There’s nothing more moronic than watching pundits or news agencies run around asking “Who won the debate?” because, if it had been a real debate rather than a sort of shared press conference, there would be no question. A proposition would be put forward (usually beginning with the word “Resolved”) and at the end a panel of judges, keeping careful score of logically based argumentation, would announce who won.
That doesn’t exist here. In this case, there’s only one measure of success: Whether the small group of undecided voters was swayed one way or the other. The election’s not going to be decided by people like me, who thought that Kerry overall gave a polished, professional and–most important–presidential presentation, because I was rooting for Kerry anyway. And it’s not going to be decided by Bush supporters who came away declaring that Bush triumphed because they were–I dunno–watching another debate entirely, through glasses so rose-colored that Elton John would consider them too gaudy to wear.
No, this election is going to resolved by some guy named Mel, driving a Dodge Durango in Scranton, who might have twigged to the notion that Bush has globally done for America what the Boston Strangler did for door-to-door salesmen, but still hasn’t been able to move beyond the devil one knows versus the devil one doesn’t. The question is whether Mel was watching and whether he was swayed one way or the other, or will even show up election day.
If enough Mels vote for Kerry, Kerry won. If they vote for Bush, Bush won. It’s really the only verdict that matters.
PAD
• 
Just did and quite frankly, it doesn’t prove anything. He pulled out a bunch of index cards that *may* have had info on it. More likely, he pulled out blank cards to write on.
He did in fact do that. He was shown taking notes throughout the entire debate. That was permitted in the rules, so long as he submitted his pen and note cards beforehand.
Gary wrote:
“Consider too that about 40% of vets are homeless and, without help, that number will increase with the current troops arriving home.”
Whaaaaat?!!!
Where the heck did you get THAT goofy statistic? Perhaps you mean “40 percent of homeless people are (allegedly) veterans” (although I’d still like to see proof of THAT statistic as well).
PAD wrote:
“Kerry was simply reiterating and rephrasing the philosophy of a “just war” that was first put forward by St. Augustine, reframed and discussed by such men as Thomas Aquinas, and is one of the basic underpinnings of the Catholic Church in terms of its philosophies about war and when it’s appropriate.”
Weak argument, PAD. EVERY war will seem unjust to some faction. And Kerry, from what I’ve seen, has never yet seen a war he thought was just — even a war escalated by his idol, John F. Kennedy. Kerry didn’t think Desert Storm was justified either, even though Kuwait was invaded and Bush Senior followed a plan EXACTLY LIKE THE ONE KERRY IS TOUTING NOW for this war against Iraq.
No, Kerry is historically way too weak on defense, in my opinion, and although he has lately tried to convince voters otherwise, I find his sudden change of heart in an election year mighty suspicious.
“Kerry was simply reiterating and rephrasing the philosophy of a “just war” that was first put forward by St. Augustine, reframed and discussed by such men as Thomas Aquinas, and is one of the basic underpinnings of the Catholic Church in terms of its philosophies about war and when it’s appropriate.”
Weak argument, PAD. EVERY war will seem unjust to some faction. “
No, Russ, it’s really not a weak argument. It is, in fact, a rock solid argument, because there are several specific doctrines that define what is a “just war,” and a number of wars that we’ve been involved in do, in fact, fit that criteria…including World War II. Kerry was simply quoting long-held philosophical precepts that shaped Catholic doctrine. He did not just pull random words out of his ášš…unlike his opponent.
PAD
Whaaaaat?!!!
Where the heck did you get THAT goofy statistic? Perhaps you mean “40 percent of homeless people are (allegedly) veterans” (although I’d still like to see proof of THAT statistic as well).
Oops. Let’s distinguish here. Upon researching it seems things were a bit misworded:
40 is a bit of a magic number among war vets:
40 percent of homeless vets were in the Vietnam conflict. (Interestingly, 40% of U.S. homeless vets have some form of mental illness, and another 40% are African-American.)
San Diego has among the highest homeless rates for vets in the nation, with 40% of all vets in the city, nondenominational of war, being homeless.
At the same time, scientific studies suggest no direct connection between military service, service in ‘Nam, or exposure to combat and any added risk of becoming homeless.
Generally speaking, those coming into military service are coming from families of ill means (i.e. teens looking for a way to go to college and better themselves). Might be more of a correlation thataway.
Sorry for the bad phrasing.
~G.
Is North Korea a threat? Yes, but not as long as they are at the negotiation table.
So when is Bush planning on starting negotiations with them? When the next mushroom cloud of NK turns out to be a real nuke?
The last round of six-member talks was in July. Now, North Korea has pulled out. They are hoping for a Kerry win so they can get the US into unilateral talks and get the money concessions from the US like they got from Bill Clinton.
So, we either bribe them to keep them from developing, we allow them to develop, or get China/Russia to assist in making them see the error of their ways. The last is still a long-shot, but it’s certainly better than either of the first two.
So, we either bribe them to keep them from developing, we allow them to develop, or get China/Russia to assist in making them see the error of their ways. The last is still a long-shot, but it’s certainly better than either of the first two.
What exactly is the purpose of negotiations if we don’t offer them some incentive to forego the nuclear program? If we’re not going to seriously negotiate with them, then we should just start bombing them now. After all, as Condi Rice once said, “We can’t let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud.” Or does the doctrine of preemption only apply to countries with oil?
It applies to countries where all reasonable efforts have failed. They had failed in Iraq, but North Korea has not reached that point yet.
Unlike Iran, North Korea is not seen as developing nukes to use against anyone or sell them. They are using them as a bargaining chip.
We may need to take more action against them later, but it has not reached that point yet.
PAD wrote:
“No, Russ, it’s really not a weak argument. It is, in fact, a rock solid argument, because there are several specific doctrines that define what is a “just war,” and a number of wars that we’ve been involved in do, in fact, fit that criteria…including World War II. Kerry was simply quoting long-held philosophical precepts that shaped Catholic doctrine.”
