Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I watched a panel of foreign journalists and editors on the history channel discuss the American election. One from Britain, Spain, and Switzerland. It was very informative and Sebastian, they disagreed with your position almost entirely.

The gist of it was that the European nations coming from a memory of WWII, want very much for the UN to succeed, and for international coalitions to remove threats to peace. They were unanimous in hoping Kerry would win and demonstrate that to the international community that the American people reject the preemptory and largely unilateral war mongering of the Bush policy. They were of the opinion, that if the American people demonstrate they don’t want leadership like Bush’s, European nations will come forth to support Kerry’s and the American people’s efforts to return to a leadership role in fostering peace in the world and destroying those would threaten the peace side by side with the international community.

They recognized that their fates are tied to American policy, it is inescapable. Thus, they will support America when America supports their interest in peace, and in eliminating groups who threaten peace within an international effort. Under Bush, one of them said, most of Europe views Bush’s America as the most dangerous rogue nation in the world.

I am not saying your argument is wrong. But, certainly their are those who cover European politics who are closer to their governments than you, who would disagree almost entirely with your conclusions. Hopefully, we will get a chance to see if their government’s will support Kerry’s internationalization of Iraq’s security and allow us to greatly reduced the losses to our troops and our economy, which their economies also depend upon.

Sebastian,
I find it hard to believe that it (support for the US) could be any worse with a Kerry administration. We need a fresh start with the international community.

As a european, I am awaiting that fresh start. So many of us are, here in Europe. Just come over or talk to europeans on the net, it’s not an illusion: so many of us are fed up with this american administration (see the polls…). I know this may not be a reason for americans to change their vote or their mind, but we’re anxiously watching what’s happening in America.
The good side of these last 4 years with this administration is that we realised how much we’re dependant on the US’ politics and military, so that more and more people out here are now wanting a stronger Europe to counterbalance the power of our once-best friend. (and I hope our best friend for the next couple of centuries !).

Nice to hear from you again Sebastian, imho, the red column is the poorer for your absence.

People in Europe are are pretty much uniform in their hope that Kerry is elected, another four years of living largely in opposition to the US would be good for nobody. It is ambiguous, but the Germans have offered some subtle support for Kerry by hinting at a softer stance on Iraq. You also have to remember Iraq is on Europe’s doorstep and it would suit nobody for it to remain an open wound.

This is far from conclusive I know, but it is hard to underestimate (Old) Europe’s distaste for Bush. Tony Blair almost had a wholescale rebellion when he recently tried to redeploy troops closer to Baghdad because his own party (plus the opposing parties) felt that the move, requested by the US, would somehow help Bush’s re-election. This small incident demonstrates what an obstacle Bush is to progress in Iraq even in the UK.

Your piece is reasonable Sebastian, but I think RS hit closer to the mark.

Sebastian, your article is based in part on two assumptions/premises that I find hard to agree with.

First, I dispute your premise that the terrorism going on in Iraq reflects a decline in terrorism abroad. You suggest that Europe thinks that defeating the terrorists in Iraq may cause them to sprout up eleswhere. This is patently illogical. The invasion of Iraq has caused terrorism to grow in Iraq, and terrorists have moved into Iraq, but it also correlates with (and I think it directly inspired) a massive increase in terrorism outside of Iraq. The missing armaments may still be flowing from Iraq to god-knows-who. I’m frankly surprised to see you buying into the absurd “flypaper” argument.

Your second assumption is that Kerry’s plan requires a large committment by non-American troops to Iraq in order to acheive his goals. I don’t think so. As I’ve said before, if only 10 French troops go to Iraq, or ten Russians, or 10 Chinese, it will be a major diplomatic victory for the USA, and an important step towards the dispersal of popular blame for Iraq’s problems, moving the burden of this blame from our shoulders to the shoulders of the international community.

It would be a diplomatic victory for the USA even if the aforementioned handful of foreign troops serves in purely non-combat reconstruction roles. In fact, this may be politically even better in light of your very valid point that France and some other nations have concerns about arousing the anger of terrorists attacking their own countries.

