country. The poor guy would probably where a clown suit and juggle if Bush told him to. Everything he said matches perfectly with Bush’s foreign policy. As it should be. Remember, Vichy France welcomed Germany’s occupation during WW2 too. It is the common citizens who are the true barometers.

Aldous.

Well Eric,
I guess it kind of comes down to if you think diplomacy with a coalition appointed head of state or a simple statement of truth to the American public is more important.

“Let’s see, lie to the public to get reelected, or stop pulling a Lyndon Johnson that will lead America to a further weakening and more bodybags. Which do I choose? Maybe I’ll ask dear old Dad if he can pull any strings to get me out of this one?”

I guess the media and Bush’s intelligence assessments have it all wrong, again. Where are those Weapons of Mass Deception when you need ‘em?

You and Dawn still using the same computer?

I have a suggestion for the right wing nuts who believe that’s it’s the dawning of democracy in Iraq.

Demonstrate your true belief in the assessments of the Bush administration and mount a march through Bhagdad to show the World that GW has made the world a safer place. I think this demonstration shuold be lead by Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh walking arm in arm as the Iraqi people throw confetti and flowers at their feet.

Eric,
When is the right going to learn that you can not think that most Americans are dumb. Yes, we all my do idiot things from time to time (some more than others), but we do pay attention to the BS that this administration has been putting us through. November 2nd will be a very special day for America will find out just how dumb our citizens really are.

Because if they don’t vote like *you* think they should they will be identified as dumb? Democrats already consider anyone who isn’t in NY (are), LA, San Fransisco, Chicago and Seattle as being ‘dumb hicks’ anyways.

It’s both parties that think that the American Voter is dumb, you can tell just by watching both campaigns acting like they are in a kindergarten schoolyard.

Maybe if ONE of you would put up a candidate that is actually running for something and not just to be president, further their careers and put their party in power, then MAYBE you wouldn’t find all of your party members running to 3rd parties and having to resort to keeping candidates who are on the ballot in all 50 states out of the debates and suing them to keep them off of the ballots if they might take votes from your candidate.

Just a thought from a ‘Stupid American’.

Rhinehold, I believe they refer to anywhere outside their blue strongholds as “flyover country”….. condescendingly (of course) as always too.

“The poor guy would probably where a clown suit and juggle if Bush told him to.”

I posted this next paragraph last night in David’s highly partisan “independent” thread “analyzing” Bush’s UN speech. It seems this is another good place for it.

People continue to take shots at Allawi. Here is a man putting his life in danger every single day by stepping up to the plate to lead Iraq during this tough time. He is not a Bush pawn. He was appointed by the Iraqis in the council. He came to the United States to thank us for our sacrifices. However, he’s blasted for “following the Bush party line” essentially calling him a liar and a puppet. How disgraceful.

What Kerry did yesterday was disgraceful…. once again insulting one of our allies. How many times do we have to hear him speak of “going it alone” or the “coalition of “coerced and bribed”? Would you like to identify exactly which country is the coerced and which is the bribed Mr. Kerry? Does he think insults will win us allies? No… just the French and the Germans. Read
here for more details on the actual coalition involved in Iraq.

Yikes, you would think that Kerry was actually trying to made Bush (and his crony Allawi) look bad so he could win the election. What a jerk! :)

No matter how much people criticize his “chaos” comment, the brute fact is that there are parts of Iraq where armed US soldiers are afraid to go. That is a pretty darned good definition of chaos to me. Iraq has the potential to be a democracy, but that is a far cry from being a democracy. At this point its hardly even a unified country.

Democrats already consider anyone who isn’t in NY (are), LA, San Fransisco, Chicago and Seattle as being ‘dumb hicks’ anyways.

Well, I for one live in the swingin’, sophisticated state of Arkansas. Our legislature is overwhelmingly Democratic.

Henry-

I would not tell a USMC to his face that he is afraid to go anywhere.

George is sorta right, Woody. It was Bush who was too much of a pansey to let the Marines secure Fallujah.

George,

OK, my bad, their commanders are afraid to send them to certain places.

I wouldn’t tell someone who won three Purple Hearts that he didn’t earn them either…

To defend my original comment a bit — I have heard soldiers talk about being well, afraid, when they get beyond even the Green Line in Baghdad. That doesn’t make them cowards, just people with a normal desire for self-preservation.

I wonder if Kerry knows that parts of the big liberal citys he loves so much, are “no-go zones” also?
He needs to get off his sailboard and take a quiet stroll through “gang-land” in LA, or perhaps an invigorating midnight jog through Washington DC ?
Every big city in America has places even cops don’t go without massive force and body armor, even then they don’t stay long.

Perhaps you missed the part in Allawi’s speech where he said they could hold elections in 14 of 18 providences tomorrow if they wanted to.

Even we can’t hold elections in 14 of 18 counties in Florida without screwing that up.

Just a thought, maybe Allawi (the man in the field) might actually know what he’s talking about. And the Press (wanting to sell a story) is making the story.. umm… sensational.

-D

Every big city in America has places even cops don’t go without massive force and body armor, even then they don’t stay long.

Really? I’ve been in some pretty rough neighborhoods, even saw someone shot in broad daylight, but the police still show up without a tank.

There is a difference between an armed revolt and random street crime. Ordinary criminals want the police to leave them alone. They aren’t planning suicide attacks on New York’s Finest.

By the way, I thought only clueless liberals like Kerry compared fighting terrorism to law enforcement. ;)

Woody-

No problem. It’s not the warfighters or their command that prevent them from entering places like Falljah, but the reality that we are now dealing with a sovergn Iraq. Their brand of politics will always be less than perfect when it comes to U.S. goals, but that’s their call.

As for challenging Purple Hearts, I agree with you there. But I do feel that Admirals Hoffman and Schachte and the 250 other decorated veterns contributing to the SBVT have earned the right to do it if they so desire.

Perhaps you missed the part in Allawi’s speech where he said they could hold elections in 14 of 18 providences tomorrow if they wanted to.

Allawi neglected to mention that most of those 14 provinces are sparsely populated desert.

Hey AP-

Way to find the hoards of darkness behind the silver lining. Would it really hurt so much to say, ‘Yes, progress is being made. But we could be doing better.’

This is why Kerry’s in trouble now. No one likes a pessimist. Someone find me an example of a challenger that beat an incumbent by screaming ‘the sky if falling and it’s his fault’. From what I can remember they all one on a positive message, not a negative one.

-D

Kerry Insulting Allawi? What a joke. How about the insult of Allawi standing alongside the most inept, ignorant and outright stupid man ever to run a country at any time in the history of the world and parroting the lies, obfuscating the truth and defecating upon the intelligence of the American people? Allawi’s a Bush “brown-noser” and party hack with a 2% approval rating by the people of Iraq who pulls information straight out of his sphincter; the same place people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and countless outher brainwashers go for their primary source of information. What amazes me is the lack of cognitive ability of many of the Bush supporters in this country. How is it that only they seem to be blinded by the Orwellian manueverings of this administration? The Republican ideals are being severly damaged by these men and their bizarre interpretation of conservatism; it is nice to see some of the Repbulicans separating themselves from the Groupthink and opening their eyes to the disgusting reality of the Bush regime. Too bad the rest of the country and the media can’t yet open their own eyes enough to see the truth.