Perhaps you should read an interpretation of the doctrine before you jump out and take one for the team. I read just such an interpretation in an article by Fr. Juan Carlos Iscara, titled “Just War.” The article appears on “The Angelus” Web site, and below I’ve pasted a couple of excerpts. You can read it in its entirety at http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2002_July/Just_War.htm
From what I can see, under the Iscara’s definitions, almost every war the U.S. has been involved with, including the current war in Iraq, Desert Storm and Vietnam, has been justified.
Iscara wrote in his “Just War” article:
“A just defensive war is one that is made to repel an unjust aggression, and is always permissible. But “defensive” must be understood in a wide sense. A country could go to war defensively for several reasons. Firstly, it might fight in order to impede an imminent violation of rights, or a violation which has already begun, even if the enemy has not actually taken up arms yet. Secondly, it might fight in order to demand compensation and/or reparation for material or moral damage which was inflicted upon it by another country. Finally, it could go to war in order to make certain a more lasting and solid peace, if confronted with a volatile enemy who otherwise would be always dangerous.
In the above possibilities, what actually seems to be an aggressive action is in reality no more than a legitimate defense. A defensive war is always, in principle, just. An offensive war may or may not be just. A just offensive war is one that arises without a present aggression, but is waged in order to obtain satisfaction or vengeance of a past aggression. Such a war is just if it can be ascertained that an injury, an unjust damage has been inflicted in the past. This type of war is in theory permissible, but the application of the theory to the concrete situation is hardly ever so simple. Usually, it would not be permissible in practice, for the insufficiency of motives would not justify it against the grave evils that follow upon war.”
Mark L wrote, “Unlike Iran, North Korea is not seen as developing nukes to use against anyone or sell them. They are using them as a bargaining chip.”
Mark, I think you’re seriously deluding yourself if you don’t think that the North Koreans will sell nukes if the price is right. They are probably the foremost threat to our (the U.S.) national security on Earth. A great number of critcisms can be leveled against Bill Clinton (or any U.S. President) but his Administration made it clear to the North Koreans that we wouldn’t tolerate their production of nuclear weapon.
And as to bribing them to not develop nukes, that’s basically what I understand the terms of the Non-Proliferatioin Treaty are. The countries that signed it agreed to not pursue the development of nukes and they are given incentives in terms of fiscal aid. The problem we have with the North Koreans is that they felt that they disserved a bigger kick-back to not pursue those programs.
Yeah, it’s not like North Korea was ever caught selling missiles to countries that are known sponsors of Al Qaeda.
Oh, wait. They were!
The problem we have with the North Koreans is that they felt that they disserved a bigger kick-back to not pursue those programs.
That’s my point – they are wanting us to give them more money. The implicit threat is that they will sell to al Qaeda if we don’t bite. I think they will do that eventually, but I think that’s their last option – and no one really thinks they are ready to pull the trigger on it yet. If they were, I think we would be considering a more aggressive move against them.
David Hunt wrote:
“Mark, I think you’re seriously deluding yourself if you don’t think that the North Koreans will sell nukes if the price is right. They are probably the foremost threat to our (the U.S.) national security on Earth. A great number of critcisms can be leveled against Bill Clinton (or any U.S. President) but his Administration made it clear to the North Koreans that we wouldn’t tolerate their production of nuclear weapon.”
I agree emphatically with you, David! One of the weakest arguments I’ve heard from Democrats regarding their various beefs with Bush is on the subject of North Korea. These arguments perpetuate the myth that North Korea has only been emboldened to do the nutty things it is currently doing because the U.S. is allegedly “distracted” and “bogged down” elsewhere in the world.
That’s a crock, in my opinion. North Korea has followed a relentless course of agression since the second the cease-fire agreement was signed more than 50 years ago. To this day, most Americans do not realize that we have been in a perpetual, albeit simmering state of war in Korea for five decades. Every president since Eisenhower has done nothing more than hold his breath and kick the proverbial can down the road regarding action against North Korea. To a man, I think all hoped that someday the regime would eventually just collapse under the weight of its bureaucratic inefficiency and stifling oppression.
But historically, to do anything militarily against this unpredictable and unstable patriarchy would put the millions of Seoul residents at risk. Seoul has been, and always will be, the 2,000-pound hostage in any confrontation with the North. It is so close to the DMZ, it would be quickly destroyed in any major confrontation. This was a problem 50 years ago, and in the succeeding decades, it has only gotten worse. The only difference today is that now that North Korea allegedly has nukes, they could destroy Seoul in minutes rather than hours.
Oh, there have been “peace” talks and other negotiations over the years, but the North Koreans rarely concede anything they value during these meetings. And while they negotiate, they continue to build up their forces, develop newer and deadlier weapons, dig tunnels under the DMZ, send commandos to infiltrate the South, etc.
North Korea started its push to develop nuclear weapons many years ago, and some reports have stated the North Koreans had built at least two nukes before Bush took office. If Gore had been elected, it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference to the North Koreans. They would have still followed their Quioxic path, announcing their development of nukes as they saw fit. They are not part of “the world community” and don’t care how they are perceived by the West, or anyone else. Even China, once a close ally, does not have the influence on North Korea they once had.
I spent a year in South Korea when Clinton was still president, and the whole time I was there, it was clear my commanders believed literally that war with the North could start at any moment. In the 20 years I spent in the military, I was never stationed anywhere else where the threat of war was so clearly anticipated every single day. And just about the time some folks would start to let up a little on their sense of urgency, the discovery of a new infiltration tunnel under the DMZ, or a North Korean minisub running aground on a river sandbar right in the heart of downtown Seoul (and where all occupants committed suicide rather than risk capture), would slap them back to reality.
