Ok Bill I already know your answer but try to be fair here... during the democratic primaries I liked Kerry and as long as Dean was defeated I was fine with whoever came out even though General Clark was a little loopy. even up until around january I liked Kerry, I thought I could deal with him as President. But something happened and now I can not stand the guy and I really am not looking forward to a Kerry presidency. Here's why: - He was not anti-war before, he said the world is better off with Saddam, he voted for the war and then said he would do it again as recently as december 2003. Now he is the big anti-war candidate. His whole campaign now seems to be based around "the wrong war at the wrong time". He has done a complete 180 and no one can deny this (superdave) if you look at his various quotes on Iraq. This means he went anti-war for one reason: the polls. I can't respect a president who would be so wishy washy on something as important as a war or the 'war on terror'. Now I respect the anti-war sentiment to a degree but I don't respect someone who has no resolve. - He is now blaming every problem under the sun on President Bush. Flu vaccine shortage? Bush's fault. Job outsourcing? Bush's fault (although I agree that Bush has not done enough to stop this but I don't know what the answer is and Kerry DOES NOT either and where is Kerry's stance on NAFTA? IS THAT SOMETHING HE IS TALKING ABOUT AT his meetings with Unions?) Hatian unrest? Bush's fault (even though Clinton's botched effort to remove Raoul Cedras goes unmentioned by Kerry which still has ramifications today ). It's getting tiring and it looks desperate when Kerry blames bad weather or a poor golf game on Bush. - The debates. While Kerry overall did better than Bush, the alarming number of statistics that he apparently just made up, is kind of scarey. Yes it appears not all of Bush's numbers were correct either but Kerry's list of "factual errors" heavily outweight the truths he tried to spell out in numbers. This is kind of worrisome to think that a guy can just go up and there and make up statistics when he knows a large portion of the Country is watching. - He nows feel's 'france, germany and russia' now represent the international community and has offended Iraq's PM and Poland's president directly and Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, England, etc indirectly by calling them the coalition of the bribed. So apparently Kerry is willing to trade in good standing with historic allies such as the UK and Poland for historically anti-American nations like France - the country that helped out the U.S.'s enemy Saddam Hussein. What is Kerry's stance on France's role in funding Saddam Hussein with what now looks like illegal oil deals? What is Kerry's opinion of the UN helping Saddam steal from the oil for food program? Apparently these pesky little issues doesn't bother him as long as we co-operate with the "international community". And I would like to hear John Kerry tell Kofi not to publicly state the war in Iraq is "illegal" while his own people are funding money to terrorists. Anyone can see this is the best time to say "******** you" to the UN, but why is Kerry talking about better relations with countries that aid our enemies? - Kerry seems like anything is fair game when he speaks, whether he is calling Allawi a liar or mentioning Mary Cheney.....this guy has crossed the line a few times now when he speaks but apparently he will say anything regardless of how tasteless it is just to get votes. I think that Kerry underneath it all is probably closer in opinion to President Bush on several opinions. However because the polls weren't kind to him when he was agreeing with Bush on everything, he has now turned into an absolute ********ing dick. IS Kerry just playing fair politics or is he playing dirty tricks to try and get votes?
I wish I had the time for the in-depth answer your thoughtful post demands. Unfortunately I'm a little pressed at the moment. But I do want to say this: John Kerry is an unscrupulous man who satnds for nothing except his own advancement. He has absolutely no core beliefs, no bedrock principles, nothing. He is an empty vessel of ambition, which is absolutely frightening to me. As a result he is willing to say anything in order to get your vote, regardless of how untrue he knows it to be. If you're a senior, he'll tell you that George Bush wants to "privatize" Social Security thereby making their benefits subject to the stock market,, although he knows full well that Bush only wants to offer some younger workers the option of directing a portion of their account into investment. Kerry understands this stuff very well, and is simply lying to get votes. This thing with the draft is as dishonest and cynical a political ploy as I've ever seen. There's not going to be a draft and anyone with a brain knows it and knows why. But he thinks he can scare some stupid people into voting for him. You just go down the line: Bush somehow screwed up capturing Bin Laden (except that Bush doesn't plan military ops and in any case OBL is probably dead) Bush ebcourages "outsourcing" jobs (too absurd to discuss), on and on and on. The Democrats scream "liar" every time they disagree with a conclusion. There's no such thing as "I think you're wrong about that" in politics any more. They think "liar liar pants on fire" is a deep political debate. Deep in my heart, I cannot conceive that America, or any nation with even a scintilla of self respect or pride, would elect man who has doen what Kerry did in the past with regard to Vietnam, the meetings with the Viet Cong and all of that. The details now being exposed, about him secretly meeting three times with them and taking instructions and support from them (while still a serving U S officer) ought to land him in jail at the least. I am beyond mystified why anyone on earth could vote for such a despicable human being. It's not politics, it's human decency. But the fact is that the person who is making up complete falsehoods this campaign is John Kerry, whose ambition knows not bounds and who will lie, cheat and sell out anybody at any cost because he feels he has the right to the WHite House. I tremble for my country if he wins this election.
