Bush Republicans...what does it take to give up on Bush ?

[Rashak Mani]

Dear SMDB Bush Republicans,

After a few books, some commissions, monster deficit, Haliburton, the ongoing Iraq quagmire and no post war plans... Bush still enjoys the support of Red America. What would it take for you guys to give up on Bush ? I would imagine anyone would have started to have doubts about Bush as president from so much flak the guy is taking.

So what would it take ? Confirmation of "no post war plans" ? Rummy admiting Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism ? Another 9-11 ? A sex scandal ? Losing your job ?

Not liking Kerry is understandable... he has culture and education... but supporting Bush no matter what isn't. So tell us what it would take to quit on Dubya ?

(PS I put Bush Republicans in respect to republicans who do not consider Bush republican... )

[Yeticus Rex]

So what would it take ? Confirmation of "no post war plans" ? Rummy admiting Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism ? Another 9-11 ? A sex scandal ? Losing your job ?

A six-pack of Carlsberg Elephant Malt and a really nice carne asada burrito. :D

Another common BushBash(TM) thread, but an uncommon answer.

[Susanann]

I gave up on bush after the war, the deficits, and the loss of all of our jobs and technology to asia, esp communist china.

Unfortunately, there is no conservative running this year(Perot, Buchannan, Keyes, etc).

[John Carter of Mars]

Since I'm not a "Bush Republican" I suppose that I've got no business replying, but I will anyway.

What it will take for me to vote against Bush is Kerry convincing me over the next six months that he will be a better choice.

For a point of reference, I'm VERY glad that Bush got elected over Al Gore. Make of that what you will.

By Rashak Mani: "Bush still enjoys the support of Red America."
The American Communist Party is now backing Bush? Dude, that's serious news...

[Plan B]

Not liking Kerry is understandable... he has culture and education...

Well, maybe if I felt there was an alternative party out there that didn't treat people with contempt so much of the time, I might find some time to listen to what they have to say.

[astorian]

Dear SMDB Bush Republicans,

After a few books, some commissions, monster deficit, Haliburton, the ongoing Iraq quagmire and no post war plans... Bush still enjoys the support of Red America. What would it take for you guys to give up on Bush ? I would imagine anyone would have started to have doubts about Bush as president from so much flak the guy is taking.

So what would it take ? Confirmation of "no post war plans" ? Rummy admiting Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism ? Another 9-11 ? A sex scandal ? Losing your job ?

Not liking Kerry is understandable... he has culture and education... but supporting Bush no matter what isn't. So tell us what it would take to quit on Dubya ?

(PS I put Bush Republicans in respect to republicans who do not consider Bush republican... )


Wow- voting against Kerry means we dislike educated, cultured people? If only I'd known that 25 years ago! I could have saved my Mom the expense of paying for my Ivy League education.

Come to think of it, G.W. Bush has a bachelor's degree from Yale and an M.B.A. from Harvard. Where'd YOU go, Rashak? It never ceases to amuse me how people whose educational backgrounds don't come CLOSE to PResident Bush's feel qualified to call him a dunce!

But if you want a serious answer? I'll vote against Bush if and when someone else comes along who articulates my (conservative) positions more forcefully and promises to carry them out more skillfully and successfully than Bush does.

I haven't always been happy with the way Bush has done things, and if another conservative Republican came along to challenge him, I'd give him some consideration. But John Kerry is not an option under any circumstances.

[Brutus]

I suppose if W teabags Denny Hastert during a live press conference, I may have to stay home in November. Other than that, your question is misguided. It isn't so much, "What would W have to do to lose our vote?", as it is, "What would Kerry have to do to get our vote?"

GW Bush is not the perfect conservative Republican. That much is obvious. Kerry is not even close to being conservative nor Republican, which is even obvious-er. Logic dictates that off the two, a person interested in voting for a candidate that was at least a bit conservative and/or Republicanwould vote for GW, since the other candidate is a liberal Democrat.