So if Democrats are going to blame Bush for “inaction” in Korea, they’re going to have to blame every other president since Truman as well. Every single one of them could have taken action, by not one of them ever did.
So if Democrats are going to blame Bush for “inaction” in Korea, they’re going to have to blame every other president since Truman as well. Every single one of them could have taken action, by not one of them ever did.
Sure, and I’m more than willing to do that. Just like I’m willing to blame every president since the 70’s for the terrorist buildup that lead to 9/11 – they all had a hand in it, in some way.
Now, the difference here is the fact that N Korea is being even more aggresive, and Bush touts this plan of “preemptive strikes”.
Yet, he’s only being all gung-ho on those he thinks won’t put up a resistance, such as the Taliban and Iraq.
So maybe he’s learned something in Iraq. Personally, I doubt it, and I doubt he can diffuse the situation in Korea either, because he’s never cared for diplomacy before.
But historically, to do anything militarily against this unpredictable and unstable patriarchy would put the millions of Seoul residents at risk.
As opposed to putting millions of Iraqi residents at risk by moving militarily against an unpredictable and unstable patriarchyin Baghdad?
One thing that never flies with me is when Republicans argue, “Hey Clinton/Carter/Truman did this or failed to do that, therefore, our current course of action, however mistaken, is still justified.” Just because a previous administration didn’t properly contain North Korea doesn’t give Bush a blank check to ignore the growing problem today.
Here’s the Bush policy on North Korea as near as I can tell, “Give up your nukes or we’ll continue to ignore you.”
Whereas the policy on Iraq is, “Well, the WMDs haven’t been found and we’re conceding the intelligence was faulty and our efforts to link Saddam to 9/11 has been thoroughly discredited, but the war was still justified because, well Daddy didn’t finish the job in 1990 and we can’t let that stand.”
Just admit that the doctrine of preemption isn’t being applied consistantly and stop hiding behind Clinton.
Mark L: Saddam ran an outlaw regime, sanctions were not bringing him down, and he was not willing to negotiate/come clean with the international community. Right now, North Korea is interested in getting financial incentives from the US and is still willing to talk.
Is North Korea a threat? Yes, but not as long as they are at the negotiation table.
So by that logic, as North Korea’s pulled out of negotiations, we should start bombing them now, right? I mean, it’s all there: outlaw regime (N. Korea stolen by Communist rebels; not sure if they’re even officially recognized by the US as a nation or not), sanctions aren’t bringing the N. Korean government to its knees, and they’re not willing to come clean/negotiate with the international community. But they’re not a threat, because they want our money?
For that matter, Iraq was *still at* the negotiation table up until W. made it clear that he didn’t care what the UN thought, we were going to invade. Granted, they weren’t being very forthcoming to the UN, but by your own standards of comparison, we should be invading North Korea right now. So where’s the substantive difference between the two situations?
That OTHER John Byrne
Den W. wrote:
“One thing that never flies with me is when Republicans argue, “Hey Clinton/Carter/Truman did this or failed to do that, therefore, our current course of action, however mistaken, is still justified.” Just because a previous administration didn’t properly contain North Korea doesn’t give Bush a blank check to ignore the growing problem today.”
Two points: (a) I’m not a Republican, and (b.) I’m not giving Bush a “blank check” to ignore anything.
What I’m saying is that the problem has been a hair-puller for 50 years, and instead of partisan carping at Bush and the Republicans, how about sitting down and finding a joint solution (if one even exists)?
Your comparison between Baghdad and Seoul is seriously flawed. When the U.S. attacked Baghdad, it did so with precision air strikes designed to limit, as much as possible, collateral damage. The North Koreans, however, don’t HAVE smart bombs, mainly because they don’t care about such niceties. They have said over and over again that they would level Seoul if they felt “threatened.” These guys are cloistered lunatics, and that is exactly why every president since Eisenhower has tried to just pen them in and hope they would just go away!
For those of you who at least seem to think Bush is one step away from Hitler and that the Patriot Act has stripped away all civil liberties, here is a little perspective. A friend lives in the Ukraine where wire taps are the norm wrote the following: “It was interesting to read that Ukraine has had authorization for 40,000 wire taps per year whereas in America, even after 9/11, there were only 1300 granted.”
I come back to a theme that no one here who opposes the war on Iraq has really answered: Why do you consider Bush evil? Why do you not acknowledge that Saddam was truly evil? Case in point:
Craig J Ries wrote: “Everybody in that administration is so stuck on “well, we were wrong about the WMD, but getting Saddam was more important”, that they still fail to just admit that Saddam didn’t have WMD, he didn’t have a nuclear program, and that there are far greater threats out there.”
By this logic, Russia and China should be at the top of the list since I would think they have the largest number of WMD’s outside of the USA. The threat does not come from just having actual weapons. The threat comes from the willingness to use them. Saddam has demonstrated, for anyone willing to be honest, that he will use them — because he has used them. PAD’s comment above where he said that “We’re saying that the focus of our retaliation should have been on the terrorists who attacked us…not on the country filled with millions of civilians who didn’t” ignores history. Saddam helped sponsor an assasination attempt on a former president. He shot *daily* at our jets enforcing the no-fly zone. Saddam was a threat to us, and he was holding millions of civilians hostage. There is enormous evidence that Saddam took money from the oil-for-food that was intended for those millions. We did not attack an innocent country. We attacked a country whose leadership has aggressively pursued agendas that harm not only the US, but their neighbors and even their own people.
So to the point of this post, Kerry’s views in the debate demonstrate that he would not do better than Bush. He would not have protected the millions in Iraq. He would have allowed them to have continued to be tortured and starved while he claimed Iraq was contained and that another UN resolution will take care of the problem. Kerry is a joke and would bring far more harm than Bush to both us and the world.