Woody,
I think most would have read my post that there are many places here that aint all that safe for a stroll with the wife and kiddies, but we don’t cancel elections because of it.
Kerry is trying to say that there has been no progress in Iraq, its a quagmire, and to prove his point he wants no elections there.
Will there be places that people are afraid to vote?…sure..just as there are here.
I’ll bet during the civil war there were citys that voter turnout was “quite light”, but elections went on as planed.
The marines there, just like the cops here, will go into those nasty areas, but they are ordered not to, with or without tanks.
However, I agree with you on one point…….

“By the way, I thought only clueless liberals like Kerry compared fighting terrorism to law enforcement. “

Nez you sound a lot like the former bayviking…. irrational and full of hate. Deride Allawi if you want (as you sit comfortably at your computer), but he has to go back over there and face death every day. The only joke here is your comments. You’ve already discredited yourself enough, so I don’t need to say anymore.

If Kerry says something true that you just happen to take offense at, it’s your problem, not his. Allawi’s hold on power, hell his rise to power, depend on Bush’s patronage. He’s not going to bite the hand that feeds him.

Eric, you can quote all the speeches you want, but speeches are rhetoric, not reality. If there are places where neither the Iraqi government nor American soldiers can assert authority, then how can elections go on.

As for Kerry’s comment, it’s not at all unfair to say that things have essentially gotten worse. They have. We should not worry about asserting the truth merely to suit your candidates delicate sensibilities.

The fact is, Allawi is a true ally to the US. It doesn’t surprise though that Kerry and his fellow liberals would continue to discount them. They’ve been insulting our allies in Iraq for a year and half now.

AP-

I happen to think Kerry was absolutely correct when he said:

“those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.”

Beagle ,
You said “I wonder if Kerry knows that parts of the big liberal citys he loves so much, are “no-go zones” also?”

I thought you were about to say for him and his campaign because they had no chance of getting the vote.

The guy has argued every side of the issue.

I like this one:

“We know we can’t count on the French. We know we can’t count on the Russians,” said Mr. Kerry. “We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it’s in our national interest.”
-John Kerry on Crossfire in 1997

Stephen,

Eric, you can quote all the speeches you want, but speeches are rhetoric, not reality. If there are places where neither the Iraqi government nor American soldiers can assert authority, then how can elections go on.

I find it hard to believe that you’re now taking the position that what Kerry says doesn’t matter. If Kerry becomes President will he install his own Iraqi Prime Minister that will mouth what he wants? Will he depose Allawi and install a ‘UN High Commissioner’? How will that make democracy look? How will that give Iraqi’s hope for the future?

Your candidate is sliding into the dark territory of lashing out at everything and anyone who threatens his narrow view. Apparently, Lockhart is now calling Allawi a ‘puppet’.

So let’s see. Kerry has a plan to save Iraq that includes first convincing everyone that Iraq is an unsafe hellhole, a quagmire, a complete mistake, where nothing is going right and the terrorists control the country, and democracy will not be valid unless every terrorist in fallujah gets to vote.

I’m not seeing the ‘power of diplomacy’ at work here, Stephen. I harbored a hope that in the unlikely and unwanted event that Kerry won the Presidency that he might be able to do what he says, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that Kerry is not up to it.

Is Kerry trying to destroy Iraq in order to save it? Or is his plan actually just to pull out and leave the Puppet Allawi alone to the wolves?

Is this how Kerry performs under pressure?

This is disgraceful. For a Presidential campaign to undermine the Iraqi Prime Minister in this way, to insult and belittle him like this is almost unbelievable.

“The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips,” said Joe Lockhart, a senior Kerry adviser. LA Times

It’s funny how the Democrat leaders have repeatedly attacked the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them while complaining (out of the other sides of their mouths) about fictitious attacks on their own patriotism.

Kerry’s rhetoric now makes it clear, however, that he’s adopted a scorced earth campaign strategy and no longer cares about this country, Iraq, or anything but fulfilling what he considers his destiny to become president (after all, he was born in the west wing of a hosptial).

His patritiotism should be considered fair game, espcecially since his only strategy now is to make common cause with al-Zawrqawi.

> Every big city in America has places even cops
> don’t go without massive force and body armor,
> even then they don’t stay long.

That’s crazy and not true. Gimme a break. Your statement makes a mockery of the dangers our troops are facing in Iraq. Talk about fantasy world! I don’t know what’s worse: your misperception that American cities are rife with roadside explosives and suicide bombers or that the Iraqi insurgency is just a gangsta turf war.

-Cf

I fail to see anything of an insult in what Kerry said. An insult would be a slanderous insult or a direct attack on the character of the person, instead of what the other person had said or a position the person had taken on a particular subject. I do find it alarming that the U.S. has jumped from supporting Chalabi to embracing Allawi, considering Allawi as the choice to lead a free Iraq in that Allawi has such a shadey past. Consider this: according to the CIA’s own account, Allawi’s underground group operating in Baghdad in the early 90’s with CIA financing (translate = U.S. tax payer dollars)in order to disrupt the Hussien government, bombed a cinema and a bus full of civilians including woman, including children. I just hope that the rest of the citizens of Iraq don’t learn about those dark deeds. How will they ever trust such a person and how long can such deeds go without consequences. It would be like Americans voting for Bush or Kerry for president knowing that they had openly bombed civilians and killed women and children (without declaring a war).

However, I agree with you on one point…….

“By the way, I thought only clueless liberals like Kerry compared fighting terrorism to law enforcement. “

Um… yeah.. so you count yourself among the clueless liberals?

On another topic, in the quotes above I don’t see Kerry saying anything that terrible about Allawi.
“You put the best face on your policy” aren’t exactly fighting words.

Woody, he attacked his credibility by saying he had “contradicted himself”. He had the nerve to suggest that he knew what was going on in Iraq better than Allawi. Kerry’s never been to Iraq…. Allawi lives there despite the fact that he is constantly under assassination threat. That alone deserves respect. You are correct that he didn’t come right out and insult him, but it goes to the larger issue of continuing to disrespect the allies that are fighting with you. The idea that Kerry would hold a press conference shortly after Allawi spoke to suggest that he knows the situation better than Allawi is disrespectful, arrogant, and vintage John Kerry.

I want to examine this Kerry quote a little bit:

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.

Here’s an analogy: A dangerous criminal hides out in a building in a rough neighborhood. The cops set the building on fire, killing some innocent people, and setting other buildings in the neighborhood on fire, enraging the whole neighborhood. The criminal himself is apprehended while running away from the burning wreckage.
— Are we glad the murderer is caught? Yes.
— Is the neighborhood better off without him? Yes.
— Was the operation worth it? No.
— Could it have been done differently? Yes.

Are any of these statements hypocritical? No. (By the way, the above is a true story).

It’s just deceptive word trickery to paint Kerry’s words the way Eric does in his original post.

With regards to Kerry’s December 16, 2003 comments, I can only say that he probably didn’t dream that in the nine months between then and now that the Bush Administration would continue to pretend that the insurgency was fading away, and that the chaos would steadily grow and grow, and that the President would continue to neglect the real war on terrorism.

