Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

…And the world is still flat and the sky is still green.

Dawn, we are supposed to have one of the most effective intelligence agencies on the planet.
At the time Bush took us into Iraq Sadam wasn’t the threat he was made out to be over and over and over. How could we have gotten this so wrong.
Oh, and BTW, we should expect France, Germany, and Russia to apologize?

about Saddam being an imminent threat. A term that Edwards placed on the situation in Iraq - not Bush

This is just inaccurate. There are several places on the web which list the times the administration described Saddam as an imminent threat or the equivalent.

There were several speeches in which Bush himself named Iraq as an imminent threat.
What about our own Secretary of State at the UN?

Look nobody disputes that Sadam wasn’t a bad guy.
But why this bad guy and why then.

The oil for food was baloney from the begining. Sadam was a despot. And at one time he was OUR DESPOT. What I don’t understand is why we are making such a big deal this now. This is all spilled milk.

Dawn-
Who was going to lift the sanctions? We have a veto on the Security council. Any attempts, we could have put a quick end.

And as for invading the country, we didn’t need to. We had the inspectors in there, and they were telling us the same damn story we now take for granted as true- No WMD’s.

No WMD’s. No al-Qaeda conspiracy to hand the non-existing WMd’s to. In short, no threat, grave gathering, dancing the can-can, or otherwise.

The same sadly cannot be said of the terrorists. The funny thing is, the Bush way of looking at terrorism is more September Tenth than the democrats. They’re still working off the cold war paradigm of state supported terrorism, when al-Qaeda operates transnationally, without the need for much centralized control.

The real question, I guess, is whether they should have known better about Iraq, and I’ve read on thing after another confirming that they were told by other people what a bad ide this was. They simply didn’t listen. It’s what Jon Stewart called 20/20 blindsight.

We really have to stop thinking that some how 9/11 changes everything. It changes some things, but not others. This war on terror will die a quick death if we jump at every shadow. We don’t have the cash or the troops to be so irresponsible, so indiscriminate.

You forget that Iraq was a major US ally when Saddam gassed the Iranians and Kurds. The United States blocked the UN Resolution Against Iraq about that. WHERE IS THE US APOLOGY TO THE KURDS AND IRANIANS?

This Oil-for-Food Scandal crap is ridiculous. Everyone KNEW Saddam was abusing it. What were they going to do? Shut it off and let thousands die? They closed their eyes and chose the lesser of two evils.

Aldous.

Dawn,
I am surprised at how quickly you accept Miss Rice as telling us the truth. The next time you wacth Miss Rice on TV, look at the way she shakes her head from side to side. It looks like she is saying no every time she speaks about things that are not true. Now, I understand that I am only guessing, but after watching her speak on several occasions I have picked up on that move. Remember, body langauge does not lie.

Yes, Saddam was an immemint threat to America; however, the threat did not come from WMD’s. Bush and company decided sometime in late 2001 or early 2002 to exploit the fear of another 9/11 to gain control of our government. By using Saddam’s WMD’s they managed to sell America on the idea that he would provide these weapons to terrorist and Bush needed the entire congress Repubilican so he could keep us safe.

The facts about Saddam in 2001-02 was that he stated plainly that he would pay the families of any suicide bomber $25,000.00 FOR AN ATTACK ON Isreal or her Allies (Namely the US and Great Britain). The fact that we had proof that he paid a family in early 2002 was all the proof we needed to ensure the removal of Saddam from power and to totally disarm Iraq.

However, Bush and Company knew that argument would be harder to sell and may not give them the desired outcome. Therefore, they exploited the fear in a dirty bomb blowing up in a city. In fact, Bush and Cheney stated for a fact that they had hard proof that Saddam was actively producing WMD’s in 2002 and was currently expanding his ability in Oct. of 2002.

What Bush and Company are facing now is a lesson we all teach our children. Yes, you can tell a lie or fudge the truth today. However, once a lie is told you must keep lieing in order to cover up the first one and eventually you will get tripped up and exposed.

As far as the Oil for Food program goes, keep watching and reading the news over the next week or so. The “October Surprise” is going to be the release of the American companies and individuals that profitted from the program along which has been witheld up until now. I think you might know a few of this names and will be amazed at how tangled the web gets.

And the idea that we need to go around the world toppling autocratic regimes and replace them with democracies, as both Cheney and Bush suggest, is idiotic.

Terrorists don’t need state sponsors, just some plce to plot and train without any nosy neighbors around - like Wyoming or the Ozarks.

The most effective thing we can do to stop al Qaeda is to kill and discredit them. Bush and Cheney are SO wrong on how to defend this country.

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” - GW Bush

What a loser.

And I agree that the oil-for-food scandal is dumb. Bush’s buddies in the US oil business got plenty of those vouchers - it didn’t help Saddam, did it?

When I hear the US recipients on the list will be kept secret, I immediately assume we’ll find a Cheney/Halliburton connection in the woodpile, too.

AP,
The American companies and names should be released within the next two weeks according to some reporters. Check out Frances newspapers.

As far as I can guess, the names will read like a Who’s Who list.

Rice said: “”Now, the entire world — the former administration, the Clinton administration, certainly intelligence services around the world, our own and others — thought that he likely had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.”

You know what. Rice’s statement, if true, makes me the most clairvoyant or brilliant person in the world. When Bush discussed invading Iraq due to WMD I voiced my opinion that Saddam probably did NOT have WMD. My reasoning was simple. Saddam Hussein was a survivor, his childhood, his family, and every turn in his adult life prepared him to be a very successful dictator, brutal, suspicious, and pragmatic about his own survival. Thus, when the inspections began in Iraq to look for WMD it was clear to me that none would be found. I have written about this before, here at WatchBlog.

If there was any chance of inspectors finding WMD after 1991, they would have constituted a legal basis for the world to remove him from power. Saddam Hussein was evil, brutal, and a dictator on the level of Adolph Hitler, but, Saddam Hussein was NOT stupid about his survival and protecting his regime.

Thus it was clear to me long before invasion, that President Bush’s claims of WMD in Iraq were either a bold faced lie, or the height of incompetence on the part of our intelligence agencies.

Thus, I thank Condoleeza Rice for highlighting how unique and brilliant my assessment of the WMD situation was in Iraq, for according to her, I was the only person in the world capable of reasoning in the way I did.

Rice was incompetent on this issue, she is continuing to demonstrate her incompetence on this issue, and it will be a fortunate day when she and her fellow incompetents who have made such inexcuseably wrong decisions based on false and erroneous assessments, have left the leadership of this country.

David, count me in with you as clairevoyant. But by Feb.-March 2003 you didn’t have to have special powers to know that Saddam probably didn’t have any WMD. In fact, you had to be pretty stupid to believe he did.

It surprises me that hardcore reporters are not assembling the reality that we are living in. Rove and Company spun America into believing that we needed to give Bush and Company control over Congress and the Whithouse in order to defend ourselve against terrorist and the threat of Saddams WMD’s begining in September of 2002. In the begining of 2003 Bush and Company stated for a fact that they had hard proof of Saddams WMD’s which we currently find out that was flase and incomplete. In May of 2004, we find out the operations lacked any since of responsiblity and focus and leadership. Today, we find out Bush and Company just slamed another door in Frances face.

Are they really thinking that they can take over the world?

Kerry/Edwards are basing everything they say on what we know now. We don’t hear them talking about the Oil for Food Scandal and what Saddam Husseins true intentions were. Just that there were no WMD’s and it was a mistake. Kerry/Edwards don’t have an answer for all the rest of it because they would lose the ‘mistake’ arguement.

Bush is still right and Kerry is still wrong.

Bravo for actually talking about the real issue, Dawn. But you’re missing one point.

There was indeed a possible threat from Iraq - just as there is a possible threat from Iran, Pakistan, lose nukes in Russia, and a dozen unstable regimes around the world with the ability to make chemical weapons. The question is, what was the right action? what was the right way of balancing the cost of responding with the actual risk?

Invading Iraq was the most expensive possible response to the possible threat - and it’s turned out to be more expensive than anyone would have guessed due to subsequent mismanagement. One of the unmentioned expenses is readiness to respond - invading Iraq “spent” our military asd surely as the tax cuts spent our surplus. Ignoring Iraq was not the answer either, for the reasons you list.

Kerry supported a middle ground - a less expensive response to a threat that was real, but not a cause for panic. And he was right. And Bush’s headlong panic-driven rush to invasion was wrong.

France, Germany and Russia owe the U.S. an apology. We don’t need to beg their forgiveness.

Yet we’re asking them to send troops… hmm.

And terrorism is a nuisance.