I challenege, indeed I DARE any leftie lurker out there to watch STolen Honr - it's \available online HERE and then tell me John Kerry should be anywhere but in jail, as a disgraced enemy of this country.
yeah the draft was another thing I was going to add to my list. He knows very well that a draft is not coming and most likely never will again yet Kerry keeps using it as a scare tactic.
Ted...as I understand it, Kerry's position on the war resolution was, he thought Bush deserved to have the Big Stick while he went about negotiating with Saddam and with our allies. It's not hypocritical for him to say, Bush f'ed it up. He's definitely had a bad, bad case of senatoritis, over nuancing. Alot of the tiny soundbites you see of him are saying things like, it's good that Saddam is gone. Then the GOPs try to hang him with it. If that's ALL he says, then yeah, it pisses me off. I honestly believe that a straight up anti-war candidate would be a clear winner at this point, because with Kerry as the candidate, voters see "the war on terror" and "Iraq" as related issues. A Dean or Clark would be making the case that they AREN'T related. If they were successful (and I think they would be), then all they have to do to beat Bush handily is say, I will follow most of Bush's policies in the WOT, but I'll have better policies domestically and on Iraq. Polls show that's a clear winning combination; Bush's domestic policies are electoral losers, which is why the GOPs are making this about Bush's personality and 9/11 and the response to 9/11. They're basing the campaign on Bush's strengths. (Duh!) Oh yeah, I got off track. When Kerry says "it's good Saddam is gone," I'd be interested in the context. If there's no context, then he's pandering. If the context is, but it wasn't worth the cost, that's a fair position. If he's saying, the lack of allies and following Rumsfeld's plan more than Shinseki's was dumb, that's fair too. Sometimes I don't think the hawks understand that the vast, vast majority of opposition to the war is/was NOT rooted in a bedrock principle, like pacifism or something. It was rooted in cost/benefit analysis. Ask yourselves...in retrospect, with 1100 US soldiers dead, large numbers of US civilians, the rupturing of so many of our friendships around the world, $220B spent, and all of those factors deteriorating, was it worth it? If you knew then what you know now, what would your position have been in March 2003? The ends don't justify the means, and they don't not justify the means. The ends and means are part of the same question. We didn't get rid of Saddam with a magic wand, it took blood and treasure.
I don't think he knows that. I don't know that. Now, we might both be wrong, but I honestly think there's a reasonable chance we'll have a draft if Bush is reelected. I know you guys think that's crazy, but the same people telling us we'll never have a draft told us they knew where the WMDs were, they told us that Iraq would finance its own reconstruction, that it's "pretty well established" that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11, and that Iraq would be a "cakewalk." So the fact that the Bush administration swears there won't be a draft doesn't cut any ice with me. I'm just sayin'. The sad trends regarding our manpower are more compelling. If we DON'T have a draft, it'll almost surely be because we declare victory and go home, like in Vietnam in 1973. PS...if this is the standard, that a politician makes a promise so it must be so, y'all aren't going to claim Kerry will raise taxes for people making under $200K anymore, right?
Don't forget the whole crapolla over stem cell research. What a farce their rhetoric over that has been. All lies.
over nuancing? Dave let's cut the spin ok? Kerry speaks out of both sides of his mouth and there can not be a debate about it. If you want to bash Bush in the politics forum I will agree with some of it, but let's cut the crap and admit faults with your candidate. But before we talk about Kerry - there is no way the American public would vote for Dean, no way. Bush would have trounced him. John Kerry january 2003 http://web.archive.org/web/20040204225854/www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." Unlike the man you are voting for, my position has not changed. In fact my support is stronger as I know see that destroying Al-Zarqawi's network is imperative and we all know he was in Iraq before the war. Dave your stupid response to the draft is why the conservatives find you unreasonable and not worth debating. There are good liberals to debate with - you aren't one of them. You say you like Bill Clinton and Al Gore and then you say you don't believe Bush on the draft and give WMD's as proof that Bush has lied. Yet... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html "Nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region, and we should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. and "In fact, even though a new United Nations resolution might be helpful in the effort to forge an international consensus, I think it's abundantly clear that the existing U.N. resolutions, passed 11 years ago, are completely sufficient from a legal standpoint, so long as it is clear that Saddam Hussein is in breach of the agreements made at the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War" and "We have a goal of regime change in Iraq; we have had for a number of years. We also have a clear goal of victory in the war against terror" and "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore 2002 http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Hillary Clinton 2002 http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html "He has weapons of mass destruction and will use them again." - Sandy Berger 1998 from the same link... "Iraq is the greatest security threat we face" - Madeline Albright 1998 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54905-2004Jun19.html "What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act? Or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." - Bill Clinton 2003 So Dave you either believe Bush AND the Clinton administration were liars or neither were. Which one is it Dave? You can bash Bush and call him a liar, but then please stop cheerleading for Clinton because you can't have it both ways. I can dig up plenty more quotes Dave if you need them, you know very well that Kerry was in full support of the war up until around january 2004.