-Cf

The Brits, Poles, Danes, Dutch (I don’t want to make this a long list) are already helping. Our allies have helped and taken casualties. We should not denigrate their contribution. For their own logistical and domestic reasons, they probably can’t do much more for either Bush or Kerry.

With only a little offense meant to the Europeans currently not helping in Iraq, please don’t imply that the situation would be very different under president Kerry. The talk might be different for a while, but as long as there is fighting going on you would not be there to help.

Consider Kosovo, which was a European problem. The conflict did not threaten the U.S. The practical reason for the U.S. to get involved was to protect our European allies. The U.S. still flew 80% of the mission, most of the equipment used was American and European leftist still felt free to attack the U.S. This conflict was IN Europe and important to European countries. You would think some of them would be of a little more help. If you think about it, the U.S. should have provided about as much fighting power to Kosovo as the average European country did in Afghanistan.

One reason more European countries don’t help is because they can’t. Most of our allies just do not have the capacity to project very much power more than a short walk from their borders. In the 1990s, as defense budgets shrunk, the first thing to go were often transport and mobility. In the last decade, American forces have become stronger and more agile. The opposite is true in Europe.

The armies of most European countries are rooted to their own soil like an oak tree. The U.S. has been advocating better allocation of resources in the alliance, usually without success. This lack of assertiveness has become a habit in many Euro capitals, so that the very thought of it doesn’t usually come up. Face it. The will and the capacity to defend the free world starts and ends in the Oval Office.

So, people often claim that they don’t want to do things they know they can’t do.

When Americans say “European”, they often mean French and Germans.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has categorically ruled out sending any soldiers, even to protect U.N. officials overseeing new elections, adding that “that’s where it’s going to remain.” French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said his government will not send troops “either now or later.”

The fact is there is absolutely no reason to expect any help from these guys. And I don’t think all these Euro youths who claim to be waiting for John Kerry would be waiting in line to help in Iraq. These dogs won’t hunt.

Jack, Germany’s Defence Minister Peter Struck in an interview with Britain’s Financial Times a couple of weeks ago, gave coded support for Kerry’s idea, by hinting that Germany might deploy troops in Iraq if conditions there change.

From what he said I would suggest, that if Kerry is elected and democratic elections can be successfully held in Iraq, the conditions would have changed sufficiently to make the deployment of troops far more palatable to the general European public. That is not to say it will not happen if Bush remains, but I think a change of regime in the US would expedite the process greatly.

Keep trying to convince yourselves that nothing will be different when Kerry gets elected.
Bush supporters have to keep telling themselves this in order to stick to their decision to vote for Bush.
Are you unable to see that the world will never support you while Bush is in power?
He is probably the most hated president ever.
You can say that you dont care what the rest of the world thinks, but its amazing the amount other countries are criticized when they dont support U.S.(Bush’s) policies.
I am Canadian, i’ve always been interested in all thing American (history, geography..), i’ve been all over the states, but the line has been crossed.
Your friends no longer support you the way they once did.
The allies that do support you now, are providing the bare minimum just to keep up good relations.
Those of you who support Bush expect things to be different if he is re-elected, but they wont.
You’ll be saying to him that its ok to be dishonest, “we wont hold it against you”
WHat you dont realize is that the world is no longer listening, it doesnt matter what Bush does.
The lines of communication are closed.
3 strikes and your OUT.
To use a baseball anology; you’re trying to get bush to bat again, but you dont realize the game is over and the stadium is empty.

I would encourage anyone truly interested in hearing what foreigners think about America to read the Open Democracy letter exchange.

“Your friends no longer support you the way they once did.”
- But yet we still protect, support and aid these very same so-called friends.
Yeah, the US is so evil.

“Are you unable to see that the world will never support you while Bush is in power?”
- Who cares! But don’t worry, I’m sure the US will continue to support the world.