Jim in Iowa
Did Saddam have “smart bombs?” No.
Didn’t the neocons spend most of the last 14 years portraying Saddam as a dangerous lunatic, a madman? Yes.
Are his supporters willing to see their entire country burn to the ground before giving into the US-appointed regime? Most definitely.
I stand by my comparison
Your comparison between Baghdad and Seoul is seriously flawed. When the U.S. attacked Baghdad, it did so with precision air strikes designed to limit, as much as possible, collateral damage.
Hardly flawed. Bush had this country, myself included, that Saddam had WMD and was ready to use them.
I was fully convinced that, as soon as we got into Baghdad, Saddam would unleash them upon our army and his own populace.
So, now I don’t believe much of anything Bush says. I guess that just makes me a flip flopper though.
By this logic, Russia and China should be at the top of the list since I would think they have the largest number of WMD’s outside of the USA.
And China already is a threat. Don’t let your zeal at going after Saddam cloud your mind to the other threats in the world.
The thing is is that nobody is saying that we were better off with Saddam, but you (Iraq war defenders) act like that is the ultimate reasoning for the war, when it wasn’t.
Bush based this war on the immediate threat that Saddam posed to the US. Not to himself, his people, or his neighbors. To us. Due to WMD.
And there was no such immediate threat. There were no WMD.
The policy of keeping Saddam contained was working – he wasn’t involved with Al Qaeda, and many of us neighbors wanted nothing to do with him.
Your “justification” is anything but when there are many other tyrants in this planet that are just as much of a threat to their people and us, but Bush isn’t doing squat about them.
But the worst part of all is that Bush is such a two-faced bášŧárd that he won’t even admit that his justifications for war had holes so large you could drive a Mack truck through them.
Won’t surprise me in the least if Powell is the fall guy in all this, and he won’t be back for another term. He’s the only one that’s actually said we were wrong.
But for once, I’d like to see you people argue something about this dámņ war other than “Well, Saddam was a threat to his people” or “We’re better off without Saddam”.
Wow, now there’s some logic. Hope you didn’t strain your brains coming up with it. The problem, however, is that you don’t have the brains to look at the Big Picture.
I come back to a theme that no one here who opposes the war on Iraq has really answered: Why do you consider Bush evil?
I’ll bite. I’m opposed to the war and I don’t consider Bush to be evil. Incompetent, yes. Horribly misguided, definitely. Incapable of admitting to his mistakes, absolutely. But evil? No
Ðìçk Cheney, on the other hand . . . 🙂
Why do you not acknowledge that Saddam was truly evil? Case in point:
Craig didn’t say that Saddam wasn’t evil. In fact, I fail to see anyone who has denied that he was indeed brutal and horrible dictator. What motivates myself and others opposed to Operation: Fix Daddy’s Mistake isn’t that we like Saddam. It’s that we do not believe that the case has been made the removal of Saddam was worth the price we are continuing to pay in money, lives, and loss of prestige for this country. With no WMDs found to date (and no, “Weapons related program activities” do not count as actually having WMDs. Neither do grainy satellite photos of
trucks heading toward Syria.) and the Saddam-9/11 connection discredited, the question remains, why did we go in? Some neocon agenda to reshape the region to their liking? Avenge the Bush family honor?
Is this why we send soldiers to fight and die nowadays?
“It applies to countries where all reasonable efforts have failed. They had failed in Iraq, but North Korea has not reached that point yet.”
I keep hearing this over and over again. Bush (during the debates and many times before) as well as his cronies keep talking about how the sanctions weren’t working, and the UN inspectors weren’t working, and that the only choice was to fight.
Except that when they got there, there weren’t any WMDs. So, if the sanctions weren’t working, and the UN inspectors weren’t working, how come there weren’t any weapons?
Oh, and saying “because they’re all in Syria” doesn’t count until there’s actual evidence (fool me once…).
Phinn
Den W. wrote:
“Did Saddam have “smart bombs?” No. Didn’t the neocons spend most of the last 14 years portraying Saddam as a dangerous lunatic, a madman? Yes. Are his supporters willing to see their entire country burn to the ground before giving into the US-appointed regime? Most definitely. I stand by my comparison”
Whatever. Your comparison makes no sense to me, but then I only spent 20 years in the military, so what do I know about such things?
Suffice to say, it’s no wonder that in 50 years, the U.S. hasn’t been able to come to an agreement about how to end the threat in North Korea.
You know, I’ll bet that 1,500 years ago, all the various Roman political factions were bitterly arguing about who was to blame when the barbarians swarmed through the gates of Rome. Despite all of our advances, I guess human nature never changes.
Ah, yes. When you have nothing to refute someone’s argument, just be snotty towards them.
Listen to a lot of Sean Hannity?
I didn’t realize that one needed a 20 year military career to have an opinion on world politics. I guess Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocons should just shut up then, huh?
“Bush based this war on the immediate threat that Saddam posed to the US. Not to himself, his people, or his neighbors. To us. Due to WMD. And there was no such immediate threat. There were no WMD. The policy of keeping Saddam contained was working – he wasn’t involved with Al Qaeda, and many of us neighbors wanted nothing to do with him.”
Bush based the war primarily on the threat to the US, but the other points were also made leading up to the war. They were clearly made. The fact that some of you don’t remember them doesn’t change the fact that they were said. Bush did not suddenly pull them out of his hat (or his rear) when WMD’s were not found.
That being said, I strongly disagree that the containment of Saddam was effective. Having WMD programs *DOES* count as the sanctions were specifically designed to prevent this very thing. World support for the sanctions was waning, in part because of the starving millions within Iraq — people starving because of Saddam’s policies. It was only a matter of time until France and Russia and Germany (who were already making deals with Iraq) forced the issue and ended the sanctions.