Also, I should point out that he was talking not about the original invasion, he was talking about the capture of Saddam. In late 2003, Rumsfeld and others were continually telling us that the insurgency was being run by people loyal to Saddam (they’re still, ludicrously, saying this, by the way). They were calling them “regime remnants” and even suggesting that Saddam himself was coordinating their operations. It’s understandable, then, that Kerry might, like most Americans, think that the capture of Saddam was going to help alleviate the insurgency’s vigor and help make our troops safer. The truth turned out differently: the combination of the fact that (a) Rumsfeld’s story that the insurgents were being led by Saddam was totally not true, and (b) the war against the insurgents since that time has been run very poorly, even disastrously.

In any event, this matter is quite simple: There’s nothing contradictory between saying “we should not have invaded Iraq” and “it’s good that we captured Saddam”. Get it?

-Cf

Martin wrote:
> It’s funny how the Democrat leaders have
> repeatedly attacked the patriotism of
> anyone who disagrees with them

Can you give a solid example of Democrats “repeatedly attacked the patriotism” of Republicans?

We’ve called the Administration reckless, lazy, stupid, incompetant, selfish, ideological, shameless, deceptive, unwise, and other names that speak to their unsuitability for leadership. But except for maybe a loose cannon here and there, we’ve never called them “unpatriotic”. We’ve never accused them of preferring keeping a murderous America-hating dictator in power. We’ve never accused them of treason. We’ve never accused them, for example, of “making common cause” with terrorists.These sorts of things come from the lips of Republicans pretty much daily, and you have shamelessly played the same card fairly regularly around here.

-Cf

by the way

George…. that tape is going to hit the airwaves soon. I can’t wait to hear the usual suspects on this board try to explain and nuance that one. Try it in 100 words or less gentlemen… ok take 1000…. still not enough??? Oh well… I’m sure you will try.

Since when did you become a Democratic leader?

George wrote:
> The guy has argued every side of the issue.

George, he said we could attack Iraq “whenever we feel it’s in our national interest”. His opinion of the 2003 Iraq invasion is that it wasn’t in our interest, that we didn’t need to do it. He has been 100% consistent about this: We have the right to invade if we need to, but in March of 2003 we absolutely did not need to. It’s quite simple. Are you pretending not to understand, or do you really not understand?

George wrote:
> But I do feel that Admirals Hoffman and
> Schachte and the 250 other decorated veterns
> contributing to the SBVT have earned the
> right to do it if they so desire.

First of all, it’s not 250. It’s 202. The other 48 aren’t even Swift Boat vets. Some of them are repeated names.

Second of all, you just made up the “decorated” part. Odds are most of the 202 aren’t particularly decorated, and even if they were you have no way of knowing it.

Third, only about 50 of them can even remotely claim to have had any firsthand knowledge whatsoever about Kerry’s Purple Hearts - the rest weren’t even in the same region as Kerry, or even in Vietnam at any overlapping time.

Fourth, only about four or five of them actually do claim to have any firsthand knowledge whatsoever about Kerry’s Purple Hearts. The rest simply say they don’t like him.

Read my research on the SBVT and you’ll see that what you just wrote is almost 100% false.

-Cf

Aldaron wrote:
> Woody, he attacked his credibility by saying
> he had “contradicted himself”.

But he did contradict himself - one day he says the terrorism problem is out of control, and the next he says that it is under control. Kerry called him on it. Shouldn’t a President talk to the American people honestly like that?

-Cf

Woodie,
I made some honest points on my views on this, I confess I did re-post one of you statements.
Are you upset over what you said?, or because I re-posted it ?
As far as “fighting words” ?, I don’t understand that. I’m not here to fight, I truely enjoy debating issues with my liberal friends like Yourself.
I’m not a collage prof., I’m not as articulant as most on here, but if you don’t understand something I say, I’m more than happy to “splain” it to you.

Looks like it is me who needs to do the ‘splainin’.

Your quoting my words is very appropriate. You haven’t done anything that made me upset. To quote someone or other, “It’s all good.”

The point about the “clueless liberals” was that you yourself were comparing the evildoers in Iraq to US criminals, and US soldiers in Iraq to domestic policemen.

My second comment about “fighting words” had nothing to do with you. The point was that Kerry was being tactful in what he said about Allawi, IMHO.

Who has more credibility on this subject Allawi or Kerry?

He never said the situation was out of control. That’s what you wanted to hear. He has maintained consistently that in the majority of the country they are not having any problems. He did say that Iraq has become a beacon for terrorists and there are some areas that are still a problem, but they will be addressed. It takes a true pessimist to only see the bad. He also said that they could have elections tomorrow in 14 or 15 of the countries 18 provinces without a problem. I know that is going to draw the ire of liberals on this board but I would just ask you, were the elections last month in Venezuela perfect? Of course not, but it didn’t stop Jimmy Carter from declaring them valid. Were the first elections in the US perfect? Was it feasible for everyone to participate back then? Rational people know the answer.

He explained all of this perfectly clear yesterday in his speech and I believe he deserves the benefit of the doubt over someone that has never even been there.

cf-

It’s just deceptive word trickery to paint Kerry’s words the way Eric does in his original post.

…he probably didn’t dream that in the nine months between then and now that the Bush Administration would continue to pretend that the insurgency was fading away, and that the chaos would steadily grow and grow, and that the President would continue to neglect the real war on terrorism.

I see, it’s Bush’s fault that Kerry contradicts himself. If quoting Kerry verbatim is deceptive word trickery… what is truth? Truth becomes whatever liberals want it to be at the moment. This is a Presidential candidate undermining a head of state, questioning his credibility, calling him a puppet.

But he [allawi] did contradict himself - one day he says the terrorism problem is out of control, and the next he says that it is under control. Kerry called him on it. Shouldn’t a President talk to the American people honestly like that?

Did he contradict himself or is Kerry misquoting and misinterpreting what Allawi said in order slant it to his point? Did Allawi say the terrorism problem is ‘out of control’?

The article quoted above actually corrects Kerry about what Allawi said.

Kerry was referring to comments Allawi made Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” But Allawi also expressed optimism about the mission in that appearance.

“Foreign terrorists are still pouring in, and they’re trying to inflict damage on Iraq to undermine Iraq and to undermine the process, democratic process in Iraq, and, indeed, this is their last stand,” Allawi said. “So they are putting a very severe fight on Iraq. We are winning. We will continue to win. We are going to prevail.”

Kerry sees the glass as half empty. Kerry is saying that Allawi agreed with him on ABC’s This Week but then changed his story in his speech to congress. Was Allawi expressing the same pessimism as Kerry is in the quote above? No. It is exactly what he said to Congress. The terrorists are trying to derail democracy, but we are winning. Not that we have won, not that there is no challenge ahead, and definately not that it is a failure. Kerry is lying by omission and undermining the Iraqi Prime Minister at the same time.

It’s in Kerry’s interest for Iraq to be a failure. Just as it’s in Kerry’s interest for the economy to be the worst since the great depression. But is it true? If it is not then Kerry is committing the worst kind of slander. The worst kind of rhetoric.

Kerry is now working counter to what he says he must do as President. That is, gain allies to help with reconstructing Iraq. How can he say to the world that Iraq is a quagmire, that it is not worth US soldiers lives and American treasure and then go to Allies who feel the same way and ask them to expend their soldiers lives and treasure? Unless he expects them to wink at the need to paint it as a failure so that he can gain the office?