“WHat you dont realize is that the world is no longer listening, it doesnt matter what Bush does.
The lines of communication are closed.”
- Yeah, until someone needs protected or a handout.

It must be nice to be able to spit on your friends when they need or ask for your support but still be willing to take aid from them at the same time.

“3 strikes and your OUT.”
(Yawn) Thanks for hockey though.

David:

“The gist of it was that the European nations coming from a memory of WWII, want very much for the UN to succeed, and for international coalitions to remove threats to peace.”

Desire v. action. This is a typical European problem. They say they want one thing ‘to occur’ but they refuse to take action to make it occur. See the Sudan. If the European community were really committed to international law it would act to enforce the anti-genocide treaties. Instead we have France and Russia obstructing action in the UN. Actions speak louder than words. The international community likes international law that restricts US action. They don’t care about international law that requires them to act.

Christopher,

You suggest that Europe thinks that defeating the terrorists in Iraq may cause them to sprout up eleswhere. This is patently illogical. The invasion of Iraq has caused terrorism to grow in Iraq, and terrorists have moved into Iraq, but it also correlates with (and I think it directly inspired) a massive increase in terrorism outside of Iraq.

I neither say this nor believe it, so I don’t mind that you think it is illogical. I suggest that Europe does not want to become deeply involved in any extra-border action in the War on Terrorism so they can minimize their profile while letting someone else handle the problem. This isn’t just about Iraq, this is about European inaction in the face of danger or evil—once again see French obstruction in the Sudan.

It would be a diplomatic victory for the USA even if the aforementioned handful of foreign troops serves in purely non-combat reconstruction roles.

Sure it would, and so what? Real diplomatic victories bring substantial benefits. That kind of victory would bring pathetic amounts of help and if you believe that token UN-directed help would stop the insurgents because of ‘diplomatic concerns’, I direct your attention to the bombing of the UN headquarters.

Bob,

Jack, Germany’s Defence Minister Peter Struck in an interview with Britain’s Financial Times a couple of weeks ago, gave coded support for Kerry’s idea, by hinting that Germany might deploy troops in Iraq if conditions there change.

You failed to follow up on that story. His boss, chancellor Schroeder, IMMEDIATELY, shot the idea down.

“Are you unable to see that the world will never support you while Bush is in power?”

I don’t expect the world to support me. I don’t expect them to support the US under Kerry either. I don’t expect useful contributions from the international community until they decide on their own that they have a reason to fight. Kerry in the presidency will not do that.

Bob Hope said, “hinting that Germany might deploy troops in Iraq if conditions there change.”

If conditions change? That means they will NOT send soldiers if there is any chance they will be shot at!

Think about it.

Do they think about it when they call for our help? That our government sends our soldiers knowing they will be shot at !!
They don’t think twice about the lives of our soldiers when they ask.
They don’t mind that we send most of the money and food to people around the world that need help from everybody.
These countries do as little as possible just to make it appear that they care.
Going back to the UN and discussing world problems while people are dying everywhere does not accomplish anything.

3 strikes and we’re out? When was the last time Canada took the lead and solved any world problems? Canada usually follows. It does not lead. You can’t strike out unless you are in the game.
Is Canada still giving Muslim leaders legal power so they can have their own little countries inside of yours?

You can hate the War in Iraq as much as you want. No one can say that is was a total mistake yet. The fight against the terrorists and the problems in the whole Middle East and around the world have not been solved yet. This is supposed to be ONE step in fixing the whole problem.
When the fighting is over the rest of the steps towards world peace can be accomplished. Freedom,education,good economies,jobs. Everything.
Being so narrow minded will not solve problems either.

Sebastian: You failed to follow up on that story. His boss, chancellor Schroeder, IMMEDIATELY, shot the idea down.

Perhaps, but reading between the lines it has been suggested by analysts that the comments represented a subtle shift in the German stance with regard to Iraq.