“But for once, I’d like to see you people argue something about this dámņ war other than “Well, Saddam was a threat to his people” or “We’re better off without Saddam”.”
Why, exactly, are these arguments invalid? I, and others, have given a lot of reasons why we believe Saddam was an active threat to the US. That being said, both statements above are true. Saddam wasn’t just a threat to his own people, they were actively suffering under him. People did not just begin to die when we invaded. They were being tortured and killed in large numbers before we ever went there. And the world is most definitely better off without Saddam. While he did not help or plan 9-11 (which Bush has *never* said), Saddam very actively supported Al Quaida (however it is spelled). Saddam very regularly supported terroism.
“And China already is a threat. Don’t let your zeal at going after Saddam cloud your mind to the other threats in the world.”
There is a crucial point you fail to comprehend: We were attacked by terrorists, not by communists. We were attacked by Islamic extremists, not by Asians. I am very concerned about Korea and Iran, etc. I am very concerned about the loose nuclear materials in Russia. But forgive me if 9-11 sticks out in my mind as an arrow pointing to the group that is actively attacking us. Forgive me if I look at the first attack on the World Trade center, the bombing of US embassies and the USS Cole as an indication of a group that is actively engaged in a war against us.
I fully understand that Saddam is not Al Quaida. But he has very active links to terroism and he welcomed one of the masterminds behind the first attack on the World Trade Center. Following 9-11, Bush, in essence, declared war on terrorism, not just on Al Quaida. In practice, he began to take on radical Islamic terrorism, something Saddam was actively in partnership with. It is not necessary for there to be a link to 9-11 to justify an attack on Iraq (and a reason to not attack, say, North Korea). It was necessary for there to be a link to terrorism. That link clearly exists.
Jim in Iowa
R. Maheras: Whatever. Your comparison makes no sense to me, but then I only spent 20 years in the military, so what do I know about such things?
So, what did you do in the military? I assume you must have been involved in high level negotiations to bring up your military experience and inferring you are an expert on this topic. As I was only in Accounting and Finance and Public Health for 12 years and my husband was in Graphic Arts for 24 years, does this mean my opinion counts less and his more than yours?
What I’m saying is that the problem has been a hair-puller for 50 years, and instead of partisan carping at Bush and the Republicans, how about sitting down and finding a joint solution (if one even exists)?
You want a non-partisan solution? Tell that to Mr. “I’m a uniter not a divider”. Never has this country been so divided and this is a direct result of the Republican party demonizing anyone who does not agree with their agenda.
Craig wrote: “But for once, I’d like to see you people argue something about this dámņ war other than “Well, Saddam was a threat to his people” or “We’re better off without Saddam”.”
On Face the Nation September 15th, ’02, Kerry said, “I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us. It’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the U.S. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat.”
So was Kerry wrong then or is he wrong now?
Jim in Iowa
You know what? I am awfully tired of hearing that we are better off without Saddam in power. We are in a never-ending war, have made Iraq the poster child for terrorist recruitment and could have left our troops in Afghanastan to actually capture the architect of 9/11, instead of getting killed and wounded in a war based on FAULTY intelligence, not to mention the monetary cost. Guess what? We would have been better off if we had never gone there. Yes, a very bad man would still be in power, but we, as a country would be better off.
Jim in Iowa,
He has revised his thinking due to learning that the intelligence was faulty. Imagine that, a leader who can change his mind when new facts emerge that changes the conditions under which old decisions were made.
I am sick of hearing comments such as the following: “You want a non-partisan solution? Tell that to Mr. “I’m a uniter not a divider”. Never has this country been so divided and this is a direct result of the Republican party demonizing anyone who does not agree with their agenda.”
Bush and the Republicans did not divide the country. The Democrats did. From the day of the election, Democrats screamed that he stole the election (a fact proven wrong by independent news groups who did a recount months later).
When Bush was first elected, he virtually co-wrote education legislation with Ted Kennedy. Of course, everyone forgets the Democrats overwhelmingly suppported No Child Left Behind at the time. With 9-11, Bush handled well our healing following that tragedy.
It was only after we invaded Iraq that the division with the majority of the people came. I believe a lot of the division comes from lies and distortions the left has perpetuated for the last 2 years, not solely because of what Bush has done.
I don’t want mind numbed robots who cheer Bush on if he really is driving us off of a cliff. But neither do I want back seat drivers whose main purpose in complaining is to regain the power that they lost. Whichever analogy you think is more true, the attack machine on the left is at least equally responsible for creating the divisions that currently exist.
Jim in Iowa
The Republicans have been working on this for the last 20 years, at least. The Democrats have been quite ineffective in using the politics of division, though they are getting better. My point is, if you expect everyone to kiss and make up after so many years… well, you are naive, to say the least.
“He has revised his thinking due to learning that the intelligence was faulty. Imagine that, a leader who can change his mind when new facts emerge that changes the conditions under which old decisions were made.”
Karen, you have got to be joking! Go back and read what Kerry said. The fact that we did not find stockpiles of WMD’s does not invalidate the rest of what Kerry said. Saddam was still actively pursuing a WMD program. That is now a proven fact. We have not found WMD’s, but he did have some at one time. What happened to them?
Until we invaded, we did not know there was not still stockpiles of WMD’s. So it is fine to say Kerry can now change his mind when he has the ability to know something he did not know before. Well, we also know other things we did not know before. And because of those things, the war was a good thing, and the world is better off without Saddam.
Jim in Iowa
James Lynch is brilliant:
The argument that Saddam was a bad guy who might someday have WMDs is like arresting someone who doesn’t have a gun on the grounds that he’s a bad guy and he might someday buy a gun and he might do something bad with it.
It just needed to be reposted.