I saw David Brooks and Mark Shields both agree, at a time Kerry was 4-5 points down in most polls, that Dean would be up 5-10 points. FWIW. The inspections didn't find any WMDs. If we had continued them to the finish, we would know there wasn't anything there. Problem solved, 1100 US servicemen still alive. Yes, in the Kurdish portion. The Bushies passed up two chances to hit him because it would undermine their case for the Iraq war. ??? My point is that it's one thing for Bush to promise something about the future. I'm sure in his heart he doesn't want a draft. But as with the cases I've cited, sometimes, a pol's wishes get squashed by events. Besides, I thought the reason they don't like to debate me is because I always win? Right. I think the charitable, but probably accurate, interpretation is that Saddam fooled Clinton and Bush. But like I've written a bunch of times, it was one thing to believe Saddam had WMDs in fall 2002. By Mar. 2003, we knew better. I don't bash Bush for asking for the Big Hammer from Congress, or pushing for inspections. In light of 9/11, that was a good policy. I bash him for going to war despite the voluminous evidence that Saddam had nothin', for going to war before the inspectors had finished the job, and for the horrible, horrible war planning.
These three sentences are proof that the crap spewing from your mouth is quite foul. No inspections were needed to know that WMDs existed at one point in time in Iraq and that Saddam either had the power to make them or buy them. Thousands of dead Iraqis that were the recipients of a lovely Sarin bouquet can testify to that... if they hadn't been slaughtered.
Were you agitating for a war against Iraq in 1988, then? There's a difference between "excuse" and "reason."
Dave your answers are typical. Bush did not have a legit shot at Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and only people like Salon.Com think they did, also there was no reason to think Saddam would comply with inspectors in march 2003 considering in february 2003 even Hans Blix said he wasn't fully cooperating. If you want to debate Iraq fine, but don't come in here with b.s. I am not happy about 1100 american troops dead either, but they believe it is for a just cause as Bush is carrying the military vote 4 to 1 over Kerry and if you read the blogs of soldiers in Iraq most agree they are there for a good reason. Yes some are opposed to the war, most are not. So please don't speak for the 1100 dead troops Dave, they don't agree with you. Bush is also carrying 70% of the Iraqi-American vote and BBC and ABC polls show most people in Iraq approve of the Iraq war. So most of the people directly involved with the war do not feel the same as you or the protestors.
ok Dave, were you opposed to our involvement in Kosovo too? Why do you play these word games Dave? Go back to the politics forum where you spew b.s. and the majority will happily agree with you without actual critical thinking.
Not only is the balloon landing funny, but that picture provides a sneak-peek at what RFK will look like - two laughs for the price of one!
No. How many soldiers did we lose there? How much money has it cost us? It's a cost/benefit question. Irony.
Well Dave let's see... Kosovo had asolutely nothing to do with the U.S. in any way, shape or form and it cost the U.S. tax payers the 12 billion congress alloted and I'm not sure what we have spent there since but estimates are in the billions. Iraq on the other hand had a leader who was paying terrorist $25,000 if they killed innocent citizens of our strongest ally in the middle east. It is also commonly thought that the same leader had plans to execute one of our Presidents. It is also true that this same wacky leader knew a member of al qaeda was in Iraq and decided to do nothing about it. We also had some of this same crazy leaders scientist testifying to congress that he had weapons - some with our name on it. Sure no weapons have been found but seeing as his own scientist were telling us he had them it makes you think, no? This is the same leader who violated UN resolution after UN resolution that WE helped author. Regardless of all that stupiddave, transforming the middle east is still a possibility and I have a feeling that history will look kindly on this war if we do things right from here on out....this is the middle east where many (over 40 that I count) terrorist groups have declared jihad against us. In Kosovo the benefit was simply putting a madman in prison and saving the lives of people who had nothing to do with us. That said, I applaud Clinton for Kosovo. I wouldn't mind if we systematically took out every evil regime in the world one by one, it should be the job of the UN. So Dave now that you have said you only support U.S. involvement of wars with a good cost/benefit ratio does that mean you disagree with Bill Clinton that we should have acted in Rwanda sooner? Does that mean you blame Clinton (and Bush Sr.) for Somolia? Does that mean you opposed the Haiti intervention?