I’d like more of the usual suspects to take a stab at explaining this one:

“We know we can’t count on the French. We know we can’t count on the Russians,” said Mr. Kerry. “We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it’s in our national interest.”

-John Kerry on Crossfire in 1997

I enjoy the contortions that some of you go through.

CF-

I do not know what you are saying is 100% fake even after reading your research. Their own information says that only 50 something of their members actually served with Kerry. None of your information is news other than the percentages. And if you take the number of people who served in country in Viet Nam then that percentage is .000??? What does that matter?

My point was that they have the right to question Kerry’s service and his awards. While I do not know the actual medal counts for their members, I know Hoffman made Admiral, Hibbard made Admrial, and Shachte, who is not a member but is central to one of the Purple Heart charges, made Admiral. All three served directly with Kerry or were his command. I think it is safe to “assume” that they are decorated as a result of their service. Any one of these certainly earned the right to question Kerry’s service.

Continue attacking them CF. Call them liars and fakes. Or call them Republican hacks. They are who they are, and have not hidden any information on their members, their service, or their claims.

This is my apoligize to the Watchblog Manager for what I am about to say….

Okay dumbasses now everyone is pissing me off and I have a headache. Allawi is Bush’s puppet plain and simple. Even the most Pro-American Iraqi’s think so and hate Allawi. Why? Because they recognize it for what it is, Allawi won’t represent Iraq rather the United States. Democracy in Iraq. Even if there is “Democracy” it will never be stable. Don’t expect all the different political factions to get along in a stable way. The people in Iraq for the most part are scared for themselves and their families so they don’t have enough police force to enforce the laws out there. Why is the rest of the world and the democrats pissed off at Bush? a) they went to Iraq solely to dig for oil. Bush’s big mistake. If Bush was charged with that intention, he would get a guilty conviction in the court of law because it is beyond a reasonable doubt. I would explain in depth but let’s face Republicans, Democrats, Independents and the rest of the world know this so I don’t need to go further. If not you are either brainwashed or in denial. b) Bush said not only does Iraq have Weapons of Mass Destruction but he KNOWS exactly where they are at when the CIA said they had ZERO hard evidence. The fact of the matter is two things a) I beat probably atleast 80% of Iraqis think there country was better off with Sadaam Hussein than George Bush attempting to rule Iraq. Why electricity, chaos, political and cultural factions, little law enforcement, pollution, bombs, zero government because Allawi has been full of shit and more so than that the Iraqi’s are not to intent on following his lead. Democracy in Iraq probably won’t happen in a civil manner. The fact of the matter is when, in an analogy, a child is born in straight poverty and the kid has a dream of being a doctor. The drive will stop at nothing for the dream to be fulfilled. These different political and ethnical factions have dreams and they will stop at nothing for it to be fulfilled. Unless they (The US because Iraq doesn’t really have a real police department) will have to kill atleast 50% of the terrorists for stuff to stabalize somewhat. ATLEAST. The terrorism in Iraq is getting stronger, the troops are getting weaker, the strategy is hell due to lack of foresight, and the political factions will stop at nothing for there dream to be accomplished. Iraq is a failed mission. The evidence points to that. I am a hardcore Kerry supporter, but the fact of the matter is although and I have evidence to support my claim that Kerry will be as good if not better than Clinton considering the cards Kerry will be dealt if he wins this election, Kerry won’t even be able to fix Iraq. They don’t want a democracy. The political/ ethnical factions are going to again stop at nothing and the Kurds want the Kurds to rule Iraq etc. The US wanted to be greedy with the Middle East in the 50’s and 60’s and the Middle East booted them out. Now the US, especially the oil driven warmongers of the Bush Administration will stop at nothing but to get there oil. The US doesn’t start an expensive war such as this for people to be free. Unless it threatens the US national security wise, they don’t care for peoples freedoms in other countries or else they would be in war with half the world or atleast China and North Korea. They want oil and it backfired. Iraq is again a failed mission in my view as everything will get worse because terrorism is getting stronger by the day. What must be done is to educate the terrorists and Kurds, ect. political/ethnical factions about democracy. Do it in a peaceful way, show them the power of campaigning, and prove to them that killing won’t get them anywhere. It sounds naive as hell, and don’t worry you are not telling me anything I don’t already know but education is the key to success. I was raised on that. I am right now a 19 year old intelligent kid who was nothing but a rebel in the conservative military hell hole of a town that I lived in. I learned my lessons but through lessons we carry on wisdom that can not be passed to anyone else without there own experiences depending on how quick they will pick up on that wisdom and learning experiences. I learned that KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. The Iraqi’s no matter who they are will have to be taught and understand the foundation of democracy as there own perceptions of democracy is an “American thing”. The negative thoughts of Americans are already implanted in there own heads. What they need to do is recreate history and perform democracy through compromise just like our founding fathers did. Bring Education, Educate them about democracy, and teach them that hell you don’t have to have a gun to speak out or prove a point by teaching open minds, critical thinking, law enforcement, and getting along as a society. I understand where they come from believe it or not. Don’t think that Republican hardcore extremeist conservatives or liberal extremeists wouldn’t grab a gun and blow off my brains for wearing a Kerry pin on my shirt everyday. They need social progression which is extremely liberal and liberalism will be the only thing that will have Iraq moving forward, not sponsoring Kerry or Bush but liberal in my and Webster’s Dictionary defination of social progression. The US must allow the Iraqi’s to right there own constitution through rigorous debate and compromise and have the US to keep the peace and hope that Iraq turns out for the best. That is the solution and I hope it will work. Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, I want you guys to challenge me on this as I believe working with society and not attempting to control it in a tyrannical sense will be the key to democracy. The controling aspect isn’t working so try other options. Social progression is the key for everything right now when the timing is right. Iraq who knows may become the super power of the Middle East in 50 years. As of right now, Bush’s plan has failed and he needs to come up with something knew. Look into the past to analyze the present and consider the future on how everything can be manipulated in a “perfect government” that is not American rather a Sovereign Iraq. Thank you for reading and I hope to hear everyone debate on this as this is something that I don’t believe has been the focus of Iraq into developing democracy.

Eric-

I’ve got a question for you s: was Allawi an exile? Don’t answer that, actually- we know the answer already: yes.

He was gone for over thirty years, biding his time in England. Are you telling me that a man whose’s spent not much more than a year or two in Iraq in three decades is going to have all that superior of a grasp on the situation in comparison to Kerry?

More importantly, is he right about the situation in Iraq? I don’t think so./a>

American counterinsurgency experts are noticing some disturbing trends in those statistics. The Defense Department counted 87 attacks per day on U.S. forces in August—the worst monthly average since Bush’s flight-suited visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. Preliminary analysis of the July and August numbers also suggests that U.S. troops are being attacked across a wider area of Iraq than ever before. And the number of gunshot casualties apparently took a huge jump in August. Until then, explosive devices and shrapnel were the primary cause of combat injuries, typical of a “phase two” insurgency, where sudden ambushes are the rule. (Phase one is the recruitment phase, with most actions confined to sabotage. That’s how things started in Iraq.) Bullet wounds would mean the insurgents are standing and fighting—a step up to phase three.