[CoatOfArms]

Dear SMDB Bush Republicans, ...
So what would it take ? ...
(PS I put Bush Republicans in respect to republicans who do not consider Bush republican... )

Right ... Bush is up in FL by 6% and, for the first time, up in PA by 5%! Looks like Bush will win 47 states! Let's guess what 3 states he won't win? ... :D

[da_pope]

Illinois, for one.

[Mehitabel]

Dude, they're not even BOTHERING to campaign in New York, even though I know plenty of Republicans, esp. Upstate. But no ads, nada, zip, for which I am very very grateful. Living in a swing state is gonna suck this year for all the ads and debates.

Not to say that they don't both swing by here regularly to pick up some money. And of course on cable, CNN etc., and the Sunday morning talk shows, a New Yorker can see all the ads they want. But on a day-to-day basis, it's election? What election?

[Plan B]

Right ... Bush is up in FL by 6% and, for the first time, up in PA by 5%! Looks like Bush will win 47 states! Let's guess what 3 states he won't win? ... :D


I give up...Can't guess 'em...Did you have 3 specific states in mind?

[flickster]

Yea unfortunately rural Illinois still doesn't have enough ppl to balance the Chicago vote - they get to count the dead and/or the "vote early & vote often" practice ;)

[Plan B]

Dude, they're not even BOTHERING to campaign in New York, even though I know plenty of Republicans, esp. Upstate. But no ads, nada, zip, for which I am very very grateful. Living in a swing state is gonna suck this year for all the ads and debates.

Not to say that they don't both swing by here regularly to pick up some money. And of course on cable, CNN etc., and the Sunday morning talk shows, a New Yorker can see all the ads they want. But on a day-to-day basis, it's election? What election?

Does that mean New Yorkers don't get to see the moveon commercials? What a loss!

[Sam Stone]

Rashak: Try flipping it around. Let's say John Kerry were President, and the Republican nominee this year was the most conservative person in the Senate - say, Trent Lott or John Ashcroft. What would John Kerry have to do to get you to vote for John Ashcroft?

My guess - nothing short of eating babies.

[XT]

Well, I'm no Republican, but I'll try and answer your question. In the US there are fixed percentages of folks who ALWAYS vote along party lines...reguardless. Unless the scandal is SO huge that there is just no avoiding it, a certain percentage of people will always toe the line and vote the party. So, there is almost nothing that Bush can do to alienate those core Republican voters RM. Basically Bush ISN'T a main stream Republican. He's more like a liberal Democrat (in somethings) pretending to be a Republican. In this he's sort of like Clinton, who wasn't really all that good of a Democrat, using a lot of conservative/Republican programs and such. And HE retained HIS core voters...simply because he was a Democrat. I know a lot of liberal types that were down on Clinton for some of his policies and decisions or programs...but they still voted for him because they were toeing the party line.

THe votes really in play are from guys like me...non-aligned, middle of the road (or just left or right of center) independant types, or folks who are in one party or the other on paper but swing either way depending on who the candidate is. Among THOSE people it seems that apathy rules atm. Bush is fairly distasteful. Kerry is boring and lacks charisma that folks like Clinton (and even GW, gods help us) have. He's also had a fairly boring and relatively meaningless stint in Government, never really doing anything spetacular or attention grabbing. He's seen in some quarters merely as the lesser of two wievals.

It all hinges on the economy, RM. If the PERCEPTION is that the economy is picking up, looking strong, doing well, etc, they GW gets another 4 years. If it doesn't look good, takes a serious down turn, or is merely PERCEIVED as being bad, they Kerry gets his shot. Forget about all the rest of the stuff you are banging on about. This is the core issue that will make or break Bush.

-XT

[CoatOfArms]

I give up...Can't guess 'em...Did you have 3 specific states in mind?
MA might be one of the 3, unless Mitt goes on the offense ...