If Kerry/Edwards had been running the country they probably would have lifted the sanctions to make France & Co. happy.
Kerry and Co. would have had to rely on the same faulty intelligence gathering.
Kerry would have waited until something else happened. That doesn’t that make him better.

Some of you say you knew there were no WMD’s and that it was obvious. Why didn’t you call Kerry/Edwards and tell them? Are you saying they knew? They should have stopped Bush. Don’t say it wasn’t possible.

‘Gee Gomer, I said he could use force but I didn’t mean it. I knew there were no WMD’s. I could have done something more to stop the war, saved the lives of our men and women in the service, but I sat back and let it happen. What’ll I do now?’
‘It’s okay PeeWee. We’ll blame the bully. Call him a liar. That always works. It doesn’t matter that we knew there were no WMD’s because we didn’t have to make the decision. You know the bully can’t tell everyone we all knew before the war. If we had gotten together and stopped him we wouldn’t have this to remove him from office now would we?’

Real good argument democrats.

I did one better liberal666, I got posted on CNN Wolfe Blitzers NOON Show. My question for him and his guests was simple stated What if Saddam has no WMD’s? The rest of my post explained how a small country in the Middle East defeated Isreal’s Army which was the biggest in the world. The conservative talking head kept blasting the talking point that Bush had proof that Saddam was an immemint threat. Funny thing is the lady from National review explained if there was no WMD’s found America would find ourself right where we are.

The assumption that sanctions would have been lifted is inane. I liked the scene of McCain asking Duelfer the very loaded question: If Saddam was still in power and the sanctions were lifted, would you consider him a potential threat? Yeah, sure, since it’s so disconnected from reality, why not?

Yea but Kerry/Edwards weren’t running the country were they?
You expecy us to belive that they alone would unilaterally have lifted the sanctions?
Bush talks about having to go in there anyway, maybe in a few years, when Sadam was stronger?
What are we talking about here, a 5, 10, 20 year time line?
That doesn’t make any sense.

Hahaha! liberal666, is that going to be the Republican argument now? It’s all the Democrat’s fault that Bush invaded Iraq? Why not just blame Clinton?

If Kerry/Edwards had been running the country they probably would have lifted the sanctions to make France & Co. happy.

Nice opinion, can you back that up? From everything Kerry has said on the subject since the mid-90s I don’t think that’s true.

Kerry and Co. would have had to rely on the same faulty intelligence gathering.

The intelligence wasn’t faulty. It was non-existent. Everything the administration knew was based on pre-1998 inspection data and unreliable accounts by anti-Saddam defectors like Chalabi.

Even Rumsfeld had to run around spouting the inane, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Bush & co had to ignore a lot of evidence to the contrary to believe Saddam had WMD - especially after inspectors had been crawling around Iraq for a few months.

Kerry would have waited until something else happened.

Like what? Saddam had no WMD, no WMD programs, and no meaningful connections with terrorists.

The only “something else” I can imagine happening is Saddam slipping on the soap in the shower and taking the express elevator to hell.

Rocky:

First, I’d appreciate it if you could find a link to any speech where Bush called Iraq an “imminent” threat. I dont recall ever seeing this—though I’ve seen the media claim it over and over. A link showing it in Bush’s words would certainly bolster your argument. Lawnboy’s links show just the opposite——I read the entire list and only Scott McLellan ever used the word “imminent” and it is unclear in what context he used it. Nice job Lawnboy….thanks for the documentation.

Secondly, you complain about the US’s lack of intelligence gathering capability—and rightly so. In looking at the two candidates, let’s look at who has been more closely involved in the US intelligence gathering over the past decade. Hmmmm, Bush was governor of Texas, while Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee charged with overseeing intelligence gathering.

Kerry was one of the Senators whose job was to oversee intelligence gathering. So what did he do about the flaws the he now comments on? Well, he only attended 24% of the meetings, so I think its safe to assume he did very little. Pretty damning evidence, dont ya think?

Perhaps you, or ANYONE in this thread, can explain why you would favor someone who, when given the chance—-no, really the DUTY—- to improve our intelligence gathering capabilities, couldnt even bother showing up at the meetings. I’d be interested in hearing how this makes Kerry presidential? He had his chance to make changes, did nothing, and now complains that changes were not made. How hypocritical.

What I am saying is that Kerry has it easy now. He can say what he would have done even if it isn’t what he would have actually done.

We know how he voted and we know what he said.

Nobody knows for sure that he would not have taken us to war in Iraq. Do you really think he is going to admit that he would have? He was saying it was the right thing to do at first.

The WMD’s were not there. So far it has been shown that they were not in Iraq.

If they did exist and were moved to Syria or Iran during the build up to the war, do you really think those countries would say they have them? Of course a hypothetical.

You say that it was obvious to anyone that the WMD’s were not there.
Then there was no threat. No reason for authorization at all. No need to make Saddam come clean with inspections if they already knew the WMD’s were not there. No need to go back to the UN again and again with the authorization for war. Kerry even wanted that. What for? Saddam should have had his sanctions lifted with that argument.

If, as you say, it was obvious the WMD’s were not there and Saddam was no threat, then everyone who voted for the authorization to go to war should be blamed. It was, after all, the reason to go to war.

Bush could have been reigned in if it was known he was so wrong about the threat Saddam posed. Instead he was given more power. Must have been something to it.

Were they afraid he would drop a bomb on the Senate building?

Joe,
I may have mispoke about the speech. However this exerpt is from a White House press briefing,
Oct 16,2002
This is the link to that transcript

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/excerpts_oct16.html

QUESTION: Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes

This is from a transcript from a White House briefing Dated 5/7/03

Q Well, we went to war, didn’t we, to find these — because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn’t that true?

MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all. We said what we said because we meant it. We had the intelligence to report it. Secretary Powell said it. And I may point out to you, as you may know, there is a news conference at Department of Defense today at 2:00 p.m. to discuss one element in this.

Let me know Joe.

Dawn,
I know you are not trying to blame congress on giving Bush the power to deal with Saddam in a sane way.

Yes, Saddam was a treat to this country based on the spin Bush and company put on the debate right before the 2002 congressional elections. Yes, Bush and company used the fear of the general public with 9/11 to raise up and support the republican candidates who was running for congress. And yes, It was Bush and company that they had proof of Saddams current programs.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html JBD check out his speech here

If anything Bush and company is responsible for misleading this country in an attempt to take control of this government. Read the remarks of this administration between 2002 and 2003 along with comments like Rove wanted to wait until September 2002 before they released the new product. Other wise why did Bush and company state in the mid elections that Bush would require a republican party in charge of both house in order to keep us safe. Can we say impeachment?

This whole “imminent threat” thing has been even more distorted than Cheney’s alleged multi-million dollar profits from his evil and sinister Halliburton days.

I know that reason tends to be in short supply here, but y’all might want to take a look at the Spinsanity website. It provides a factual accounting of what was or wasn’t said and by whom. Spin them all you want, but you might want to at least start with the facts.

NOTOTH,
These “facts” came from a link posted on that website.
Who’s spinning who?

Nototh,
The argument of immiment threat is backed up by the White House own news breif. Bush is quoted of saying “and we know” (check web site last post) when discussing WMD’s. Bush even sent Powell to the UN with fake pictures to prove they had hard proof.

Yes, our country did face an imminent threat, but it is clear that Bush position left us at a bigger threat than anything Saddam could have cooked up. Time was on our side to deal with the problem right and reserve our troops for a bigger fish.

Dawn-

Nobody knows for sure that he would not have taken us to war in Iraq.

I disagree. I think it is clear from his statements (after the May ‘03 interview), his history and his votes that Kerry would not have gone to war in Iraq. But he would have threatened it as evidenced by his vote to allow the use of force and his agreement that our renewed pressure on Iraq was effective.

And it is that very logic that I do not want him to win the presidency.

If Kerry knew the WMD’s were not there he should never have given authorization. His vote alone would not have changed it.

Kerry gave authorization and said the U.S. should go back to the UN.

Why?

Because Kerry is one of the best politicians we have in that he has mastered doublespeak.
He knew he was going to run for President and ‘depending on the outcome’ of the WMD issues after the war he had to be able to say he was right - either way.
That doesn’t mean he would be a good leader.
I can just see him trying to make policy. This is the way I want this but if it goes wrong this is why I didn’t want it.
Yes he is big on the UN. The UN just keeps showing how corrupt and useless it is right now. The UN needs a regime change.

I can’t wait for him to blame Christopher Reeves death on Bush.

George,

Why would Kerry need to threaten with anything?

People are arguing that it was obvious before the war that there were no WMD’s and no threat. That is what I was talking about.

If Kerry knew there were no weapons there was no need for any type of threat aimed at Saddam. Kerry should have been arguing to lift sanctions if there was no threat. Not signing an authorization for war.