Furthermore:

Another ominous sign is the growing number of towns that U.S. troops simply avoid. A senior Defense official objects to calling them “no-go areas.” “We could go into them any time we wanted,” he argues. The preferred term is “insurgent enclaves.” They’re spreading. Counterinsurgency experts call it the “inkblot strategy”: take control of several towns or villages and expand outward until the areas merge. The first city lost to the insurgents was Fallujah, in April. Now the list includes the Sunni Triangle cities of Ar Ramadi, Baqubah and Samarra, where power shifted back and forth between the insurgents and American-backed leaders last week.

…

U.S. military planners only wish they could. “What we see is a classic progression,” says Andrew Krepinevich, author of the highly respected study “The Army and Vietnam.” “What we also see is that the U.S. military is not trained or organized to fight insurgencies. That was the deliberate choice after Vietnam. Now we look to be paying the price.”

Now you can play me back all the speeches that your favorite people give, but those speeches merely represent what they want people to believe. Their factuality is another matter. Our army, if it were truly in control would have no need to steer clear of any city. Those cities are proof positive that Bush’s view of things is unrealistic.

Personally I think Bush has his priorities mixed up. I think to take those cities, we will end up losing a lot of our soldiers, and Bush is unwilling to risk his re-election by doing that. Bush’s strategy for the war is rooted in maintaining his political power, and it’s costing this country dearly for him to work things that way.

Before I go around calling people dumbasses, I think I would learn how to spell apologize as that is the second time in two days you have misspelled it. (“Bush lied a lot and should be impeached for not wanting to apoligize.”)

Are you Kerry’s daughter by the way?

Stephen…. half-empty/half-full…. pessimism/optimism… a basic difference between liberals and conservatives. One believes the country (Iraq or the US.. take your pick) is in decline, the other an example for the rest of the world. That’s why you and I never agree I suppose.

I really wish we could stop the “Right Wing Sucks, Left Wing Sucks” shouting matches. I seem to remember a little something about “attack the message not the messenger” but maybe I’m confused.

Aldaron, there is a basic B.S. test for whether a civil or military authority controls an area: can they travel freely through there? If that is not so, than any claims of control are illusory. I’m an optimist by nature. I believe people can do whatever they set their minds to.

But I do not ignore facts to maintain that optimism. And I will not maintain optimism to the edge of ruin. I certainly not do it, to maintain the political fortunes of a man who has failed our country by so poorly justifying and planning this war. Knocking Saddam Hussein from power was a decidedly good thing, but nothing forced us to have to go about it this way. I can say that confidently, because there were no WMDs or Al-Quaeda conspiracies that would have made the threat urgent, much less any that would have necessitated the bad tactics and approaches the Bush administration used.

Bush chose to rely on questionable evidence, chose to present it to legislators and citizens alike as if it were fearful reality. His people chose to rely on oil profits for reconstruction despite the huge debts that Iraq would have to pay down first. His people chose to go in light on the troops. He chose to start name-calling the UN early, he chose to constantly remind them he didn’t need their help, he chose to present a case to the world that his own secretary of state knew was rife with inaccuracy. He chose to sign his name to a required report, his executive determination, which illegally represented parts of the authorization bill itself as a congressional report. Those are just his choices before the war, and they reflect badly on his judgment.

I can be optimistic about the war because I believe a new approach can be taken to its prosecution, one that might garner success. What I cannot be optimistic about is Bush’s judgement. Too much has gone wrong there.

Okay Aldaron,
Before you try to insult my intelligence with my misspelling of apologize (sorry retard it is the way the name is pronounced out here a-pol-i-gize) two you must be really defensive because IF you pointed out the one misspelling and then the content of the information, I would not even take offense at such a passive reader who can’t utilize active reading skills when reading an essay on hope, peace, and prosperity that your dumbass president screwed up for everyone. Martin I like him, rep. but has valid points, I like Stephen as he presents good information always, David Riemer is good too but not as independent as he wants to make himself out to be, and Jack I like his views as he seems he has been around. Why can’t you read content Aldaron (what ever kind of name is that) again your president’s policies are not working and Kerry will probably take this campaign. More so than that, I have taught myself Physics, Chemistry, Trigonometry, a really good writer when I am motivated, work a good enough job and I will teach MYSELF calculus next week. Apparently I have an answer; I just happened to be right at everything but because you must be a retard you took personal offense. Don’t give me this cheapshot crap, Aldaron, you seem like one of those who don’t want a resolution in Iraq rather Armageddon. You must believe in Jesus right. I like thinkers and idealists so let’s get back to the column above. Any thoughts.

“there were no WMDs”

Stephen, this is where you go so wrong…. arguing backwards from what we know now. (You know what they say about hindsight.) We didn’t know that then and Bush simply didn’t want to take the risk. Everyone said he had them. You can’t deny that fact. I respect the fact that some feel we shouldn’t have attacked Iraq and given the weapon inspectors more time, but don’t continue to go down the “he lied” …. “he misled the country” road, and then proceed to insult the man’s intelligience as so many in these threads do. It simply isn’t accurate.

I believe that the majority of Iraq is pacified and that people are getting to do things they have not been able to do for a generation. I don’t think that is being overly optimistic. Yes there are bad areas including parts of Baghdad, but these are isolated areas. There are 140,000 US troops in Iraq now and upwards of 100,000 Iraqis police in the country afterall. There are thugs, terrorists, and criminals dying every day and night that we never hear about over here. You would be naive to think overwise. I take the word of a man that lives there and gets reports everyday over a man running for President who has never been to Iraq, or a reporter from the New York Times or the BBC that hasn’t left the green zone in 6 months. Give it time. The majority of Iraqis are good people and with our help and support, they will deal with all of these people.

Aldaron,
I believe that the majority of Iraq is pacified and that people are getting to do things they have not been able to do for a generation.

Like what Aldaron, not working with unemployment at 50%. Get real.

NO WMD. Bush lied. Have you seen Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War documentary. The sources don’t get much better than that. ALDARON THE WAR WAS ABOUT OIL. HALLIBURTON. QUIT TURNING A BLIND EYE TO THE TRUTH BECAUSE WE ARE NOT INSULTING THE INTELLIGENCE OF BUSH BUT BUSH INSULTED OURS AND PERSONALITY WISE INDICATES THAT AS WELL.

Sorry Aldaron no attempt at forgery. But yeah the above post is my message.

Aldaron,
By the way for morons who like to point out spelling. In order to read well on this site, it requires active readers and not passive readers.

Are you Kerry’s daughter by the way?

I am a male you imbecile. Noelle is feminine spelling and Noel is male spelling so check out your ASSumptions.

Noel,

Damon is right. I’m as partisan as anyone, perhaps more than most, and I get frustrated at what I see as the loyal opposition playing fast and loose with the truth, but on this blog you should definitely make a conscious effort not to call anyone names.

There’s a difference between partisan characterizations and personal name calling. Granted, sometimes it’s a fine line, but “dumbasses” does seem to cross the line.

Stephen,

If what you are saying is true… and it is in fact true that there are insurgents and there are areas where iraqi police and US armed forces do not have full control, my question to you is what will Kerry’s plan actually do to change that?

In all candor, Stephen, I do not trust Kerry to be able to hold the line and do what must be done. Which will be to combat and target these insurgents one at a time in those areas and root them out. Which is what we are doing.