[silenus]

Well, I'm registered as a Libertarian, and I hate John Ashcroft more than anybody, but the only way I would ever vote for Kerry is if he foreswore the Democratic Party and everything they stand for. Both sides are loathesome, but the Republicans don't brag on how they are superior to everybody else because they "care." Condescention really pisses me off, so my vote will go to the religious fanatics instead.

[Squink]

See My misgivings (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/bb20040421.shtml) by Bruce Bartlett.

[Really Not All That Bright]

since the other candidate is a liberal Democrat.
John Kerry is a moderate Democrat.

Paul Wellstone was a liberal Democrat.

[flickster]

I suppose if W teabags Denny Hastert during a live press conference, I may have to stay home in November. Other than that, your question is misguided. It isn't so much, "What would W have to do to lose our vote?", as it is, "What would Kerry have to do to get our vote?"

GW Bush is not the perfect conservative Republican. That much is obvious. Kerry is not even close to being conservative nor Republican, which is even obvious-er. Logic dictates that off the two, a person interested in voting for a candidate that was at least a bit conservative and/or Republicanwould vote for GW, since the other candidate is a liberal Democrat.
Still trying to erase teabagging scene from my mind....

Otherwise Brutus, you are 100% correct.

Here's another hint for the dem's, the "I'm not Bush" campaign is not working. You will not turn the red states blue with that one.

[CoatOfArms]

See My misgivings (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/bb20040421.shtml) by Bruce Bartlett.
Consequently, alternate methods of communicating facts and views to him are shut down.
Like 3,000 Americans murdered on 9/11/01 didn't matter? :confused:

[flickster]

John Kerry is a moderate Democrat.

Paul Wellstone was a liberal Democrat.
Kerry is a moderate as compared to who?

IMHO, the Democratic party still hasn't recovered from the black eye they gave themselves following the Wellstone plane crash.

[PatriotX]

I suppose if W teabags Denny Hastert during a live press conference, I may have to stay home in November.


I know I'm growing more and more square with each passing year.
Would anyone be so kind as to explain "teabagging"?

[Astroboy14]

I know I'm growing more and more square with each passing year.
Would anyone be so kind as to explain "teabagging"?

I believe it refers to sqatting over someone and "dunking" one's testicles on to their face much in the same way you would dunk a teabag into a cup of hot water.

Regarding the OP: I'm still thinking about it...

[elucidator]

Just so I'm sure about this, this is a gesture of contempt and derision, yes? No perv undertones, or anything? This isn't what "In yer face!" means, is it?

And SimonX, you blossoming curmudgeon, its perfectly ok to get squarer every year, long as you start really hip.

[Abbie Carmichael]

I haven't always been happy with the way Bush has done things, and if another conservative Republican came along to challenge him, I'd give him some consideration. But John Kerry is not an option under any circumstances.

Exactly.

Hmm. If undeniable proof came out that Bush knew that 9/11 was going to happen, WANTED it to happen and is to this day glad it happened because he's a sick evil SOB who needed a disaster so he could be a cowboy try to save the day and get re-elected, that'd pretty much make me abstain from voting for him on election day. Or if he suddenly woke up one day and announced to the country that he thinks partial birth abortion is just peachy keen and he was wrong to sign the ban on it, that'd probably do it too. I'm sure there are other really bad things he could do to disenchant me, but none of them are likely to happen. For me it's not about voting Republican. I vote for Democrats all the time (albeit reluctantly). It's about voting for the guy who I think will do the best job of running the country and whose values most closely reflect my own. Sometimes that's a Republican, sometimes not.

There is nothing John Kerry could do to make me vote for him, though. I would vote for *gulp,sweat* Teddy Kennedy before I'd give Botox my vote. Yes, a Kennedy. I'd vote for a lying cheating bloated alcoholic smartass liberal Yankee over Kerry. That's how bad of a President I think Kerry would turn out to be. He lost me the second he declared that he'd spend his first 100 days of office flying around the world apologizing to the countries we've pissed off. I don't trust anyone who wants to make nicey nice with Kim Jong Il.