“The Republicans have been working on this for the last 20 years, at least. The Democrats have been quite ineffective in using the politics of division, though they are getting better. My point is, if you expect everyone to kiss and make up after so many years… well, you are naive, to say the least.”
Karen, you might want to go back and read some history. Why not try when Reagan was in office. To say the democrats have been ineffective in using the politics of division is laughable. I don’t claim one side or the other started it first, but the democrats have used this tactic at least as well as the Republicans. It just was not as obvious while you were in power, especially of congress.
Who ever said we should kiss and make up? I am just interested in an honest debate (and that does not imply that one side is inherently more honest than the other).
Jim in Iowa
“The argument that Saddam was a bad guy who might someday have WMDs is like arresting someone who doesn’t have a gun on the grounds that he’s a bad guy and he might someday buy a gun and he might do something bad with it.”
That is a false analogy. It implies that Saddam was “neutral” at the moment. He was not a bad guy who “might” someday buy a gun and “might” someday do something with it. Saddam was a convicted murder who has killed thousands already with a “gun.” Saddam was clearly unchanged and very clearly indicated he wanted another gun. Saddam has been shown to have already assembled the parts to the gun. Saddam continued to torture and kill those still within his control.
This goes back to my earlier post: It is inexcusable the way some of you refuse to fully acknowledge how evil Saddam really was. To even suggest such an analogy denies the historical record of who Saddam is and what he was not only capable but likely of doing. Why do you refuse to do so? Is it because if you truly had to admit that Saddam was that much of a threat, then perhaps Bush was justified in going to war with Iraq? Just maybe he had a higher motive than political or financial gain? No, guess it is easier to judge Bush’s motives as evil than it is to believe that about Saddam.
Jim in Iowa
“And China already is a threat. Don’t let your zeal at going after Saddam cloud your mind to the other threats in the world.”
People seem to forget that we were perhaps on the verge of war with China before 9/11/01 over the matter of a captured spy plane.
By the way, I’d like to complement Jim in Iowa. I don’t agree with him, but he speaks about the issues he belives in with reason and respect for dissenting opinions. If only his canidate did the same [:-)]
Jim In Iowa:
“The argument that Saddam was a bad guy who might someday have WMDs is like arresting someone who doesn’t have a gun on the grounds that he’s a bad guy and he might someday buy a gun and he might do something bad with it.”
That is a false analogy.
—-
Okay, let’s try this analogy. Your son (or my son, or whomever) goes to a new school… and is immediately picked on by a bully.
So what he does is find everyone that is considered a bully, and then goes and beats the living daylights out of them… anyone who even looks like a bully, he beats up. Because it’s better that he beats them up before they even think about picking on him. Because, you know, they just might.
In the end, probably he won’t get beat up by a bully. But then again, he himself has become one.
Now on to the second part:
—
It is inexcusable the way some of you refuse to fully acknowledge how evil Saddam really was.
—
I’m actually inclined to agree with that, except for being nitpicky about Saddam still is evil, but just not in charge.
But, again, I also think there quite a few people out there that are as evil, and even more so. So if we were going him out on the “evil” factor… we still failed. Because there are other evil dictators, genocidal maniacs and Kenny G imitators out there that must be taken down.
My opinion as always.
Travis
A frequent comment mentioned by some of you above is that Bush pulled our forces from Afganisthan to attack Iraq. Kerry, in the debate, made this very claim. Once again, Kerry was wrong.
Here is how another website responded:
There was also another grandiose lie about the resources shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq. A total lie. Tommy Franks was on TV last night saying that’s totally untrue. (paraphrasing) “We didn’t shift special forces to Iraq. We didn’t. I was in charge of Afghanistan and Iraq. I led them both. We didn’t shift any resources. The Mujahadin, the local warlords did not take over the pursuit for bin Laden. Total lie that Kerry told. We didn’t shift the resources. We didn’t take special ops, we didn’t take the best of our troops out of Afghanistan and go to Iraq. And I told Bob Graham that and he misreported that in his book that he’s got out.”
Whether you think the war with Iraq was a justified attack on terrorism or not, the person who firsthand would know if it hindered our attempt to capture Bin Laden clearly says it did not.
Jim in Iowa
Jim, is Saddam an “evil man”? If you want to be simplify things down to black and white..yes he is evil.
But he isn’t the only evil man out there..and he was certainly the evil man who was the biggest threat at the time.
This is a comic book writer’s blog, so lets draw it out.
You’re Batman. Prioritze your targets:
a) Riddler is sending out his riddles, threatening a crime in the near future.
b) Penguin has his bar. He’s likely plotting something, but he’s not doing anything at the moment.
c) Joker is at large, and he killed Robin and Joker-gassed a bunch of people.
Bush gave up on catching (c), ignored (a) and went after (b).
Travis Clark: “Okay, let’s try this analogy. Your son (or my son, or whomever) goes to a new school… and is immediately picked on by a bully. So what he does is find everyone that is considered a bully, and then goes and beats the living daylights out of them… anyone who even looks like a bully, he beats up. Because it’s better that he beats them up before they even think about picking on him. Because, you know, they just might. In the end, probably he won’t get beat up by a bully. But then again, he himself has become one.”
A closer analogy, I admit. There is one way it breaks down: So far, Bush has only actively attacked two “bullies.” He attacked the bully who did 9-11, and he attacked the bully who invaded another country a decade ago and who, while somewhat contained, is still acting against us. Bush has not attacked the PLO or other terrorist groups just on the principle that they are terrorists.
I do agree that we must not actually become a bully ourselves. However, while some may want to protray us that way, that is not the case. More importantly, what if there was an “outside” objective agent in this story? In a school you have a teacher or principal. In the real world, we have the UN. The UN did find Saddam guilty, they just were not in agreement about the punishment for the crime (and for a few, perhaps, there was a disagreement with the degree of the crime).