It seems to me there are two and a half choices in fighting the insurgents. One is quick. Carpet bombing or tactical nukes if you prefer, and the other is to slug it out toe to toe and crush them personally. The half is retreat. Or as I like to call it the Spanish Option. (Half for half hearted.) There are no other choices. International forces would be great. But they are not coming Bush or Kerry. That is my honest opinion.

I also beleive that we are winning that slug fest. I agree the cost is high, but militarily the cost is the lowest in history. There is no turning back, whether there is Bush or Kerry in the white house.

Eric,
For once in my life, I will admit you are right. It was inappropriate but Eric, I respect you, but you should be more fair about stuff. It seems to me Bush would hold a gun to your head, he would shot you, and in your ghost you still would defend him. But then again, if Kerry did that I probably would too. I was just frustrated with people not acknowledging facts.

It’s interesting how the liberal Watchblog Manager consistently lets the name calling go unchallenged on this website as long as they are arguing from his point of view. I was once warned by the imperial one for simply saying “bayviking, you are exactly what is wrong with American politics today”.

Anyway… for the record, I wasn’t referring to the spelling of your first name… just your manner.

The unemployment number you speak of must be David’s “real unemployment number” of Iraq. (Sorry David, I couldn’t resist)

And No… I haven’t seen any left-wing propaganda pieces lately….. other than your posts.

Now that we have your gender straightened out, how about your age?

Don’t post as me again!

This is why Kerry’s in trouble now. No one likes a pessimist.

And I don’t like people who blow smoke up my a$$.

I agree with most everything Kerry has been saying in his recent attacks, but I also recognize that saying these things will not win him the election. The meaning and intention of his rhetoric is easily distorted by those wearing rose-colored glasses and people who believe that our leaders can do no wrong.

Please don’t call us pessimists… call us realists.

Why is the left and right fighting over who owns the truth in Iraq. Bush said that he believed his intel when it suited him to go into Iraq. And now that his intel disagrees with his point of view “They are guessing.”

This is not about the argument of the glass being half empty/full. It is a serious debate about how do we (America) fix the screw up Bush has made out of Iraq. Even Rumsfeld doesn’t know what to do and he’s in charge of our troops.

Monkey see, Monkey do will not change the facts which everyone is telling Bush is true.

Noel apologizing for breaking our rule regarding critique the message, not the messenger(s) just prior to breaking it, indicates it was your intent to violate the rule.

Please take name-calling style of debate elsewhere. It is not welcome here.

Aldaron, apparently you don’t like the way WatchBlog is run. I suggest you too find another place to debate since this site does not meet your standards.

Allawi’s speech was not sugarcoated or fantasy laden.

But why would anyone care if Kerry called Allawi’s bluff? If Bush wins, Allawi gets to keep his job, for a while at least. If Kerry wins, Allawi goes into quiet retirement in England and Kerry gets to appoint his own puppet there, just like Bush did.

I’m pretty bewildered by the wrong turn taken in this debate. Why is everybody saying that Allawi was appointed by Bush when he was actually appointed interim PM by Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN’s special envoy to Iraq? I can’t believe how far from the facts some Democrats are willing to stray in order to launch their attacks.

Once again: Allawi was appointed by the UN, which is part of the reason the Democrat’s attack on him is as a Bush appointee is so absurdly inconsistent with their supposed “plan” to work more closely with the very same UN.

Is someone going to change the subject yet again and say that well, Bush influenced Brahimi’s choice? Is Kerry’s alternative to refuse to excercise American influence over the UN or Iraq then? Is that leadership? I give up trying to figure out the left’s consistently shifting positions—I guess attacking Bush is more important than Bush’s actions, and that smearing Allawi is just one more attempt to put John Kerry’s presidential ambitions ahead of reality.

We didn’t know that then and Bush simply didn’t want to take the risk. Everyone said he had them [WMD]. You can’t deny that fact.

By the time March 2003 rolled around and UNMOVIC and the IAEA had been snooping around Iraq for a few months, everybody but Bush thought it was unlikely Saddam had WMDs. Hans Blix wrote a book on the experience, “Disarming Iraq”.

Why is everybody saying that Allawi was appointed by Bush

That’s true, Martin. Chalabi was Bush’s choice. But the fact remains that without Bush’s support, Allawi’d be swinging from a lamp post. He’ll be sucking up to Kerry after November, too.

Somebody mentioned Allawi retiring in London. Apparently a lot of the exiles in the government really have kept their second homes in case things don’t work out,

International forces would be great. But they are not coming Bush or Kerry. That is my honest opinion.

Eric, I think they will for the reasons I wrote about on the other side of the page:

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

AP-

I happen to think Kerry was absolutely correct when he said:

“those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.”

Well Eric, I’m glad to see you finally coming around on Kerry. You don’t need to re-register as a Democrat, just poke the X next to Kerry’s name on the ballot… Wait a minute… I get it, you’re trying to imply that Kerry prefers that Saddam is still in power.

Nice try, Eric. Everybody knows the world is better off without Saddam. Kerry is pointing out that, because of Bush’s ineptness, we took one step forward and two steps back.

Martin is correct. The Bush administration wanted someone else as PM, not Allawi. They were surprised by the unanimous vote by the Iraqi Governing Council (appointed by the US) for Allawi. He was eventually appointed by the UN based on this vote. The UN didn’t chose him and appoint him. Nonetheless, there are obvious similarities in rhetoric between Bush and Allawi’s speech.

The attempts at parallels between the No-Go Zones in Iraq and certain inner-cities here in the US in inappropriate. The violence and crime in the inner-cities is not directed at preventing people from voting. Registering to vote won’t get you killed. Lining up at the polls won’t get you bombed.

Martin said [Kerry’s] patriotism should be considered fair game, especially since his only strategy now is to make common cause with al-Zawrqawi.

Please, no more questions about anyone’s patriotism.

Tom said I fail to see anything of an insult in what Kerry said. An insult would be a slanderous insult or a direct attack on the character of the person, instead of what the other person had said or a position the person had taken on a particular subject

Well said, Tom. The liberties being taken by the Right with the English language is getting frustrating, but it fits their MO: if you don’t like the rules of the game, change the rules.

Eric said Your candidate [Kerry] is sliding into the dark territory of lashing out at everything and anyone who threatens his narrow view.

Well, Bush did it with those who didn’t support the invasion of Iraq and has since been able to work with France, Russia, and the UN. Besides Allawi is not the elected PM of Iraq. Kerry will, under the best scenario, be working with an elected official.

So let’s see. Kerry has a plan to save Iraq that includes first convincing everyone that Iraq is an unsafe hellhole, a quagmire, a complete mistake, where nothing is going right and the terrorists control the country, and democracy will not be valid unless every terrorist in fallujah gets to vote.

When the opposing view is some gilded assessment with trite rhetoric about the “challenges” we face then maybe we need some stark language. I’m sure Kerry does not see every square foot of Iraq as a quagmire. And I’m certain he has no regard for the terrorists in Fallujah and their voting rights. You are also disregarding everything else he has said on the subject for the sake of this point.

it fits their MO: if you don’t like the rules of the game, change the rules.

Haha! That’s right, Joseph. It just reminded me of Cheney’s solution to the fact that more and more Americans have slid into poverty for the last three years in a row: change the way the statistics are gathered,

“400,000 people make some money trading on E-bay. That’s a source that didn’t exist even 10 years ago,”

This is a Presidential candidate undermining a head of state, questioning his credibility, calling him a puppet.