Politics is a strange thing and when it comes to making unpopular decisions the ground is usually laid well in advance, starting with sometimes apparently contradictory statements.

[Comment deleted for gratuitous use of foul language and failing to critique the message, not the messenger. You were cautioned here before, your comments are no longer welcome at WatchBlog. — WatchBlog Manager]

If I thought it was true that things would be way better under Kerry, I would support him. But I have seen these things before. In 1984, a vote in Europe and Canada surely would have elected Walter Mondale. Reagan won by 59% and history shows that the American people made a good choice.

This particular transatlantic rift has been building since the end of the Cold War. Clinton is loved in retrospect and Kerry in prospect because people don’t remember the past and can’t envision the details of the future. I worked in Europe for most of the Clinton presidency. I don’t remember the great outpourings of love and support we hear about today and I don’t really think that our allies are so superficial that they would go against their own best interests because of a president’s personality personality.

They say that it is Bush’s policies they don’t like. Let’s take them at their words.

What would Kerry do differently? He can stay in Iraq or not. He says he will stay. He promises to do a better job; maybe he will, but you have the same policy. Kerry says that he will work harder to defend U.S. jobs from foreign competition. The big frictions with the EU are trade related. Increased protectionism will exacerbate them. Kerry can loudly support things like the ICC and the Kyoto protocols. That will make “the world” happy for a few minutes. But there is a reason that Clinton didn’t sign onto these things before he was a lame Duck. The U.S. Senate will never agree. Clinton knew it and Kerry knows it. So what will our friend thinks when they figure out that Kerry has agreed to something he can’t deliver? So we can elect Kerry and make everyone love us – for a couple of months. After that, we are stuck with Kerry for four years.

Kerry vacillates. He would be a weak president and nobody really likes a weak American leader. Remember Jimmy Carter. Good leadership is often not popular in the short run. Remember Ronald Reagan. And if some of our allies don’t like the U.S. being so strong, maybe they should invest the resources in making themselves less dependent on U.S. power.

With only a little offense meant to the Europeans currently not helping in Iraq, please don’t imply that the situation would be very different under president Kerry.

Look at that, the Europeans are stabbing us in the back again! How dare they undermine the Bush-fan’s fantasy world by implying the situation would be very different under President Kerry! Bastards. :)

Sebastian, you’re right about Schroeder shooting down his defense minister, but that has more to do with German domestic politics. The only way Schroeder stayed in power last year was by Bush bashing. The domestic situation has only gotten worse for him since. Until Bush - who is hated by almost all Germans - is voted out of office, it’s political suicide for him to even suggest he’ll ever help out in Iraq.

It’s a fact that the overwhelming majority of people around the world are rooting for Kerry, but you’re right that doesn’t mean they’re going to immediately start falling all over themselves to offer help. President Kerry’s got a whole bunch of neglected diplomacy to make up for first.

Nobody disputes the fact that our military can beat any… Hell, probably every other military on the planet. But we cannot win the ideological war against Islamic extremists by ourselves. In fact, we have so little credibility among Muslims, we won’t be able to fight that battle at all. We’ll need to rely heavily on other countries and leaders to do it for us.

The path Bush is on just isolates us further, creates more terrorists than we can kill, and makes us less safe.

I worked in Europe for most of the Clinton presidency. I don’t remember the great outpourings of love and support we hear about today

Jack, I’ve heard you say this before. I don’t remember any “outpourings of love and support” either, but poll after poll shows that global respect for the United States has sharply diminished, and hostility toward America - and particularly for Bush - has greatly increased since 2002.

No one thinks we were, or ever will be, living on the “Small World” ride at Disneyland, but there’s no way you can deny that Bush has diminished our standing in the world.

It’s time for a fresh start.

Good point.
The world’s been hating arrogant America for quite a long time. Every now then you do something that kind of makes people start to think things are changing.
And then you start bombing people for no good reason. Oh yeah…..Saddam has WMD’s…oh no he didnt……but he neeed to be toppled because he’s the biggest threat to America.
nope, wrong as well……
maybe it was for oil, and revenge.
“He tried to kill my Daddy!”