“I’m actually inclined to agree with that, except for being nitpicky about Saddam still is evil, but just not in charge.
But, again, I also think there quite a few people out there that are as evil, and even more so. So if we were going him out on the “evil” factor… we still failed. Because there are other evil dictators, genocidal maniacs and Kenny G imitators out there that must be taken down.”
And I agree with you. There are other evil leaders out there. And that is where the above analogy breaks down. There comes a point where I don’t think we can be perpetually the policeman for the world. Or, to use your analogy, it is necessary, sometimes, to allow a bully to pick on someone else because you can’t be there all of the time. You hope the person being picked on will learn to defend themselves. But when the bully pulls a gun or a knife, it is obvious you must step in. In my opinion, Saddam has repeately pulled a gun, and strong evidence indicates he was actively planning to do so again. He was just waiting until the teacher’s back was turned.
Jim in Iowa
Scavenger wrote:
“You’re Batman. Prioritze your targets:
a) Riddler is sending out his riddles, threatening a crime in the near future.
b) Penguin has his bar. He’s likely plotting something, but he’s not doing anything at the moment.
c) Joker is at large, and he killed Robin and Joker-gassed a bunch of people.
Bush gave up on catching (c), ignored (a) and went after (b). “
Why is this a zero sum game? First, Bush is not one person. He is over the armed forces (or the whole Justice League, if you want a comic book analogy). He can pursue multiple targets at a time. He can continue to do surveilance on (a), send special forces after (c), while he goes after (and succeed) in capturing (b).
Jim in Iowa
Karen wrote:
“So, what did you do in the military? I assume you must have been involved in high level negotiations to bring up your military experience and inferring you are an expert on this topic. As I was only in Accounting and Finance and Public Health for 12 years and my husband was in Graphic Arts for 24 years, does this mean my opinion counts less and his more than yours?”
First of all, it wasn’t YOUR opinion I was questioning. And yes, I think your opinion probably DOES carry more weight on such issues than the opinion of someone who never spend any time in the military. Military people obviously have a much higher stake in issues relating to potential or actual military conflicts, and thus tend to tune in better, don’t you think?
Second of all, I spent 12 years as an electronic countermeasures technician on five different airframes, including three reconnaissance aircraft (the SR-71, U-2 and RC-135). In all three cases, we had electronic intelligence equipment on the aircraft that routinely gathered missile and radar information from the ground and air systems of potential adversaries. For five of those years, I worked directly with the Air Force intel specialists who deciphered and evaluated the threats our ELINT systems recorded. I also knew and regularly worked with all the photo/side-looking radar guys, and couldn’t help picking up stuff via osmosis.
I also worked on A-10 aircraft for three years, and had to be very familiar with the installed explosive chaff and flare defensive (ECM) systems. I also had to be trained to be familiar with the missiles and bombs loaded on the aircraft so I didn’t inadvertantly blow up myself or the plane when I enabled the “master override” switch to do chaff/flare system maintenance. And naturally, I had to be familiar with a variety of enemy SAMs and other radar-controlled weapons systems that might threaten the A-10 or other aircraft I worked on.
The last eight years in the Air Force I spent in public affairs. Many of those years I was required to research and write stories for the base newspaper, various major commands, or Air Force news services. As part of my job, I naturally had to follow the news — particularly military news — every single day. I did this for years. I still do.
I spent 10 years overseas, including three years in England, six on Okinawa and a year in Korea. While in South Korea, I sat in on several high-level “sit-rep” briefings regarding the situation with the North. I also deployed or went TDY to a bunch of other places overseas. In addition, I am a history buff, particularly regarding post-1900 U.S. military history.
So, yes, I think my opinion about conflicts and the military carries more weight than many Americans.
Karen also wrote:
“You want a non-partisan solution? Tell that to Mr. “I’m a uniter not a divider”. Never has this country been so divided and this is a direct result of the Republican party demonizing anyone who does not agree with their agenda.”
The Democrats are equally guilty these days of being dividers, in my opinion. As a matter of fact, the bitterness and histrionics of the designated attack dogs are occasionally worse than even the Republicans. As far as our country never being this divided before, that’s an exaggeration! There are a number of instances in U.S. history where things have been a heck of a lot worse — the Civil War and the War of 1812 (New England states were talking about seceding during this war) immediately spring to mind. More recently, 1968 was a particularly bad year for American unity.
I have a question. If having WMD’s and the obvious willingness to use them are grounds enough for an invasion of that country, then wouldn’t Iraq or China or North Korea have every right to invade us? Everyone seems to feel that when we do it its ok, because we are fighting to give everyone Democracy. But what if Democracy isnt the right thing? What if Communism is the answer? Or maybe, allah forbid, each country should figure out what is best for itself without being forced to conform. Our “saving” the Iraqi people or the Afghani’s or the Russians, reminds me a lot of the “saving” of the Muslims and the Jews that happened during the crusades and that thing nobody ever expects…the Spanish Inquisition.
And yes, depending on your definition of evil, Saddam was an evil man. But I have never heard (not saying it was never said) that as an official reason as to why we went to war. Probably because not nearly as many people would have been for it then. I think its getting even harder to “sell” a war where we are not directly threatened because people are getting tired of our government (Republicans and Democrats alike) appointing ourselves the World Police.
On another note, I think Bush/Batman should have forgotten Joker, Riddler and Peguin and instead saved Catwoman from being portrayed by Halle Berry.
Greenbaum wrote: “If having WMD’s and the obvious willingness to use them are grounds enough for an invasion of that country, then wouldn’t Iraq or China or North Korea have every right to invade us? Everyone seems to feel that when we do it its ok, because we are fighting to give everyone Democracy. But what if Democracy isnt the right thing? What if Communism is the answer? Or maybe, allah forbid, each country should figure out what is best for itself without being forced to conform.”