Dawn,
Keep the record straight. Kerry and the rest of Congress was in an election cycle. Bush, like Clinton has access to information that Congress is not allowed to see due to NSA rules. Therefore, it was and is Bush’s sole responsiblity to ensure he had the evidience he said he had on Saddam. Congress held Clinton and his father to the same global test when they went to war. Now that the danger has passed in Iraq where is the proof Bush boosted about so loudly in 2002?

David:

If, as you claim, it was stupid to think that Saddam had WMD’s after 1991, then why in the world did the United States bomb Iraq in 1998 because of the WMD issue? Why did Bill Clinton state uncategorically that Saddam had WMD’s, and why did he talk later about how much Operation Desert Fox had disrupted Iraq’s WMD capabilities?

And why did John Kerry support that action? Why did such a large portion of the Democratic party vote for Operation Desert Fox? Why did so many governments around the world, even those who oppose the US actions, agree that Saddam likely had WMD capabilities?

David, it’s easy to look back in hindsight and make such strong statements as you have. And perhaps you did have an opinion ahead of time that Saddam didnt have WMD’s. But Rice’s comment was correct—-the world DID believe Saddam had WMD’s.

While its clear now that he didnt have the WMDs, but was planning a long term strategy to regain them, it wasnt clear then.

Henry,
An election cycle? Now isn’t that a good reason to vote the right or wrong way. Isn’t that a good reason to authorize war.

Our politicians are more afraid of losing votes than doing the unpopular thing at the time.

Term limits!

So … Did they know if the weapons were there or not?
Why the comments on how obvious it was that the weapons were not there by Kerry supporters?
Then the comments that they are not given the same info as the President and they didn’t know the weapons were not there.

Sounds like Kerry supporters are trying to have it both ways just like Kerry does.

Anybody giving authorization for war should have access to all information. I agree.

This morning a Kerry supporter said ‘Just because Bush did better in the debate doesn’t mean Kerry didn’t win.’

HUH??? Kerry did better in the first debate, so I guess that means Bush really won.

Dawn,
I hate to inform you, but even the president is not allowed to have all the information that is available at any time. However, it is his duty to this country not to present flase information to congress (i.e. Powells UN evidience).

Go back and listen to Bush’s republican talking machine in 2002. It was all about the WMD’s of Saddam. Than go to the date of the vote on the authorization for force in Iraq. Bush’s political play was to put the dems on the spot when he called for the vote right before the election. The fact that he used flase evidience to make his case and sway the mid elections to the republicans is at least unethical.

Kerry gave authorization and said the U.S. should go back to the UN.

Why?

Maybe, because he thought that given the information that he had, that this was the correct level of response?

Because Kerry is one of the best politicians we have in that he has mastered doublespeak. He knew he was going to run for President and ‘depending on the outcome’ of the WMD issues after the war he had to be able to say he was right - either way.

Is this the only reason for taking a moderate position, Dawn? to make sure that you could say you’re right, no matter what happens?

is it impossible that a moderate position could actually be the correct one, or the one that you believe in? do you claim the only sincere people are the total extremists, the flaming-hot hawks or the total-isolationist doves?

And is it really true that he have looked good no matter what hapenned? What if Bush had gone ahead and did what he said he would do, build true international support for more limited actions against Iraq - sanctions, inspections, airstrikes, whatever - and there had been another disasterous 9/11-style attack in which Iraq was implicated? would Kerry be able to say he was right then?

Just because it was the right position in retrospect, Dawn, doesn’t mean that there was no risk in taking it.

That doesn’t mean he would be a good leader.

Leaders have to asssess threats and react to them. Are you saying that doing this correctly in the past has no relevance on leadership?

I can just see him trying to make policy. This is the way I want this but if it goes wrong this is why I didn’t want it. Yes he is big on the UN. The UN just keeps showing how corrupt and useless it is right now. The UN needs a regime change.

I can’t wait for him to blame Christopher Reeves death on Bush.

Flame away, Dawn. Misquote all you like. I’m sure everyone on the Red Team needs to blow off steam. I mean, how frustrating is this? Practically every time I pick up a paper I see more evidence that on Iraq, Bush was wrong and Kerry was right.

This whole thing is an interesting spin, but I don’t think that either or your main points hold.

(1) The fact that we can see clearly who was right in retrospect is important - it’s not fair to call Bush a looney, or a liar, or an idiot just because he was wrong. But it is fair to point out that on this major decision, Bush was wrong. As a Republican, you can vote for him because he’s on the right, but you can’t argue that he was in the right.

(2) The argument that Kerry was straddling a fence and hence is wishy-washy is nonsense. Yes, he was taking a middle ground - between spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives chasing a chimera, or between ignoring a growing, worrisome but not immediate threat. Which was at the time reasonable - why not worry about long-term problems in Iraq when bin laden is still at large? - and in retrospect the right decision. Saying he just wanted to “look right” for the election doesn’t change the fact that on Iraq, Kerry was right and Bush was wrong.

Dawn-

Kerry supported resuming the inspections of Iraq post 9/11 that had ended when Saddam basically kicked the inspectors out a few years earlier. The resumption of inspections did not occur until Bush identified Iraq as part of the “axis of evil” and pushed both the U.N. and Congress to act on its numerous threats (U.N. resolutions and regime change policy). Kerry praises this action still today, and is his current reasoning in voting for the authorization to allow the President to use force as necessary.

But is also clear that he would not have acted after Iraq sent the non-compliant data to the U.N. in response to 1441. It would not have passed his “global test.” This was the strategy that Saddam was counting on; that given opposition from his trading partners in the oil for food program, Bush would not invade.

How soon people forget.

In 1991 Saddam invaded another country, it was known that he had wmd’s, the UN voted to take action, all the countrys that Kerry now says we need before taking action were with us then, John Kerry STILL voted no !

What was Kerrys “global test” in 91 ?
Did he think that Saddam should have veto power in 91 ?
It was proven in 1991 that Saddam DID have wmd’s and was close to getting nukes.

For years after the 91 war Saddam played games with the inspectors and continued to shoot at our planes in the UN santioned “no fly zone”.

After 9-11 We couldn’t trust a nutball like Saddam to not give wmd’s to terriorists, every Intel. agency in the world( even France) thought he still had them.
President Bush desided to take action, he went to congress, (this time Kerry rightly voted yes),He went to the UN and got another resolution demanding Saddam come clean, Saddam refused.
President Bush went back to the UN (useless nations) to get a war resolution, France said no matter what they would veto that.
Before invading Iraq, President Bush gave Saddam the option to leave Iraq and avoid war, Saddam refused, (I’ll bet Saddam wishs he had a “do over” on that one.)
Fast forward to 2004, John Kerry wants to be commander and chief, his yes vote now means no because we have “yet” to find the wmd’s,(were they there?..Did Saddam hide them ?), I’m not sure and neither are you.
When asked if this war was worth it on national TV…Kerry’s responce ; “It depends on how it turns out”.If thats not holding your finger to the “Political wind” to see which way its blowing, I don’t know what it would be.

At a time of war, a President Kerry don’t pass the “sniff test” for me.

In Kerry’s case - standing in the middle does mean he does it so he can be right no matter what.

If he actually stood on one side or the other his ‘people’ wouldn’t have to explain ‘what he means’ when he talks.

If it wasn’t such a big issue there wouldn’t be so much talk about it.

In Kerry’s case - standing in the middle does mean he does it so he can be right no matter what.

Fine. If you can’t prove it, and can’t even construct a defensible argument, just say it anyway. It’s good for Bush, it’s good for Cheney. Maybe it’ll be good for you too.

If he actually stood on one side or the other his ‘people’ wouldn’t have to explain ‘what he means’ when he talks.

If it wasn’t such a big issue there wouldn’t be so much talk about it.

His ‘people’ only need to explain what he means because Bush’s ‘people’ spend 90% of their time distorting what he means. And why? because hard as it is to keep up the smokescreen around Kerry, it’s easier than trying to defend Bush’s record.

And it’s an issue, Dawn, because the Karl Rove and the RNC has decided to manufacture it as an issue. Just like boy-scout Al Gore, who didn’t want Clinton’s help campaigning because he was so mad at Clinton’s lies to the country about his sex life - Gore’s issue was being a “serial exaggerator” (not that W would exaggerate anything, ever, no way).

Dawn,
Kerry stated it was how Bush went to war that seperates the men. Bush said times up lets go even if we can’t say how it will end. Kerry would of worked the diplomatic policy that Powell was following. Remember the UN sanctions stated or face serious consquences.