Sebastian, you’re right about Schroeder shooting down his defense minister, but that has more to do with German domestic politics. The only way Schroeder stayed in power last year was by Bush bashing. The domestic situation has only gotten worse for him since. Until Bush - who is hated by almost all Germans - is voted out of office, it’s political suicide for him to even suggest he’ll ever help out in Iraq.

This doesn’t make sense in context. The suggestion which Schroeder shot down was that if Bush were replaced, German help would be available. Schroeder said that no help would be available even if Kerry were elected. This is a simple statement that the issue, so far as German thoughts on Iraq are concerned, is not Bush.

So you disagree with (or choose to ignore) the analysts that believed the comments represented a subtle shift in the German stance with regard to Iraq?

Sebastian, I’m saying it’s a political angle by Schroeder and you shouldn’t take it as gospel. I don’t expect Schroeder to be effective much longer, anyhow.

Bush is definitely the issue. Germany is getting a free ride on Iraq right now because Bush isn’t interested in a leading role for the UN or NATO. A Kerry administration is going to do whatever it takes to drag these guys in there, and they’re going to have to put up or shut up.

But really, this argument comes down to: do you think it’s important to internationalize Iraq? All this speculation about ‘will they, or won’t they’ bypasses that fundamental assessment. I believe it’s necessary. Kerry says he does, too.

Codco

I am aware of what a good friend Canada has been since 1867 and remains. I would ask you to remember what a good friend the U.S. has been and is. You casually throw around insinuations that our president is an unfit warmonger who is motivated by revenge and greed. Imagine if the U.S. was as aggressive and unstable as you imply. Where would that leave Canada? I am aware of what Canada has done to help the U.S. and I am aware of our relative populations and GNP. I am also aware of the relative proportions of our GNPs devoted to defense. With all that open space and wonderful resources, would you feel so confident sitting next to China or Russia?

Canada is in a situation similar that of the U.S. in the 19th Century. We sheltered behind the Royal Navy and benefited from the British secured world economic system, all the time complaining that the Brits were mistreating us and oppressing people around the world. We were able to defend a continental sized country with an army smaller than Austria’s or Italy’s because the Brits did all the heavy lifting. It is good not to be responsible. Childhood ended for us in the 20th Century. A lot of us would like to go back, but we can’t. When we tried in the 1920s and 1930s, the Europeans managed to appease their way into serious trouble. We are playing the roles our position has assigned us.

Comment deleted for critiquing the messenger instead of the message — WatchBlog Manager

“Damn right you should be doing more than us.”
- But is it so wrong to expect you to do something?
Look at the facts. French blood runs deep in canada. You would be speaking Russian if not for the support of the US.
Our closest neighbor and a good ally. Its “people” happily milk the American tax payers to support themselves but when asked to stand with the US, they spit upon us.

Hopefully our “people” wont hesitate, even one second, when we are asked to stand by your side.
Even is Bush is elected and something terrible happens in canada. You can be guaranteed that the first to be right by your side will be the US.
Canada is much to beautiful to be soiled by such political ideology.

Thanks for Molsen

> I neither say this nor believe it

Okay, I guess I misread you. Thanks for the clarification. I’m glad to hear that you don’t buy the “flypaper” theory that the Bush Administration wants America to swallow.

> That kind of victory would bring pathetic amounts
> of help and if you believe that token UN-directed
> help would stop the insurgents because of ‘diplomatic
> concerns’, I direct your attention to the bombing
> of the UN headquarters.

First of all, I’m not naively talking about a magic silver bullet for stopping insurgents overnight, or even in the next year or two. I’m talking about taking the first step in the long-term strategy to share the burden in Iraq. I’m talking about year one of a 5-, 10-, or even 20-year plan. A plan to reduce the perception that America conquered Iraq, a perception that will indeed take decades to erase in the minds of the Muslim world. It is time to start that process. Even ten lousy Germans or Jordanians guarding a Basra falafel stand would be an excellent start.