CUS-- http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004/11/funny-monkeys.html "I'd wondered what happened to this little story on Drudge. It didn't sound quite right, and then it magically disappeared... In 11th Hour Gambit, RNC Tries Hoodwinking Press: Splices DNC Call and Makes False Accusations Washington DC - Today, the Republican National Committee tried to falsely accuse the Democratic National Committee of claiming the endorsement of General Schwarzkopf. In fact, the RNC spliced a DNC recorded telephone call by General Merrill "Tony" McPeak, urging voters to vote for John Kerry, and attempted to peddle the doctored audio file to the press." FWIW.
I disagree. Stability in Europe is in our interest. Making the statement about this kind of aggression not being allowed in the post Cold War world was in our interest. I'm not sure we're on the same page when thinking about "cost/benefit." Being the World Leader brings alot of benefits. We get extra clout on a whole lot of issues. But if you want to be the World Leader, you've got to take on the burdens of that, too. Now, if you want us to be a supersized Japan, a nation whose leadership role in the world isn't as large as its economy would dictate because Japan doesn't take on its share of situations like Rwanda, etc, that's a valid argument. I'm not sure if we have the balance right. But I wouldn't want us to go so far as to be a supersized Japan. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm thinking of a much "softer" definition of benefit. Re: Iraq, the price tag is 1120+ soldiers plus an uncounted number of civilians plus $200B+ plus a serious deterioration in our alliances plus the hamstrining of our armed forces plus a possible decimation of the Guard and Reserves. The cost of Iraq massively dwarfs Kosovo or Bosnia or Haiti, no matter how you slice it. The benefits of Iraq don't.
Well, Salon, and that famous com-symp outlet the Wall Street Journal. Check out the links here. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_10/004987.php
Christ. Dave, the articles about the pentagon slashing plans to kill al-zarqawi were never verified but slate and salon ran tham as poxy. Franks said he believed Al-Zarqawi was there (and I saw him say this himself on CNN) but wasn't 100% sure and thought he might have killed innocent civilians. Dave please stop talking about detoriating our alliances because you know very well France has almost always opposed the U.S...... But I am glad to know you think spening 180 billion on trying to stabalize the region of the world most hostile to us has no benefit, but spending 20 billion on a area which has nothing to do with us whatsoever is ok. Dave face it, you believe any anti-Bush article out there just like Bill believes any anti-Kerry article. That's fine but don't come in here with that weak sauce, save it for the politics forum, you know the one that Huss called a sewer. So if you are so upset about Bush not catching AL-Zarqawi (according to dodgy articles written by only left wing sources) are you also upset that Clinton didn't get Bin Laden (according to many confirmed unbiased sources) ? Thanks Dave. "I have defended President Bush to the left" - Bill Clinton (march 2004)
The link I gave you is a commentary on the Wall Street Journal, and links to the WSJ. It's not just slate and salon. It's the Wall Street Journal. I hope you're not going to say they're part of the liberal news media. Why are you focusing on France and not the other 200 nations in the world? The only nation this has brought us closer to is Israel. And maybe Poland. As I understand it, unlike Italy and Britain, the war isn't terribly unpopular in Poland. There is no try. Either do, or do not. Is that what Yoda said? I agree that it was a worthy goal. Leaving aside the question of whether the end of a stabler Middle East would justify the means of a preemptive war, I never thought we could stabilize the Middle East behind the barrel of a gun. I still don't think we can. Me putting effort into trying to become a pro soccer player now, at age 41, isn't a worthy cause. So you're saying European stability isn't a vital US national interest? IMO it's the most vital national interest behind having a secure border with Mexico and Canada. (I mean "secure" in the sense that neither nation is gonna invade, I'm not talking about immigration. Don't want to open that can of worms.) That's not true. Also, you're not only trying to change the subject, you're making an ad hominem argument. If I modded it, it wouldn't be a sewer. I think you'd be surprised how many posts would get binned until the level of discourse was elevated. I'd make Roy Bean look like a wuss. I'm not aware of Huss saying that, but I don't think he cares. It may be a sewer, but it's a popular sewer. Yep. Of course. We tried and missed. Allow me to point out that when we missed, all manner of GOPs accused him of wagging the dog. In any event, I accept that "things changed on 9/11." I don't hold it against Bush that we didn't stop the attacks. I wish he had taken the threat more seriously, like the Clintonistas did wrt the Millenium Plot. Sure, stopping that plot was mostly luck, but they understood the thread. If Bush and co. had put effort into heeding all the warnings, and 9/11 happened anyway, I wouldn't second guess him. I do hold him accountable for focusing (we now know, wrongly) on state sponsored terrorism so much, rather than non-national groups like AQ.