I know you probable tell your kids “or else” all the time, but does that mean you spank your child ever time? Putting the political screws to Saddam to get an unaminous vote would of been worth it. Plus it would cost alot less money.

Hello,
I received this from a friend, is this true?

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s
daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him
and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade
with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our
highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
A woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind
without regulation.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay..
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies,
then demand their cooperation and money.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy.
Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at
heart.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable
offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which
thousands die is solid defense policy..
The public has a right to know about Hillary’s cattle trades, but
George Bush’s driving and military record is none of our business.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a
conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness, and you need our
prayers for your recovery.
You support states’ rights, which means Attorney General John
Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the
right to adopt.
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but
what Bush did in the ’80s is irrelevant

I’m often asked to provide a source to prove my point when I speak optimistically of Iraq. I always tell people to get both sides of the story in Iraq before they make those blanket statements. Since the day to day headlines does a pretty good job of covering the bad side, I thought I’d point out the good side

William:

Whether intentionally or not, you provided us with a well-written “Kerryism”:

The argument that Kerry was straddling a fence and hence is wishy-washy is nonsense. Yes, he was taking a middle ground…

HMMM, so now taking a position directly in the middle ground isnt fence sitting?? What, pray tell, IS fence sitting then?

The U.S. is involved everywhere in the world, so you can find U.S. help and hindrance anywhere you look. The blame the U.S. crowd seize on this when it suits them. Just FYI, the U.S. was by far the biggest foreign aid donor to Afghanistan before the fall of the Taliban. That does not mean we were allies. No unbiased or reasonable person would say that Saddam was a U.S. ally or that Reagan armed him. If you look at the weapons Saddam possessed, you find that they are Russian and French. The U.S. shared some intelligence with other Arabs, which they shared with Iraq. You guys who criticize U.S. intel might want to think about that one. Anyway, Iraq was a Soviet client in the 1980s. You might recall that lefties criticized Reagan for being too much against he Soviets. During the 1980s the greater threat seemed to come from Iran. It made sense not to want Iraq to lose in the war with Iran. That is what drove U.S. policy and it is not the same as being allied.

I would like to see GW Bush admit mistakes, but I see that he can’t in a world where a slip of grammar results in front page criticism. Based on the information available at the time, Bush made the correct decision to invade Iraq. Based on information available now he might have made a different decision. War is always uncertain. Iraq was defeated faster and with fewer casualties than anticipated. Thinking it would be harder and finding we were wrong was a mistake we all don’t mind. This rapid victory led us to mistakes in the post-war. Historically, this is how things go.

As for threats, President Bush rightly points out that 9/11 changed the calculus. We have to be more sensitive to the costs of underestimating our enemies. Imagine if we had arrested the 9/11 highjackers because they had box cutters. It would be hard to make the case that these box cutters could be “dual use” and lead massive casualties.

Intelligence is always uncertain. That is why they call it “intelligence” and not “news”. And the bad guys are working hard to deceive us. Estimates might be high or low. You will recall that Libya was much farther along in the WMD than our intelligence knew. Iraq less so. What do we know about N. Korea or Iran? We have estimates. N. Korea says they have bombs. We believe they have anywhere from zero to six. That’s a big range when you think about the consequences. All decisions are made in an uncertain world, so all are “mistakes”

Whether intentionally or not, you provided us with a well-written “Kerryism”:

The argument that Kerry was straddling a fence and hence is wishy-washy is nonsense. Yes, he was taking a middle ground…

HMMM, so now taking a position directly in the middle ground isnt fence sitting?? What, pray tell, IS fence sitting then?

From dictionary.com: “fence sitter, n. Informal;
One who takes a position of neutrality or indecision, as in a controversial matter.”

Taking and consistently holding a moderate position is not the same as indecision.

From newspeak.com: “Kerryism, n. Informal. Clear and meaningful statement that can be misinterpreted or distorted by an adversary.”

GWB can’t admit to a mistake any more than Kerry can admit that he changed his position on Iraq in late 2003.

So, what all this retoric boils down to was that, Sadam thumbed his nose at Bush, Bush got pissed off and then we invaded Iraq on insufficient evidence that, even today, can’t be substantiated.

Please somebody tell me I’m wrong on this.

Bush is wrong nobody is right.

Delzario said: “Since the day to day headlines does a pretty good job of covering the bad side, I thought I’d point out the good side”

You raise an excellent point regarding perspective, Delzario. The premise of your statement is that from one perspective things in Iraq are going badly. From another perspective, things are much improved. As far as that statement goes, it is true enough.

It is natural that Iraqis who are not being blown up or who have loved ones in the hospitals, missing, or recently dead, that they should go about the daily business of trying to make a living and to the extent that they can do that, focusing in on them appears to reflect normalcy.

However, it is possible to hold both perspectives at the same time. That is to say, those going about the normal business of living would for the most part have done that anyway had Saddam Hussein still remained in power. The mayhem and heart wrenching losses, and state of war that fills their news everyday, however, would not be occuring had Saddam Hussein remined in power.

Now, I am not advocating that we restore Saddam to power. Water under the bridge. But, it is logically defensible to say that as long as a dictator backed by a military regime remained in power, whether Saddam or someone else, warfare on the streets of Iraq would not be occurring. The day that military dictatorship was removed, whether benvoloent or malevolent, civil war was going to be inevitable as the struggle between the factions in Iraq ensued.

So, on the one hand, is logical to say that war in Iraq was inevitable some day whether we deposed the dicatator or the people themselves did so. On the other hand, by being the agent of Saddam’s removal and subsequent replacement for his martial law, we have made ourselves the target of the war that was inevitable, instead of allowing the factions within Iraq to fight themselves for self-determination.

This line of reasoning leads me to the conclusion that we erred in removing Saddam and making ourselves the target within Iraq, and we erred by severely damaging our international image and perceived motives. We need not have born these costs, for we have not changed the long-term outcome for the Iraqi people. They could have fought their civil war after their dictator was deposed, or they will fight that civil war after externally enforced martial law ceases when we leave. There is no net gain for Iraqis. Only a net loss for the U.S.

It is noble when American seeks to aid others, but, it is more importantly irresponsible when America acts against its own interests. Invading Iraq, whether realized or not, has turned out to not be in our own interests. And acting in our own interests is what Americans expect when they elect their leaders.

JBOD, please remember that when Clinton bombed the terrorists it was just “Wag the Dog” I belive that was the expression that was used by the neo-cons at the time. Remember he only did it to take attention away from the ongoing sex thing.

JBOD,
Please tell me if these words are interchangeable for imminent threat.

Read ‘em and weep

“The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace.”
• President Bush, 10/16/02

“There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.”
• President Bush, 10/7/02

“The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.”
• President Bush, 10/2/02

“There’s a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.”
• President Bush, 10/2/02

“This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined.”
• President Bush, 9/26/02

Thanks for the bandwidth.

All of you “no WMD” crybabies are probably sitting in your middle class homes being protected by working class folks in the military.
You are secure so you compalin and whine that the President is wrong about this and that. Hussein is just one of many enemies who would love to drop a WMD on the US. Wake up and support this country or leave!!

John,,
Bush was either right or wrong which is it going to be?

Rocky:

An uncategorical NO. Those words are not interchangable for imminent.

Bush specifically said that we needed to act BEFORE Saddam and Iraq became an imminent threat. Once the threat is imminent, much of the bargaining position is lost. We learned on 9-11 that we cannot wait. On 9-10 we believed there was no threat….we were wrong. We just didnt know it.

Watching and waiting while Saddam continued his gameplaying would have resulted in a greater threat down the road. I think we can ALL agree that negotiating and dealing with a Saddam armed with nukes or WMD would be infinitely more difficult than doing so with a Saddam without those weapons.

David-

Your logic is as twisted and bewildering as ever. If you actually read the link I posted, it wasn’t so much about people going on living day to day. It was about the improvements that majority of Iraqi’s have experienced over only the last 2 weeks. You incorrectly assume that the majority of the country is living with the violence seen is certain areas. The purpose of posting that article was to point out that wasn’t the case. Your assessment of the average Iraqi life is skewed by your desire to find fault with the on-going policy there. That article pretty clearly shows that the average Iraqi is living better each day. The point being, since you only hear the bad news you’ve come to believe that there’s only bad news to report. Therefore you assume the whole country is a violent upheaval. A viewpoint I don’t agree with after reading the good news too.

-D

joebagodonuts:

Actually, there was evidence that Terrorists were planning 9/11 YEARS BEFORE THE EVENT!!! CNN did a Special on it. The Philippine Police arrested a terrorist in the 1990’s with documents detailing a plan to crash Planes into buildings. They forwarded it to the FBI. Bush was just too stupid to do anything about it. Your Statement that there was “No Warning” is a patent lie. You really should think before posting nonsense.