I’m also talking about countries in addition to Public Enemy #1 (France) playing a role. Countries tangential to the West/Christian - Arab/Muslim conflict for example, such as a couple more Asian countries. Muslim countries might play a strong role, such as Indonesia or Jordan. Many of them, such as Saudi Arabia may indeed as you point out have fears about involving themselves in crushing Islamist insurgents, but Iraq’s neighbors in particular also have a very strong vested interest in getting Iraq stabilized and possibly reaping some economic benefit. Russia obviously also has fears of terrorism, but I believe that we can think of a way to get them to stand by us in Iraq in some small way, perhaps by helping them with intelligence to root out Chechen terrorists. I think this “fear” obstacle can be overcome, bit by bit.

Unlike you and Bush, I haven’t given up on America’s ability to lead the world. I am not willing to surrender to that kind of national desperation.

You have the exact opposite view. It seems that ‘the insurgents will attack non-Americans too’ is your justification for the Bush Administration deliberately avoiding exercising any diplomatic strength, even deliberately excluding non-invasion countries from bidding on contracts or participating in the reconstruction process in any way. Methinks that France and Germany would change their tunes if their corporations have a chance to bid on resonstruction contracts, or Saudi Arabia would change their tune if we threatened to block the next shipment of f-16s. You may call that bribes and coercions, but I call it traditional hard-nails diplomacy.

And again, this might take years, but we have to show a willingness to start the process. Even if President Kerry tries unsuccessfully for four whole years to convince other nations to join the peacekeeping and reconstruction coalition, even if he submits ten UN resolutions that all get vetoed by France, it will be a massive political improvement over Bush, who still deliberately thumbs his nose at the very notion of foreign involvement, even scoffing at the idea that circumstances in Iraq are bad in any way.

Bush has put all his eggs in one flimsy basket: the long-shot hope that the elections in January will give him enough wiggle room to pull our troops out and wash our hands of the whole thing. He has made no plans for any other “what if” situations. What if entire regions of the country can’t or don’t participate in the vote and don’t accept the results? What if they elect an Islamist anti-American party into power? What if Allawi is elected but immediately reverts to what he was before Bush got to him - that is, an opportunistic brutal thug? What if the security situation in Iraq takes a decade or two to stabilize? Is there any process under way to handle these outcomes, which honestly seem to be far more plausible than Bush’s January election miracle? I see no sign whatsoever of such a long-term plan. No diplomatic plan, no military logistical/manpower plan. Not even a budget!

-Cf

kctim —

To be fair, we’d be British if it weren’t for the French.

haha… how unsurprising… a clip of bush uncensored

Bush Uncensored

http://static.vidvote.com/movies/bushuncensored.mov

DH, if you’re gonna post links to funny little tidbits, at least accompany it with some of your own thoughts and insights on the matter.

-Cf

CER
To be totally fair, most french are not surrender monkey’s either.
But if its fair to degrade my country, her leaders and her people at all costs, then its fair to defend her.
I am tired of seeing her bend over backwards to appease other countries only to be spat upon by those seeking her help.
I am tired of seeing her care more about others while ignoring her own.
I am tired of people making up excuses and lies to make her look bad.
Somebody has to still love her through the good AND the bad. And not just when their candidate or party are in charge.
And for what? Just to get their side elected.
That is unpatriotic! That is hating America! That is killing her!

I understand your anger and I agree with most of your points. However defending America doesn’t have to include denegrating other countries merely because they don’t agree with us.

CER
Point noted. I make no excuses though. They want to degrade, insult and hate America, fine. I am free to answer back in the same way. Two wrongs don’t make a right, does not apply on this issue. (IMO)
I do not care if they agree with us or not. They have every right to do what they believe is right for THEIR country.
Just don’t hate us now, then love us later when we are needed.