Kerry has basically been saying the same thing about Bush. If the argument is credible then it’s not some kind of slander that you’re trying to portray it as. Does anyone think we can come to an informed decision with purely politically correct language? When Kerry questions Bush’s or Allawi’s credibility he is backing it up with examples. This is called an argument, not a slur.

It’s better than: Did you know John McCain has a black child?

AP,

it fits their MO: if you don’t like the rules of the game, change the rules.

Haha! That’s right, Joseph. It just reminded me of Cheney’s solution to the fact that more and more Americans have slid into poverty for the last three years in a row: change the way the statistics are gathered,

“400,000 people make some money trading on E-bay. That’s a source that didn’t exist even 10 years ago,”

The gay marriage ban amendment is another glaring example.

It is a common tactic of cheats and confidence artists.

Joseph, Kerry’s attacking Bush is a VERY different thing. Even those of us who don’t like Kerry are willing to give him a great deal of leeway in this regard because it is a domestic presidential season and playing politics is inevitable on either side.

But when a top Kerry campaign official like Lockhart says of UN appointee Allawi EXACTLY the same thing that al-Zarqawi is saying, that Allawi is Bush’s puppet and you “almost see the hand underneath the shirt moving the lips,” then we have crossed into very dark and dangerous territory. An American presidential candidate, for the sole purpose of decreasing public morale and putting the worst possible face on Iraq for his own election prospects, is deliberatly trying to undermine the legitimacy of a UN-appointed leader who is currently Iraq’s best hope for eventual elections and security. In no concievable way does this help move democtracy along in Iraq, and it clearly inflames the dangers against the lives of American troops. And not only that, it shows an utter rejection of what Kerry has been saying—that he wants to work within UN processes.

This it totally disgusting, and frankly treasonous. It is NOT acceptable politics for Kerry to parrot the words which terrorists use when they’re trying to undermine elections in Iraq and whip jihadists into a frenzy against American troops.

I’ve not said it before, and have strongly disagreed with those who questioned Kerry’s patriotism instead of just his judgement.
But it’s now clear that Kerry is deliberately saying and doing things to encourage the Iraqi insurgency because doing so is now the only concievable way he will ever get to realize his narcissistic childhood dream of living in the west wing. I’m sad that it has come to this—that he couldn’t just lose the election gracefully and has chosen in his desperation to drag himself through the mud.

Please, Martin. Kerry never said Allawi was Bush’s puppet. It was clear that Allawi was putting the happy face on Iraq, and Kerry called him on it.

If you want to get all riled up about helping terrorists, ponder over the fact that al Qaeda is endorsing Bush’s re-election.

Bush should understand better than anyone that you don’t make things better by denying there’s a problem. You have to admit it, then solve it.

Even Bush’s vague admissions of things being “tough” in Iraq aren’t helpful. He needs to acknowlege specific problems and act on them.

There’s a lack of security, even in Baghdad. US troops can clear out the insurgents, but how do you keep them from coming back? Bush’s plan is to use Iraqi troops and police to maintain security, but they’re only hastily trained and they tend to desert with their weapons to the insurgents.

There’s discontent among Iraqis because reconstruction of utilities, hospitals, schools, etc. are not happening fast enough. Only $1 billion of the $18 billion authorized for reconstruction last year has been spent. The Halliburton no-bid contracts were supposed to get reconstruction zooming along. What happened? Why isn’t it being fixed?

There’s discontent over high (50%+) unemployment, unless you want to count part-time insurgency as a job. Even Bush can do better than that. What’s his plan? If he’s got one, why isn’t it working?

To just vaguely wave your hand and say “everythings fine, but nothing’s perfect” does not solve the problem.

I will relate to you what happened to an Iraqi Major, a member of the Iraqi Provisional Authority, who was kidnapped when Insurgents stopped his car. His cousin saw his kidnapping and recognized one of the kidnappers. His Family assembled all his brothers, cousins and the local Shiehk and surrounded the recognized Kidnapper’s House and threatened to kill his ENTIRE family unless he was released within 4 days. The Iraqi Major was released 3 days later.

My point is that THIS is the law in Iraq now. Did they ask the Coalition for help? No. Did they ask the Iraqi Army for help? HELL NO!!! They got their tribe together and kicked ass.

Tell me again how things are better in Iraq?

Aldous.

AP, Lockhart said it—and if a member of your senior campaign staff says something like that you either fire the guy or implicitly endorse it.

Allawi was putting a “happy face” on Iraq, was he? Allawi knows better than anyone what challenges and opportunities face Iraq. Allawi’s life is under constant threat from terrorists, while Kerry is under constant threat of—what, exactly? Bad caviar? Skinning his knee when he falls down performing some sport for the cameras at the behest of his PR staff? But Kerry knows better than Allawi what the “reality” of Iraq is? Kerry knows what it would take to get him elected and that’s it. He doesn’t care about Iraqis or the lives of American soldiers or he wouldn’t be lending rhetorical support to the positions of al-Zarqawi.

Allawi may or may not survive his attempts to serve his country and offer them hope for a better future. And he should feel no worse for being patronized and condescended to by Theresa’s all-knowing cabana boy, whose position on Iraq and its’s leadership is now indistinguishable from al-Zarqawi’s. Actually, Allawi should take comfort in knowing that he is a hero to his people and John Kerry can just keep sneering while the American electorate beats him like a rented mule this November.

George,

Thanks for reading my stuff.

> Their own information says that only 50 something of
> their members actually served with Kerry.

I couldn’t find anything on their site that says that. They say, over and over again, that all of them served with John Kerry. And because of that deception, everyone from you to the major media repeats that exaggeration.

-Cf

Eric-

If what you are saying is true… and it is in fact true that there are insurgents and there are areas where iraqi police and US armed forces do not have full control, my question to you is what will Kerry’s plan actually do to change that?

I think the way he will execute the plan will do more good, than simply the plan itself. It can be changed, I haven’t invested myself in Kerry’s first draft plan for the war. What I like is that Kerry has openly expressed the willingness to try something new if the old plan isn’t working.

You didn’t ask the important question though: if things are as they are in Iraq, why has Bush not taken the steps necessary to change the situation? Why is he allowing terrorist havens to persist in a nation where he pledged to destroy those havens? I think Kerry has more guts to do unpleasant things, politically risky things, than Bush has. Bush has always been obsessed with political survival, even to the point of burdening those who he governs with serious fiscal and military problems. He is half-hearted and half-educated in terms of foreign policy, especially when things don’t go as expected. Kerry comes across to me as a man of greater maturity and wisdom.

CF-

You always have neat stuff on your site (I’ve checked it out before), it just from a different perspective :)!

Comment deleted. This person was previously banned from WatchBlog.

WatchBlog Manager

Aldaron:

Yes there are bad areas including parts of Baghdad, but these are isolated areas.

When I think of California, I think of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, and San Diego. If these four cities were in chaos and the rest of the state were “pacified,” I still wouldn’t have a good impression of California. I wouldn’t call that impression pessimistic either.

There are 140,000 US troops in Iraq now and upwards of 100,000 Iraqis police in the country afterall.