Also. You do know it would take at least TEN YEARS for Saddam to restart his WMD program, right? 10 years is one hell of a pre-emptive war.

Aldous.

David-

Also, you continue to make unsubstantiated claims that civil war is inevitable. Unless you can show some polling to show this or an argument other than ‘well that’s what I think it’ll happen’ stop using it in your arguments.

You say it was inevitable the people would have overthrown Saddam. That seems unlikely. Saddam kept himself in power by killing innocent people by the thousands every year. You say the Iraqi people would have lived the same under Saddam. Well instead of the violence of a struggling freedom they experience today, they would have lived with the indiscriminant violence, murder, and rape of a dictator threat they lived with for the last 10+ years. Do your history research before you make such ignorant cold-hearted statements.

-D

All of you “no WMD” crybabies are probably sitting in your middle class homes being protected by working class folks in the military. You are secure so you compalin and whine that the President is wrong about this and that. Hussein is just one of many enemies who would love to drop a WMD on the US. Wake up and support this country or leave!!

I’m not complaining or whining. But I’m damn sure gonna vote for the guy that was right, not the guy that was wrong.

Straight from the horse’s arse:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

“He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…”

-Colin Powell Feb 2001

“But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”

Condi Rice July 2001

Joebagofcroissants,

If “a threat of unique urgency” isn’t imminent then one of us ain’t speaking english.

John,
Actually the quote is ” love or leave it” and you wear a hardhat while saying also “you dirty pinko commie hippies”

Then we all step lightly out of the way back machine and laugh.

Deszario, does the word reason have any meaning? There are no polls of the Kurds, Shia, and Sunnis asking if they will kiss and hug once a democracy is set in place that marginalizes two of the three groups. In the absence of such hard data, reason is all that is available.

So, please, display your abilities with reason and demonstrate how it is the two minority groups in Iraq are going feel compelled to accept a democracy dominated by the most populated group?

I have offered a reasonable argument on one side. I await a reasonable defense of your counterpoint.

I believe there are considerable questions of moral leadership for any administration that leads the American people to they are under imminent threat on information they know to be shaky, with sources they have been warned to be undependable. These are life and death decisions. The spectre of the next devestating attack on our country rightly looms over such a decision, and should dependable information come to light that justifies such action, we should act on it in a heartbeat.

We must not confuse due speed with undue haste. We must not let the fear that flows from our memories of 9/11 be used by unscrupulous self-righteous ideologues to stampede us into actions the evidence does not justify. We must recognize that with the right to strike first at enemies about to strike at us, comes the obligation to be of clear mind and purpose in such a strike, and to be able to explain what forces required our action.

I think the conservatives on this site that support Bush should take a moment and think over how the war is now justified. Behind the questions of “Aren’t we better off without Saddam,” and assertions that “We must stay the course,” is an uneasy compromise that they are making. The moral compromise here, is that people will keep silent about what rushed us to war, and for that, nobody will have to trouble themselves with the national responsibility that lays on us. We can go about our daily lives believing we did everything we could.

To do that, though, two things, two moral weakness must be internalized. First, you must deny to yourself that you have to get things like this right, that the spirit and intentions of one’s actions must be followed through with conscientious and scrupulous plans and deeds.

The second moral weakness is that of denying responsibility. It isn’t America, it’s some other country, it’s the UN. It isn’t Bush, it’s those who criticize him, fail to support him. It isn’t the Republican party and the Neocons, it’s those damned weak-kneed liberals.

Long ago, the Democrats made the same mistakes. They played games with patriotism, with accountability, turning what should be intense analyisis of the goals and results of operations into kill counts and vague things like showing the flag. Long ago, the Democrats themselves dismissed those not prepared to fight the communists in Southeast Asia.

And long ago, a variety of social and political forces trapped us into a long term political, military, social and economic nightmare, which did little to forward its stated cause.

I would submit that the Republicans should repeat the mistakes of the past, but learn from them. Body counts will not win this war. Millions dead did not win Vietnam. Iraq will be no different. We must makes substantive gains in Iraq, not merely settle for the comfort of body counts, the way American forces did until the Tet Offensive showed us just how off base our assessments of the situation were.

What I fear is that our president, is all too willing to lead us once more into the trap that Vietnam once posed for both our parties. That is why I support Kerry. He, of all people, understands that you do not stay the course when the course is leading you to disaster. As Einstein once said, insanity is doing the same thing over again, and expecting a different result. I feel safer trusting in the leadership of a man willing to learn the lessons of history, than in somebody who thinks he’ll teach history a lesson himself.

Stephen, that was well-said, and I agree with many of your remarks about responsibility and moral leadership.

However, I really think that there’s a danger of overdoing the Vietnam parallel. The fundamental difference is that Vietnam was a proxy war between superpowers, whereas this is not. Calling it a war between reason and chaos would not be far off. Fighting the last war is as much of a danger as forgetting our history.

William-
Rightly said. That’s why few people are calling for withdrawal. In Vietnam’s case, we at least had Soviet and Chinese interests making sure the place didn’t go completely to hell. Here, we have the place degenerating into chaos, With Osama and Zarqawi waiting in the wings to set up shop. I too am wary about over-extending the Vietnam metaphor, but while there are differences, Guerilla wars do tend to have elements in common just by their natures.

Stephen

Vietnam did go completely to hell and the rest of Indochina sunk even lower. In Vietnam, thousands of people set off into the open seas in small boats to avoid the coming Communist paradise. In Cambodia, the French educated disciples of Rousseau and Marx tried, and almost succeeded in sending the country back to the Stone Age.

Remember how the Vietnam situation ended. After the U.S. pullout, it was NOT the case that guerilla insurgents in black pajamas overthrew the government. That is only the myth and only Americans believe it because both liberals and conservatives chose to avert their gazes, although for different reasons. South Vietnam was conquered by North Vietnam using armored divisions and regular troops in violation of peace agreements. It was much more like Grant taking Richmond than a native insurgency. The Vietnam analogy for Iraq is severely flawed and wrong in every particular.

Jack, Viet Nam was a civil war. We interceded and made ourselves the targets for exploitation by the South, and targets for the bullets and bunji sticks of the North. In the end, they had their civil war, one side won, and Viet Nam is now a growing and thriving nation of peace.

We must let the Iraqis have their civil war, and determine for themselves who and how their nation is to be defined. If we remain, we will be exploited by government in power, and remain targets for the insurgents who will never accept our occupation shoring up a government of our chosen support.

Viet Nam and Iraq have significant differences, but, on this issue of civil war, there is very little difference regarding the consequences of our remaining shore up a government all of the people of Iraq have not determined for themselves.

Vietnam was a nation, in the original sense of the term. Iraq is a state artificially created by the British less than a century ago. The nature of a civil war would be very different. Where in Vietnam the civil war resulted in a unified country, in Iraq a civil war would probably result in the breakup of the country. Given the nature of their neighbors, Iraqis will never be allowed to determine for themselves. It probably would not be a bad thing for the U.S. if the Kurds were able to control the country as far south as Mosul. Left alone, they probably could do it, but Turkey and Iraq would never allow this outcome. Similarly, the Shiites, probably in alliance with the Kurds could probably annihilate the Sunnis of the Sunni triangle. We Americans might take some satisfaction that they are getting what they have coming, but other Arabs would never tolerate it. A U.S. pullout would be the beginning, not the end of foreign intervention in Iraq. The Iraq situation has almost nothing in common with Vietnam. It would not be a civil war between two well-defined entities, as in Vietnam or the U.S. civil war. It would be more like the Thirty Years War, complete with religious extremism and foreign intervention. Fortunately, it does not have to come to that if the U.S. shows the proper resolve. The U.S. is the only force for good on offer. We have a duty to win this one.

Aldous:

Perhaps you are unaware that Saddam Hussein manufactured and weaponized VX gas in the mid 1990’s in violation of the cease fire agreement they signed. And they lied to UNSCOM inspectors about the amounts they produced.

Iraq at first told UNSCOM that it had only produced 240 kilograms of VX, but in 1996 admitted that it had produced 3.9 tons.

This VX gas was produced WHILE inspectors were watching Iraq, so you can take your 10 year estimate for reconstituting WMD’s and run with it. History shows you are dead wrong on this.

You claim the US knew about the possibility of planes crashing into buildings as far back as the 1990’s, yet you blame Bush solely for not doing anything in his 8 months of tenure. Please tell me what was done prior to his tenure to secure our nation against this threat.