Good questions. Let me make a stab at an answer.
Should Iran, Iraq, China, etc., fear us? Only if they become an active and imminent threat. This is what is so crucial in this debate. We have had WMD’s for over 50 years. We have not used them to attack another country since we used them in self defense in World War 2. More importantly, look at the truth about our country. We give more humanitarian aid than anyone else in the world. In a true sense, we established modern democracy and have been the example for others for over 200 years. While things are not perfect here, when you look at the big picture, there is no other country that offers what we have to offer. There is no other country that protects its citizens by the rule of law like we do. There is no other country that has offered as much to immigrants as we have. There is no other economy that has prosepered in the last 50 years like ours has.
Again, America is not perfect. But there is far more oppportunity here than for perhaps 90% of the known world, and particularly more than any country that truly might be interested in attacking us first (Iran, Iraq, China, etc.). They do not act out of a true fear we will steal their resources. They act out of fear that our morality and/or enlightened self interest will cause us to act (such as in Bosnia or defending Kuwait).
Bottom line, Saddam gave us reason to fear his WMDs. We have not given the world a reason to fear us in that way.
As to your second question, let me put it this way: Freedom is the right thing. Always. Our Decleration of Independence is correct when it calls this an inalienable (sp?) right.
Democracy of some sort is the best expression of freedom, but that does not mean it has to look like America. France, Great Britain, Germany, all have freedom, but they look different than us.
That being said, we did not become the world’s most powerful economic force by military might. We became it because of economic freedom. We became it because of free enterprise. Our military protects this freedom, it is not the source of our economic health. That is why other nations do not fear our military, they fear our ideals and our economic policies.
(Note: To preemptively respond to my critics, I don’t believe we are perfect and agree that free enterprise can be misused and abused. But the fact that some misuse it does not mean the system itself is not the best option avaialable.)
Jim in Iowa
R. Maheras,
Thank-you for the bio. Although we still have many fundamental differences of opinion, it explains a lot and definitely increases your credibility in my eyes.
Also, I must give credit where credit is due.
The Democrats are equally guilty these days of being dividers, in my opinion. As a matter of fact, the bitterness and histrionics of the designated attack dogs are occasionally worse than even the Republicans. As far as our country never being this divided before, that’s an exaggeration! There are a number of instances in U.S. history where things have been a heck of a lot worse — the Civil War and the War of 1812 (New England states were talking about seceding during this war) immediately spring to mind. More recently, 1968 was a particularly bad year for American unity.
First I said the Democrats have not been effective, but are getting better. I do not consider this a good thing. Second, your history lesson is apt, and while I hate the divisiveness in our country, I must concede this point to you.
Jim,
You can agree that the free enterprise system can be abused, but can’t see that this administration has abused it’s power? Saddam being evil is not the point. That we invaded a country that was not a threat to us on faulty intelligence is the point. There has been ample evidence that the intelligence was tweaked to mislead us into a war that was not necessary. By continuing to argue that Saddam is evil, does not address the issue that he was not a threat to us. Containment was working and he would not have been able to create WMD’s in the future, either.
And by preemptively striking Iraq I am sure those other countries are worried that they may be next. Not because we have WMD’s and don’t use them, but because we have an administration with a “cause” they think is just. Why don’t they invade? The same reason we aren’t invading North Korea. It’s easy to take down the guy in the playground that is obnoxious and loud about what a big trouble maker he is, but has nothing to back him up. Not so easy when he has nuclear capability.
Bush based the war primarily on the threat to the US, but the other points were also made leading up to the war. They were clearly made.
Yes, he repeated WMD, Saddam, 9/11, and Al Qaeda in the same sentences over and over again until people believed it.
We were attacked by terrorists, not by communists. We were attacked by Islamic extremists, not by Asians.
And we were attacked by Saudis in Al Qaeda, not Iraq.
Bush and the Republicans did not divide the country. The Democrats did.
Yes, it was the Democrats who pushed for the war in Iraq, regardless of support, lack of proper intelligence, and everything else Bush could throw at them.
They unfortunately fell in like like most everybody else at the time. Thankfully, many of us woke up.
Why is this a zero sum game? First, Bush is not one person. He is over the armed forces (or the whole Justice League, if you want a comic book analogy). He can pursue multiple targets at a time. He can continue to do surveilance on (a), send special forces after (c), while he goes after (and succeed) in capturing (b).
Sure, except for the fact that our military is neither Mr. Fantastic, in that it can seem to stretch to infinity, nor is it Multiple Man, who can clone himself to deal with multiple situations.
Our military is stretched thin atm, and what does Bush do? Hints at sending even more troops to Iraq, at attacking somebody else.
When was the last time he mentioned bin Laden and the woefully inadequate # of troops in Afghanistan that are needed to help rebuild THAT country as well as capture bin Laden.
Yes, it was the Democrats who pushed for the war in Iraq,
If you think the country was not already divided long before this due to eight years of Democrat leadership, then you haven’t been paying attention and you really are as out of touch as your posts suggest!
Was the country divided in the 90s due to Democratic leadership or the Republicans’ “Get Clinton at all cost” attitude at the time?
Probably doesn’t matter either way. Both sides have poisoned the debate and both sides have taken the tact that all who oppose them are just plain evil for years now. Neither has any reason to be proud of their ability to unify people.
It’s the main reason why I won’t join either party.
If you think the country was not already divided long before this due to eight years of Democrat leadership, then you haven’t been paying attention and you really are as out of touch as your posts suggest!
You guys are such a joke. If not the 2000 election, you’ll blame Clinton. Maybe after that you’ll blame Mondale. Or Dukakis.
Anything to blame somebody else.
Hey, sorry if your memory only goes back four years, but rather it is tiresome to you or not, the divisiveness began in the nineties.
But reality and logic seem to mystify you, so believe what you want.