[Kimstu]

Bush is apparently losing some non-imperialist former supporters among Republicans primarily on the score of his expansionist foreign policy. There's an article about this in the American Prospect (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=7602):

Indeed, not only is the American right a house divided on Iraq but over the intensifying imperialist drift of U.S. foreign policy more broadly. A convergence of realists, libertarians, and traditionalists (or "paleocons") has taken shape in opposition to the neoconservative foreign-policy agenda. In October, they came together to form the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, which holds that "the move toward empire must be halted immediately." [...]

"Bush's advisers are nervous about these splits," [political scientist Kenneth Hoover] says, pointing to the administration's "go-for-broke strategy to get through as much of their agenda on taxes and deregulation in the first term as possible." He adds: "The cracks are beginning to show among conservative elites and the masses are getting restless, judging from the polls. ... One wonders how much faith the insiders really have in the re-electability of their leader."


(Oh by the way, I also think that the OP's insinuation that Republicans don't like "cultured and educated" candidates is indefensible. It's true that some conservatives (including the current President, IMHO) have sometimes pandered to anti-intellectual prejudices, but I think it's completely unjust to imply that Republicans in general fall for it.)

flickster replied to RNATB: "John Kerry is a moderate Democrat. Paul Wellstone was a liberal Democrat."

Kerry is a moderate as compared to who?

Um, isn't that the comparison you're looking for sitting right there in front of you, staring you in the face, if it was a snake it woulda bit you, etc.? Namely, Kerry is a moderate as compared to, e.g., the late Senator Paul Wellstone.

If you're trying to ask who among living Democratic politicians could be similarly compared to Kerry, I'd suggest liberals such as Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Barney Frank, and Dennis Kucinich.

[elucidator]

Oh, really? If it might well save several hundred thousand lives? And the man you trust more, the man you consider more responsible, he wouldn't either?

So when Mr. Musharaff gets gushing praise poured over his head, about how he's just the swellest ally a boy ever had, about two weeks after we find out his own personal Mr. Wizard has been conducting a nuclear Amway sale for years....

Compared to this, you find Kerry too willing to cut slack? Kerry too much the hypocrite being willing to cozy up to unsavory characters. That's Kerry you're talking about, right? Just to be sure.

[Kimstu]

AC: I don't trust anyone who wants to make nicey nice with Kim Jong Il.

Then I think it's kind of odd you're supporting Bush, considering that---despite his earlier hard-line "pygmy" and "axis of evil" rhetoric---his Administration has resumed negotiations with NK, and expects to continue them.

Mind you, I'm not faulting this reversal of policy; in fact, I think that negotiations and attempts at some level of diplomatic rapprochement with Kim Jong Il, despite the admitted loathsomeness of his regime, is one of the few things that Bush is currently doing right. But if you are as opposed as you say to any kind of "making nicey nice" with NK, I don't see why you'd support Bush in doing so.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Rashak: Try flipping it around. Let's say John Kerry were President, and the Republican nominee this year was the most conservative person in the Senate - say, Trent Lott or John Ashcroft. What would John Kerry have to do to get you to vote for John Ashcroft?

My guess - nothing short of eating babies.Do you imply that John Kerry is the most liberal member of the senate? I don't think you can relate Ashcroft and Kerry in terms of "how far out there" they are. It's not even a contest.

Of course, Bush isn't way out there either. He just tried (and was able) to con a majority of Americans into believing that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. He then started a war based on that and other erroneous assumptions. This presents thinking persons with a good reason not to re-elect.

Not all of us look at a half-full glass and assume that we're entitled to a full one, either. Another reason to vote out he that would protect the riches of the old-money at the expense of the middle-class.