I know the logic you will attempt—-that since 9-11 happened during Bush’s presidency, then it must be entirely his fault. Faulty logic though. The planning for it all happened prior to Bush being in office. So tell me, what was done from the time the US knew of this threat until 9-11. Give me some specifics—-the old “Clinton did lots of stuff” don’t cut it here, friend.

Bush Freakin Rocks….Kerry is going to LOse!!! GO Dub!

…….i wanna respond to this….

but i also kinda wanna vomit…..

Bush specifically said that we needed to act BEFORE Saddam and Iraq became an imminent threat. Once the threat is imminent, much of the bargaining position is lost.

Hmm… joe, I don’t remember as much “bargaining” as “bombing” being done by Bush. And are you really defending the position that we should invade any country that might or might not be a threat ten years in the future? That’s twisted.

We learned on 9-11 that we cannot wait. On 9-10 we believed there was no threat….we were wrong.

NEWSFLASH!! This just in: Iraq was not involved in any way with 9/11.

In related news, Iraq had no WMD, no WMD programs, and no meaningful connection with terrorism.

Coming up after the commercial break: On Iraq, Bush was wrong and Kerry was right.

jack, thanks for your analysis. I believe it to be very naieve, but, I respect the fact that you have put as much thought and effort into understanding the situation as I have, and probably more than President Bush has.

Time will tell which of us is correct. If you are wrong, however, there will be a tremendous amount of American blood to answer for.

A U.S. pullout would be the beginning, not the end of foreign intervention in Iraq.

jack, that’s the truth. We’ve already got China sniffing around for oil everywhere the US is not (Sudan and Iran). No one is going to just let the second largest oil reserves in the world slip into civil war.

Unless we plan on making it the 51st state, it’s better to internationalize Iraq until it’s stable and can stand on its own.

Jack-
The North did finish the war with regular tactics, but they won it against us with Guerilla tactics. In the North, they suffered terrible losses everytime they fought against us. However, we weren’t in a position to take the North and permanently settle the question by force. Because of various alliances, that would have escalated it from a war with the North Vietnamese into a war with their backers. It’s only when we withdrew that they shifted to toe-to-toe battles they could win against the south.

Additionally, Vietnam is no more a nation than Iraq is. Both are artificial constructions of the colonial powers. Vietnam was once French Indochina, and before we ever lost this war, they lost it first. As for Cambodia, It’s sort of our fault that the place went to hell. You see, we essentially invaded a neutral country, and did so with such regularity that we ended up destabilizing the government. You should google Bernique’s creek if you want to know more.

But I will concede that there’s no pulling out. But if you’re if you’ve read what I’ve wrote even as recently as my last post, that’s no change in my position. The question is whether we make the bastard in office pay for getting us into this mess for no good reason.

Joe-
Declaration, not production.

wholly smokes. who is going to read my little post all the way down here? i wont waste anyones time keeping you guessing, im voting for kerry this november.

what i wanted to say really is in response to dawns editorializing at the end of her peice. you loose a lot of credibility saying things like “bush was right, kerry was wrong.

if it were so clearcut, who would have any ground to stand on debating to the contrary?

(PS taking news from fox news channel also hurts credibility when you are talking to a non-republican. rupport murdock runs a tight ship on his media outlets, and its not so much what news fit to air, but what he agrees with. it should be called rupurts news network.

David-

A two second Google seach came up with this poll:

There are areas of agreement. Perhaps most basically, 85 percent of Sunni Arabs and 93 percent of Shiite Arabs — very similar numbers — want to see Iraq remain a unified country with its central government in Baghdad. (Kurds are much less likely to agree, preferring a federated system of regional states — albeit not a breakup of the country.)

Another question about political structures asked for a preference among three choices: democracy, a single strong leader for life, or an Islamic state. Here there are differences between Sunni and Shiite Arabs, but not vast ones. Sunni Arabs are 12 points more likely to favor a “strong leader for life,” and 11 points less likely to prefer an Islamic state. (The far bigger difference is among overwhelmingly pro-democratic Kurds.)

There are bigger differences, though, on some other questions. Asked what Iraq needs most in the next 12 months, “a single strong Iraqi leader” (not necessarily “for life”) is cited by 65 percent of Sunni Arabs, compared with 44 percent of Shiite Arabs. Asked what’s needed most in the next five years, Sunni Arabs again are more likely to pick a single strong leader, in this case by 17 points.

“Religious leaders,” although more popular among Shiites than among Sunni Arabs, runs a fairly distant third preference in both groups. Kurds favor a democracy.

Granted it’s an old poll. And it has it’s dark side, but it certainly shows you theory of a theocratic ruler to be a false one. And it shows that there is little desire to break the country up in civil war.

More results from that poll:

ABC News released an enormously interesting and important new poll of the Iraqi people. It’s among the first of its kind, and the first done for a media entity. It is likely to stir the debate rather than settle it, but it provides policy makers with a broad and accurate sense of what the Iraqi people believe about the war, the occupation, and their future.

Among the key findings:

“The poll finds that 78 percent of Iraqis reject violence against coalition forces, although 17 percent — a sixth of the population — call such attacks “acceptable.” One percent, for comparison, call it acceptable to attack members of the new Iraqi police.” LINK

“Worries exist — locally about joblessness, nationally about security — boosting desires for a “single strong leader,” at least in the short-term. Yet the first media-sponsored national public opinion poll in Iraq also finds a strikingly optimistic people, expressing growing interest in politics, broad rejection of political violence, rising trust in the Iraqi police and army and preference for an inclusive and democratic government.”

“More Iraqis say the United States was right than say it was wrong to lead the invasion, but by just 48 to 39 percent, with 13 percent expressing no opinion — hardly the unreserved welcome some U.S. policymakers had anticipated.”

“As many Iraqis say the war ‘humiliated’ Iraq as say it ‘liberated’ the country; more oppose than support the presence of coalition forces there now (although most also say they should stay for the time being); and relatively few express confidence in those forces, in the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, or in the Iraqi Governing Council.

“There are huge differences in these and many other questions between Arab Iraqis, who account for 79 percent of the population, and the Kurdish minority (17 percent). Forty percent of Arabs say it was right for the United States to invade; that soars to 87 percent of Kurds. Just one-third of Arabs say the war liberated rather than humiliated Iraq; it’s 82 percent of Kurds. Thirty percent of Arabs support the presence of coalition forces, again compared with 82 percent of Kurds. Positive views of the invasion also are held disproportionately in the South of the country, as well as in the Kurdish north.”

“Locally, unhappiness is highest by far with the availability of jobs (69 percent say it’s bad) and the supply of electricity (64 percent negative). Local schools are rated positively (by 72 percent), and smaller majorities give positive ratings to the availability of basic household goods and the adequacy of local crime protection. About half give positive ratings to the availability of medical care, clean water and household goods beyond the basics, and to local government.”

“Iraqis divide in their rating of the local security situation now, but strikingly, 54 percent say security where they live is better now than it was before the war. However, for some, local security clearly is a great concern; 22 percent call it the single biggest problem in their lives, more than any other mention (“no job” is second, 12 percent). Local security concerns peak in greater Baghdad, where they’re cited by 36 percent as the top problem, compared to a low of eight percent in Kurdistan.”

No since data does exist to show my point, please find some of your own David.

-D

David

Mostly agree, but one clarification about what I mean re “nation”.

I am thinking of nation in the sense of a people who speak a language and share a sense of common history. Some “nations” - like the Kurds today or the Poles in the 19th Century - don’t have a country. Some countries do not encompass nations. Vietnam was a nation in the sense that most (not all) people of the country considered themselves Vietnamese and there was no significant Vietnamese population centers outside the two Vietnams. Iraq is not a nation in that there are more than three distinct groups whose group loyalties cross all Iraq’s the borders. Most Kurds, for example, do not live in Iraq. The Sunni Iraqi version of Arab is not far different than the Sunni Syrian variant and Shiite Arabs might think they have more in common with Iranian Shiites than with Arab Sunnis. So we have a country, but not a nation. The end result of a civil war in Iraq would as likely be partition (at least de-facto) as victory by one group. That is why I think a civil war there would be more akin to the 30 Years War of the 17th Century.

dawn, very good comments, the liberals believe that we all do not have brains that we believe what they tell us and like a broken record spute out over and over the party line. hey liberals answer me this why when asked about health care in the last debate, all john kerry could do was go back to Iraq? they have 1 line and everything corcles that line. thank god conservatives can think for themselves.

Delzario, again, apply reason to the poll. The Sunni’s are the favored group ousted from favored status with Saddam’s removal. The Sunni’s are by a large majority against the U.S. presence. The Sunnis have the most to gain if external constraints against Civil War are removed, since they perceive they have lost the most.