“Sebastian, I’m saying it’s a political angle by Schroeder and you shouldn’t take it as gospel. I don’t expect Schroeder to be effective much longer, anyhow.”

If you are willing to discount what the head of the German government says—when it is in line with what more than 70% of the population thinks—I can’t really don anything other than note our disagreement and move on. If there is a subtle shift in German opinion, it is very subtle.

CF, DH’s link pretty much speaks for itself. It says what our President thinks of All Americans who won’t vote for him. It says what many of us have known for a long time, this President has no desire or intent to serve the American population, only those segments that support his power base.

In my opinion, the European’s greatest contribution to any part of our war on terror will not be troops, but access, cooperation and coordination that allows us to track and intercept terrorists.

Now Bush emphasizes the importance of attacking these people on their ground before we have to deal with them on ours, but regardless the same old rule applies, whether law enforcement action or military action is taken: They only have to be right once.

I am confident a Democratic president will go after the terrorists where they live, but also confident of something Republicans have no cause to be confident about: That he will protect us here. We must have defenses to frustrate our opponents as well as offensive raids and wars to take them out at the source. In fact, of the two, defense is easier to manage.

First of all, I don’t think we’ll defend the wrong country by accident. We know perfectly well which one we’re supposed to defend. Now anybody does get through, we trace the terrorists to whatever country they used as a base, and we say, join us, or die. That simple. We’ll still end states that support terrorism against, but this time we won’t be guessing. We’ll save pre-emption for when it’s really needed: An Emergency.

If you are willing to discount what the head of the German government says

Hmm… I didn’t mean to give that impression. I’m just saying there’s a different way to interpret what Schroeder said based on German domestic politics.

Schroeder is not a popular president, but he’s a canny politician. He nearly lost an election in 2002, and our once staunch US ally only pulled it out by going on an anti-Bush rampage. I suspect this is more of the same.

Even if I’m wrong (horrors!), they can do a lot more for us in non-militarily in Iraq, and even on the intelligence and tracking of terrorists in Europe, than they are right now - a direct result of President Bush’s lack of diplomacy, “Most people want to help Iraq but not in a way that rewards Bush.”

And I haven’t heard anyone here make the argument that we shouldn’t internationalize Iraq. If you believe we should, then you must be disappointed in Bush’s failure to do so.

“I am confident a Democratic president will go after the terrorists where they live…”

A Democratic president, sure. But I am not confident of that assertion when applied to the specific case of Kerry. I think he will go after terrorists where they live, AFTER THEY ATTACK US AGAIN.

Sebastian wrote:
> I think [Kerry]will go after terrorists where
> they live, AFTER THEY ATTACK US AGAIN.

Sebastian, besides attacking Afghanistan right after we were attacked on 9/11, can you name any example of where Bush has attacked terrorists?

(And no, Iraq doesn’t count because we didn’t actually attack any terrorists there.)

Bush’s track record consists of one instance of attacking terrorists where they live after they attacked us (Afghanistan), and one instance of attacking an entire country which contained practically no terrorists (Iraq). Why isn’t Bush targetting the well-known terrorist training camps in Indonesia? Why isn’t he going after the terrorists openly operating and killing thousands in Sudan?

Those are just the places I know about - why haven’t we uncovered and attacked terrorist training camps and bases in other countries where terrorists are likely operating, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, former Soviet republics, Morocco, Egypt?

Why aren’t American anti-terrorist personnel actively working cooperatively with local forces in Turkey, Spain, Phillipenes, Russia, and Indonesia, places where terrorist attacks have actually occurred in the past two years?

Do you actually think that the only terrorists in the world are in Afghanistan and post-invasion Iraq?

I think that, sadly, you are yet another Bush supporter who has a idealized misperception of their leader’s actual policies, choosing to project whatever you want onto the guy. You don’t realize that Bush’s real track record is identical to what you fear Kerry’s policy would be, and falls far short of what you believe it actually is.

-Cf