[blowero]

Rashak: Try flipping it around. Let's say John Kerry were President, and the Republican nominee this year was the most conservative person in the Senate - say, Trent Lott or John Ashcroft. What would John Kerry have to do to get you to vote for John Ashcroft?

Let's see...if Kerry were to allow the worst terrorist attack on American soil to occur, then lie about the events leading up to it and what steps he took to prevent it, then go against the U.N. and the opinion of most of the world by attacking Iraq with a very flimsy justification which turns out to be pretty much bald-faced lies, have several of his staff resign and then severely criticize his abilities as president, then take away a good chunk of our civil rights under the guise of fighting terrorism, and do a piss-poor job with the economy...oh, and blur the seperation of church and state. Probably then.

[blowero]

That's how bad of a President I think Kerry would turn out to be. He lost me the second he declared that he'd spend his first 100 days of office flying around the world apologizing to the countries we've pissed off. I don't trust anyone who wants to make nicey nice with Kim Jong Il.
Cite?

[DKW]

You couldn't pay me to jump into this pool 'o sharks, so I'm going to offer a wise man's perspective on the subject: http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2004_03_03.html

As much as I agree with the contention that the Bush administration has been an wholesale disaster (and until I and others like me can get secure jobs, I am summarily discrediting any and all hogwash about how great the economy is), I'm not convinced that Kerry would be much better. He'd certainly be better...he'd almost have to be...but is that worth my vote?

Ironically enough, this is the exact situation I found myself in last election, where Bush was extremely dubious but Gore did nothing to impress. Not an easy choice then, either.

P.S. - You Republicans shouldn't be complaining, given how astonishingly conservative Great Debates is. Most of the Republican viewpoints I've seen expressed here would get ripped to shreds on any other board I go to.

[blowero]

I'm not convinced that Kerry would be much better. He'd certainly be better...he'd almost have to be...but is that worth my vote?

Um, yes? I don't understand. You think Kerry would be better, but you plan to vote for Bush?

[ambushed]

Well, I'm registered as a Libertarian, and I hate John Ash croft more than anybody, but the only way I would ever vote for Kerry is if he foreswore [sic] the Democratic Party and everything they stand for. Both sides are loathesome [sic], but the Republicans don't brag on how they are superior to everybody else because they "care." Condescention [sic] really pisses me off, so my vote will go to the religious fanatics instead.

Oh, right... Seeking some greater measure of justice and fairness and equality for every citizen is just so condescending! How dare they care about better lives for everyone! How could anyone bring themselves to vote for a party who advocates that?

No condescension here: people who care more about condescension than basic human rights and civil liberties are people we'd be better off without.

[ambushed]

That's how bad of a President I think Kerry would turn out to be. He lost me the second he declared that he'd spend his first 100 days of office flying around the world apologizing to the countries we've pissed off. I don't trust anyone who wants to make nicey nice with Kim Jong Il.

Cite?

[rjung]

I think the folks who are still planning to vote for Bush at this time are the folks who reason, "John Kerry must be a liberal, because if he wasn't, he wouldn't be a Democrat! Duh!" ;)

Well, maybe if I felt there was an alternative party out there that didn't treat people with contempt so much of the time, I might find some time to listen to what they have to say.
If you don't like politicians who treat people with contempt, why back Bush? He thinks we're dumb enough to believe "the terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedom." :rolleyes:

[Rashak Mani]

I'll defend my OP once more. I know "conservatives" don't like Kerry... and many don't like Bush either. I know that most would still vote party lines rather than go democratic... that is why I ask what it would take for these guys to quit on Bush.

Kerry is certainly lacking in excitment and rhetoric... I like him because his name doesn't include Bush first and foremost. I do feel the guy has good intentions and has a better shot at being a good president if his party doesn't muck about. Still he is not Bush.

I want to know the other side... what would Bush do that would make you say... "enough is enough" and switch sides ? Its easy for me to feel the callous Iraq quagmire is enough... but what about for these guys ? Taking Kerry out of the picture what would make or break Bush if the "truth" came out on a certain topic.