Are you familiar with the Hatfields and McCoys? That is precisely what is going to occur in the absence of martial law. Since martial law is antithetical to democracy, Iraq is destined for either for another martial law dictator of some kind to prevent dissolution of Iraq, or civil war. The stats you provide demonstrate only that when questions are posed which disregard factionalization in Iraq, there is some agreement on issues among the tri-part groups.

But the link you provide clearly states religious segregation and polarity are significant:

There’s even more concentration within provinces (this poll covered 16 of Iraq’s 18 governorates). Some are predominantly Sunni — Anbar, Irbil, Dohuk, Diyala, Ninewa and Sulaymaniya. Others have virtually no Sunnis — single digits in each of seven other governorates.

To examine the influence of region and religion, ABCNEWS ran a statistical analysis called a regression, measuring the strength of each of those variables. In views of the invasion, both are independently significant in Iraqi attitudes. In another question, acceptability of attacks on coalition forces, region is not significant, while religion still is.

Fundamentally, while a variety of factors can influence attitudes, religious identification is a significant one in Iraq.

And as you say, the poll is old. February of ‘04, and a lot has happened since then. Back when the poll was taken, hostilities appeared to be waning. That scenario is now very different.

I see little in these statistics to support a view that these groups, if left to their own devices, would share power in anykind of peaceful way. Then there are the cultural ties that extend beyond the borders, and will without question, invite external influences into the mix once coalition forces are removed.

Read this link to an op-ed from Max Boot. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. It is dated 9/30/04 and called, ‘Kerry’s Shaky Take on the War’.

Of course it sounds good to me because his overall support goes to what Bush is doing and has done. He also gives some support to Kerry though he then questions Kerry’s ideas on the way he intends to deal with Iran and N.Korea. It also discusses UBL and Al Qaeda.

Here is the 1st paragraph:
Boot wrote:
“Now that he’s decided to close the campaign as Howard-Dean-with-a-Silver-Star, John Kerry is claiming that the war he voted to authorize in Iraq is a “profound diversion” from the things that really matter — Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, even an alleged lack of firehouses in the United States. The implication is that if only we hadn’t gotten involved in Iraq, the rest of the world would be in much better shape. This is a highly debatable proposition, and it is an area where President Bush should try to pin down his slippery adversary. ….”

Here is the last part of the editorial about the progress made in Afghanistan.

Boot wrote:

“…..
All this progress may be occurring not despite our troubles in Iraq but because of them. If jihadists weren’t attacking U.S. forces in Iraq they would probably be throwing more energy into attacking them in Afghanistan.

Also, if the U.S. didn’t have all those troops in Iraq, it would be tempted to send more than the present commitment of 18,000 soldiers to Afghanistan. A greater U.S. presence could help fuel a nationalist backlash and result in greater casualties, as has occurred in parts of Iraq. The Bush administration may have stumbled onto the best strategy for Afghanistan — a low-key, long-term commitment that relies primarily on building indigenous security forces rather than supplying them ourselves.

In a way, of course, all this is beside the point. Whether or not Iraq was central to the war on terrorism before the U.S.-led invasion — a point on which reasonable people can differ — there is no question that it is central today. British Prime Minister Tony Blair (a non-veteran with more political courage in his pinkie than Kerry has in his whole body) puts it well: “I can understand why people still have a powerful disagreement about the original decision to go to war, but whatever that disagreement, surely now it is absolutely clear we have to stay and see it through. Because the consequence of not doing so is that global terrorism will get a tremendous boost.” Bush understands that. Does Kerry?”

David,

So negative.

Maybe the Iraqi’s will take a look at how enthusiastic the people of Afghanistan were about voting and decide to try and work together before they start shooting at each other like the Hatfields and McCoys.

If they really think about it they will not want to return to martial law and have a law of Iraq that throws people in jail for shooting each other.

It comes down to oil, money, and power.

If they can all start by remembering that they were all freed from Saddam at the same time it would help.
Yes. Some were better off under Saddam, or were they?

Dawn,

You quoted, “Also, if the U.S. didn’t have all those troops in Iraq, it would be tempted to send more than the present commitment of 18,000 soldiers to Afghanistan. A greater U.S. presence could help fuel a nationalist backlash and result in greater casualties, as has occurred in parts of Iraq. The Bush administration may have stumbled onto the best strategy for Afghanistan — a low-key, long-term commitment that relies primarily on building indigenous security forces rather than supplying them ourselves.”

That seems like an argument that we should be doing this in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Something I agree with. Do you think Bush will “stumble” upon this policy for Iraq or will we have more of the same?

On a separate note, you said, “It comes down to oil, money, and power.” I think you’re right. Here’s an article that might give you perspective on that: Iraq the lost generation.

CER,
The fight in Afghanistan… it has also been said that if what happened in Iraq with the insurgency had happened in Afghanistan the fight would have been much longer and much bloodier than what is happening in Iraq - mainly because of the terrain.
There is much more to gain in Iraq for these people that are fighting against the coalition and the U.S. than in Afghanistan.
Will they break the will of the Iraqi’s to have their own free country and take over? Let’s hope not.
I seem to recall it being said that troops will begin to pull out of Iraq after the January elections.
It has also been said that it will be left up to the people of Iraq whether or not they want the U.S. and Coalition to leave after the election.

There is absolutely no way they could have been removed sooner. It may have been said that this trouble from the insurgency was predicted but it was just that - a prediction. It has proven to be correct since, of course.

The UN has been asked to be greatly involved and their have been meetings held by countries getting ready to do business in Iraq. I believe France and Germany were at these meetings.

I really don’t think that Bush has the intention of invading every country in the world that does not have a democracy.

Bush said that he may not win his bid for re-election because of the Iraq (WMD)issue but he still believes removing Saddam was the right thing to do. Something, I might add, John Kerry has said.

I also don’t believe that Bush thinks going to war and arresting people is the only way to win the War on Terror.

If he thought that there wouldn’t have been an election in Afghanistan and one coming up in Iraq.

I didn’t see him take out the Taliban and Saddam and pull out the troops leaving those people to fend for themselves.

He helped and is helping give them a chance to set up their own governments and elect their own people to run them. Granted these governments won’t be perfect. Who expects them to be? Ours certainly isn’t and we’ve been at it much longer.

I am upset about the missing WMD’s the same as anyone else. Bush was not the ONLY one who believed they were there but he gets ALL the blame because he was the one who took action. Point taken.

What bothers me the most about this whole - Anybody But Bush - campaign is that it purposefully ignores all the other accomplishments that have been made in the Global War on Terror.

Dawn, is your argument that because didn’t do worse than the mess he has created that he’s therefore a good president?

By that logic, if I don’t slit your throat while I rob you, I must be a good guy.

I think it’s great that there wasn’t a great deal of violence in Afghanistan during the election. Time will tell if this election has any meaning or is just a political show, though.

Karzai’s power only extends to Kabul, though, you do understand don’t you , Dawn? Beyond that it’s the warlords who control things.

What really is scaring the hell out of me is that Bush is giving two and three times the street value for the guns that Sadhr’s people are turning in. I wonder what they intend to buy with that money? I wonder if we’ll actually start protecting munitions dumps now, or they will just allow the arms to be stolen again?

We have now lost nuclear materials in Iraq. If Bush is politicizing the strategic moves of the soldiers for his electoral benefit in Iraq, at the cost of their security, then he should not only be run out of office, but tried for treason.

Dawn, I’m sorry you do not see through the political ploys that Mr. Bush has played over these last few months, but I am frankly sickened by some of the things he has pulled.

Kerry is a politician, too. Will he be a decent president? I cannot tell you that. But to give this cynical team of men who play with soldiers lives for photo ops on carriers and bankrupt our country for the benefit of the corrupt corporations that feed upon the debt of our children is, in my opinion, to earn a special place in hell.

Will Bush veto this new special interest bonus tax cut just passed by congress? I’ll give you three guesses.

Dawn, we are supposed to have one of the most effective intelligence agencies on the planet.

The US intell infrastructure in recent times has been heavily focused on non human (HUMINT) intelligence, and mostly on electronic intell gathering such as Echelon. However, the US’s closest ally in the mid east region, is well known for its intell service,and specifically its human intell assets, the Mossad. Of course Mossad makes mistakes, but come on, in this region, mistakes can mean bye bye Israel. Remember, Israel took out a nuclear plant at Osirak in 1981 to ensure that it would not present a threat. I believe that if Israel did not know that Saddam did not have a WMD capacity, then Mossad is a totally incompetent and valueless organisation. Needless to say, I don’t think that that is true of Mossad. The only question that arises here is, did Israel pass on its intell on this area to its ally, who suppressed it, or did Israel for its own purposes, decide not to tell big brother? Remember the USS LIberty in 67. Who was it said that states don’t have friends, only interests?