All this and more for a mostly “pacified” state. Allawi only mentions 50,000 combat-ready Iraqis with 145,000 by January and 250,000 by the end of next year. I heard elsewhere that of this number, 90,000 would be police, but I haven’t heard how many police they have at the moment.

There are thugs, terrorists, and criminals dying every day and night that we never hear about over here.

These vague and indeterminate accomplishments you tout are doing little to “pacify” the trouble spots, from what I hear about over here. Care to share this data to which you’re privy? Or are you being vague to cloud an insubstantial argument?

I take the word of a man that lives there and gets reports everyday over a man running for President who has never been to Iraq, or a reporter from the New York Times or the BBC that hasn’t left the green zone in 6 months.

This is a blatant appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.

Joseph, Kerry’s attacking Bush is a VERY different thing. Even those of us who don’t like Kerry are willing to give him a great deal of leeway in this regard because it is a domestic presidential season and playing politics is inevitable on either side.

Kerry’s position is a dubious one but I think more is being made out of this than it merits. I personally dislike that many of the Democrats didn’t show up. I think that’s rude. Politics and diplomacy isn’t about turning your back or talking nice for the sake of appearances. Sometimes, especially during the hard times, it involves a lot embroiled debates. Language will always get harsh but it’s how we persevere through that to get to a resolution. Strong and forceful language can be an effective method for getting at the truth. So I like that Kerry is willing to bring these issues up when it would be more politically expedient to say nothing at all.

But when a top Kerry campaign official like Lockhart says of UN appointee Allawi EXACTLY the same thing that al-Zarqawi is saying, that Allawi is Bush’s puppet and you “almost see the hand underneath the shirt moving the lips,” then we have crossed into very dark and dangerous territory.

Unfortunately, I’m forced to agree with you about the inappropriateness of the Lockhart statement, though I don’t see such dire consequences as you do. There is enough appearance of potential illegitimacy surrounding Allawi as PM of Iraq (given the entire argument over whether the US should have invaded or not, thus leading to the US appointment of the IGC who then unanimously selected Allawi, someone who had worked with the CIA previously), so this assertion could be considered a valid argument among the unaffiliated. A top advisor to the Kerry camp is another story.

An American presidential candidate, for the sole purpose of decreasing public morale and putting the worst possible face on Iraq for his own election prospects, is deliberately trying to undermine the legitimacy of a UN-appointed leader who is currently Iraq’s best hope for eventual elections and security. In no concievable way does this help move democtracy along in Iraq, and it clearly inflames the dangers against the lives of American troops.

I don’t see where Kerry ever said Allawi is illegitimate. Or insinuated that he was. Or even ineffective. He said Allawi is contradicting himself and putting the best face on Iraq. This is a criticism, not a slur against Allawi and the whole UN effort.

I can understand your concern for how Iraqis might perceive the goings on in US politics and how it might effect their future but bringing a speculated Iraqi opinion into this sounds like an appeal to compassion (which is nice, of course, but it makes this more of an opinion than an argument against Kerry’s character).

I could equally argue that the passionate debates in the US are the perfect example of democracy for Iraq. Democracy is hard. People yell, and say inappropriate things. You still have to work through it. And it works.

The idea that such criticism inflames the dangers against our troops is not quantifiable. Since statistics don’t show that after every Kerry speech where he blasts the president terrorist attacks correspondingly spike, this turns out to be merely an opinion, too. My opinion is that we should never give regard to the enemy’s opinion during war. Who cares if they think we’re weak? We’re not. That’s all that matters.

But it’s now clear that Kerry is deliberately saying and doing things to encourage the Iraqi insurgency because doing so is now the only concievable way he will ever get to realize his narcissistic childhood dream of living in the west wing.

This is a question of intent, which is impossible to prove or disprove in this case. The assertion that “Kerry is deliberately saying and doing things” can’t be backed up by verifiable evidence. Your point is also based on the assumption of the aforementioned unprovable assertion that his statements “encourage the Iraqi insurgency.”

The overly-literal psychoanalysis of Kerry’s west wing joke is a disproportionate response. That’s almost as bad as Michael Moore’s misuse of the “haves and have mores” joke Bush made.

Joseph, thanks for your patient point-by-point refutation, which I appreciate despite not agreeing.

Here’s the thing, and why my objection to Kerry on previously ideological grounds has metastasized into fear and loathing:

Allawi must now go back to Iraq—neither Camp David (Bush) nor a Colorado skiing lodge (Kerry) is an option for him. He is confronted with the need to perform, with little margin for error, an incredibly difficult and important job while his life is under constant threat. If he is killed, or if he fails, the job in Iraq will become that much more difficult.

And now John Kerry and his campaign, because he is running for office, has—deliberately or not—taken steps which risk undermining Allawi in not only the eyes of the world but in the eyes of Iraqis.

This makes Allawi’s task that much more difficult—“intention” as you use it, and the difficulty of proving it, is more germane to a court of law. Kerry’s not on trial here. He’s being considered as a potential president. Whether he intended to do what he did—or did it accidently because he puts his personal ambitions ahead of everything else—is less important than his massive recklessness.

I think Allawi is damaging his own position by snuggling up to Bush so closely. Of course he has no choice, really. The US Marines are the only thing keeping him from swinging from a lamp post. He’ll suck up to President Kerry, too. Or move back to his home in London.

Allawi has a 2% Job Approval Rating in Iraq. He is also not an elected Leader. An American Appointed Council CHOSE him. You speak as if telling the obvious will damage Allawi. The damage was already there and it is all done by Bush’s stupidity.

Aldous.

A question posed to Christopher in response to:

Posted by Christopher Fahey at September 24, 2004 02:14 PM

Here’s an analogy: A dangerous criminal hides out in a building in a rough neighborhood. The cops set the building on fire, killing some innocent people, and setting other buildings in the neighborhood on fire, enraging the whole neighborhood. The criminal himself is apprehended while running away from the burning wreckage.
— Are we glad the murderer is caught? Yes.
— Is the neighborhood better off without him? Yes.
— Was the operation worth it? No.
— Could it have been done differently? Yes.

How could have it been done differently? This is something lots of Kerry’s want to know. He spends a lot time saying what was done wrong, but none on what could have or should have been done. And, I mean specifically, not “use more diplomacy”. As for me; I’m still on the fence- waiting for the debates but this is something I’ve wanted to know for a long time.

Whatever Kerry could or could not do with Iraq pales in comparison to the thought: is Bush going to plunge into an attack on Iran, Syria and North Korea ? Bush took a world that felt aligned with the US after 911 and plunged it into almost universal disrepect. We only need look at the international polls or travel abroad. Needless to say, our friends in Europe are wary of us, and in the rest of the world (Asia, Middle East, Africa) this is increasing terrorism. Responding to an extremist muslim attack by invading an unrelated secular muslim country was the worst possible thing he could have done. The soliders on the ground in Iraq have stated time and time again that they can see they are creating 10 terrorists for every 1 they kill. Arabs are fiercly loyal to their families. If you kill or mistreat a brother, you have 10 brothers who will die to avenge that. The terrorists in Iraq are not Sadaam supporters ! They are US haters, and they have just been given a huge excuse to get off their asses and do something about it. Dear people, please tell your neighbors who might be voting for Bush to think of our safety. Bush has made the world less safe.

Bush has made the world less safe.

Charles, that’s actually confirmed by counter terrorism experts in the CIA and State Department,