Greg,

the election in Afghanistan is indeed a very imperfect process, given the total lack of “Democratic Infrastructure” in that country, combined with widespread illiteracy and as you rightly say, warlordism. I truly hope that that unfortunate country can build a truly stable and mature civil society, but looking at the challenges, they’re up against it. Given the huge increase in the production of the poppy plant, narcotics are very likely to corrupt any nascent political and civil process. Afghanistan needs huge investment for economic, educational and infrastructural development. So far, the western countries, including the US, have not even come close to meeting their pledges of aid to rebuild that country. In the absence of such aid, Democracy is unlikely to take root in that hostile soil. And the world and Afghanistan itself will have lost an opportunity to reduce the misery index of the world, what is often the source material and fuel of terrorism.

Paul in Euroland
The only question that arises here is, did Israel pass on its intell on this area to its ally, who suppressed it, or did Israel for its own purposes, decide not to tell big brother?

Paul I think that the bigger question here is did we bother to ask.

Dawn, when people talk about Neocons in the strictest sense of the term, Max Boot is one, Right up there with Richard Perle and everything.

It’s nto that these people don’t have the best of intentions, really. The problem is, they’re too secure in their own view of Iraqi intentions to really admit they got the Iraqi’s reactions wrong.

You guys are calling us negative, but if we’re right, where’s the call for being positive? How do you say, well, things are going wrong, in fact terribly wrong, but the future’s looking bright, just because? If the news is bad, the American people need to hear it straight. No Bullshit. No runaround. We can’t afford to fight wars with large chunks of the public misinformed or uninformed about what we’re doing, and why. Bush can gripe about the nattering nabobs of negativity, but he wouldn’t be getting into all the arguments he’s getting if our cause had be clear and true, If the Weapons and terrorists had been there to be discovered, and if Bush hadn’t beat one half of the population over the head with a war that turns out to be a bloody, problematic mess.

Rice Shines…and I’m the Easter Bunny.

Dawn, just FYI, Max Boot is one of the elitist neo-conservative thinkers, along with William Kristol and Robert Kagan. These guys invented Bush’s foreign policy, so it’s no surprise they’d disagree with Kerry.

hey liberals answer me this why when asked about health care in the last debate, all john kerry could do was go back to Iraq?

Did you even watch it, bob? But just for fun, here’s the healthcare Q&A from the last debate :)

LAURENT: Senator Kerry, you’ve stated your concern for the rising cost of health care, yet you chose a vice presidential candidate who has made millions of dollars successfully suing medical professionals. How do you reconcile this with the voters?

KERRY: Very easily. John Edwards is the author of the Patients’ Bill of Rights. He wanted to give people rights. John Edwards and I support tort reform. We both believe that, as lawyers — I’m a lawyer, too. And I believe that we will be able to get a fix that has alluded everybody else because we know how to do it.

KERRY: It’s in my health-care proposal. Go to johnkerry.com. You can pull it off of the Internet. And you’ll find a tort reform plan.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, important to understand, the president and his friends try to make a big deal out of it. Is it a problem? Yes, it’s a problem. Do we need to fix it, particularly for OGBYNs (sic) and for brain surgeons and others? Yes.

But it’s less than 1 percent of the total cost of health care.

Your premiums are going up. You’ve gone up, in Missouri, about $3,500. You’ve gone up 64 percent. You’ve seen co-pays go up, deductibles go up. Everything’s gone up.

Five million people have lost their health insurance under this president. He’s done nothing about it.

I have a plan. I have a plan to lower the cost of health care for you. I have a plan to cover all children. I have a plan to let you buy into the same health care senators and congressmen give themselves.

I have a plan that’s going to allow people 55 to 64 to buy into Medicare early.

KERRY: And I have a plan that will take the catastrophic cases out of the system, off your backs, pay for it out of a federal fund, which lowers the premiums for everybody in America, makes American business more competitive and makes health care more affordable.

Now, all of that can happen, but I have to ask you to do one thing: Join me in rolling back the president’s unaffordable tax cut for people earning more than $200,000 a year. That’s all.

Ninety-eight percent of America, I’m giving you a tax cut and I’m giving you health care.

Hmm… Nothing about Iraq. What a surprise that a Republican could be so misinformed.

His accomplishments are ordinary. Nobody thought we were going to lose the fight to depose Saddam. Nobody thought we’d fail to succeed in destroying the Taliban. Our armies and air power are indeed the best in the world and they had a good commander in Tommy Franks.

Bush cannot be simply deified and canonized for those successes, and treated like he’s a great leader. As much as he had those successes, three years have passed and he’s failed to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice one way or another. Over a year and a half of occupation has only seen the continued escalation of the insurrection. It has also brought the near absolute destruction of Bush’s case for war.

Bush’s response to the criticism has only made things worse. Instead of owning up to the errors and making solving the problems of Iraq his focus, he’s letting the problems fester, and is telling everybody that there was no error in the justification for the war, no error in the conduct of the war. This in spite of of mountains of evidence to the opposite.

A person who can’t own up to errors will only draw more attention to them, especially if those errors worsen.

I am upset about the missing WMD’s the same as anyone else. Bush was not the ONLY one who believed they were there but he gets ALL the blame because he was the one who took action. Point taken.

He was not the only one who believed WMD were there. But he did repeatedly warn us that the danger was dire, he did stress evidence on one side of the story, some times at the expense of the truth. And he did lead us, strongly resolutely and decisively, into a war, with little international support, when diplomatic options were still open, and when many others, including John Kerry, opposed this sort of drastic military committment.

Yes, he took action. And yes, he deserves a large part of the blame. And if he’s willing to take that “Mission Accomplished” photo-op when things look good, he should be willing to take the heat when it turns out that on Iraq, Bush was was wrong and Kerry was right.

What bothers me the most about this whole - Anybody But Bush - campaign is that it purposefully ignores all the other accomplishments that have been made in the Global War on Terror.

What bothers me when a Republican says “Anybody but Bush” is that the whole Red Convention was “Anybody but Kerry”. What, you’re saying Kerry’s running a negative campaign, and Bush isn’t?!

Dawn, maybe you should start another post listing the other Glorious Accomplishments that have been made in the Global War on Terror. This thread’s getting awful deep, I’ll probably get the bends if I pop up and reply to a Blue Team posting.

Dawn —

Just wait and see what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan if the peoples of those countries don’t elect a government the Bush administration approves of. Then we’ll see what a lover of freedom and democracy our beloved President really is.

Stephen

Ordinary accomplishments?

I don’t know what you were saying before these ordinary accomplishments, so I am not criticizing you, but I was listening carefully to the anti-Bush rhetoric before Afghanistan and before Iraq. Nobody doubted that the U.S. could win, but many loudly proclaimed their doubts that we would.

Afghanistan was supposed to be the graveyard of empires. We were going to be bogged down for years without victory. Ordinary Afghans were supposed to be starve and rise up to defend their mountains. After all, they beat the British Empire and the Soviet Union. The recent elections would have been seen as impossible, and even a couple of weeks ago there were widespread predictions of blood and chaos. I think the situation in Afghanistan has gone much better than anticipated. Nothing is perfect in this world, but I would say that the Afghan outcome is as nearly perfect as anything anyone could hope for in the circumstance.

Iraq we heard was going to be like Stalingrad in all the major cities. The Republican Guard was a formidable force that would fight us street to street. Thousands of Americans would be killed in taking these cities, which would be utterly destroyed. Oil wells would be set ablaze, causing an ecological disaster. The Kurds were said to be ready to proclaim an independent state, brining in Turkish and Iranian intervention. The Arab street would erupt, brining down (what passes for) friendly governments in the region. As it turned out, we had to contend with winning the war too quickly, so we are essentially fighting a slow motion conflict. But all things considered, it is better than the probably alternatives.

It is the success of the U.S. forces that we have not only forgotten about earlier doomsday predictions, we can’t even imagine them and it is a credit to President Bush that he faced down the critics. He is doing the same now, and I believe that a couple of months from now, the line will be “everyone knew that U.S. power could stabilize Iraq and that elections could be held, but there are still problems with … “ And most people will have forgotten that they ever thought otherwise. It will be as ordinary an accomplishment as the fall of the Soviet Union.

Dawn,

“Bush was not the ONLY one who believed they were there but he gets ALL the blame because he was the one who took action. Point taken.”

He also gets ALL the blame because he is the President. It’s hard work being President you know and well, taking responsibility for your decisions and actions is one of the crappy parts of being in charge.

All the whining about the media and the left hitting Bush hard about his decisions is silly. It’s their job to question his decisions, especially if he can’t question them himself.

Jack,

I hope you’re right and I