(I'm pretty sure if another good Republican came along to compete... he would certainly get better rating than Bush... but thats my opinion only.)

[PatriotX]

So when Mr. Musharaff gets gushing praise poured over his head, about how he's just the swellest ally a boy ever had, about two weeks after we find out his own personal Mr. Wizard has been conducting a nuclear Amway sale for years....


You know, of course, that we've known about Mr. Wizard's activities for years, not weeks.

[PatriotX]

What if you found out that Bush had trusted known felons, defrauders of Congress, terrorist fundraisers, and those who have illegally passed classified national security secrets to agents of foreign governments, with our national security and with access to classified national security information and gave them influence over our foreign policy?

Would all of these things unfortunate things taken together be enough to sway anyone?

[elucidator]

No, actually, I hadn't. By "we knew", do you mean that certain well-respected gentlemen with sufficient security clearance were entrusted with this knowledge? Or that it was common knowledge amongst we who are permitted our information a spoonful at a time? I note as well a deluge of "news" about the massive Pakistani effort to "get" ObL, such effort and sacrifice sadly unavailing.

Not that this is anything but sheer coincidence. And not to suggest that Mr. Musharaff is anything but the most egalitarian and democratic public servant to sieze power by military coup. Or anything.

[PatriotX]

What if one of the people appointed by GWB, despite the objections of the FBI and the NSA, tried to use their influence as a chairman of the PotUSA's defense advisory board to arrange for a front for China's military intelligence to buy the phone company that handles the Federal government's and the Army's phone lines?

Would anyone think that GWB's decision to continue trusting someone like this was a sign of poor judgement?
Would it be enough to keep you from voting for GWB?

[PatriotX]

No, actually, I hadn't. By "we knew", do you mean that certain well-respected gentlemen with sufficient security clearance were entrusted with this knowledge? Or that it was common knowledge amongst we who are permitted our information a spoonful at a time?


No, the IAEA was busting Pakistan on these sorts of things since 1998, IIRC.

Citations for the skeptical forthcoming.

[Fiddle Peghead]

Well, maybe if I felt there was an alternative party out there that didn't treat people with contempt so much of the time, I might find some time to listen to what they have to say.

Just for starters, does the Bush admin's refusal to come clean on the cost of the war, who's going to pay for it, how we can sustain such wars in the future with limited military personel without instituting a draft (would you seriously consider joing the Nat'l Guard at this point?), and its insistence that we can still afford a tax cut suggest, even for a moment, that they treat you with anything but contempt?

[Desmostylus]

Well, gee, SimonX, that's a bit unfair. They had their "hair on fire" trying to stop all of that stuff, doncha know?

[Fiddle Peghead]

Rashak: What would John Kerry have to do to get you to vote for John Ashcroft?

My guess - nothing short of eating babies.

Not that anyone needs me defending them, but let me get this straight: the OP asks a perfectly reasonable question (for instance, would a Watergate-type scandal do the trick?), and not only do you not answer it, you flip it around as you say, and make an abhorrent assumption about Rashak in the process.

Not too classy.

[PatriotX]

Here's a bit recorded in the Congressional record:

(Courtesy of FAS) (http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1998/h980506-pak.htm)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the members of this House, and of the American people, some recent, disturbing information about the continued role of Pakistan in the transfer and proliferation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

As if this recent disclosure about Pakistani nuclear missile technology with North Korea were not shocking enough, there are reports this week that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is investigating whether a leading Pakistani scientist offered Iraq plans for nuclear weapons. The information, first reported in Newsweek magazine, has been confirmed by the IAEA. According to the report, in October 1990, prior to the Persian Gulf War--but after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, while our troops were massing in Saudi Arabia under Operation Desert Shield--a memorandum from Iraq's intelligence service to its nuclear weapons directorate mentioned that Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist, offered help to Iraq to `manufacture a nuclear weapon,' according to Newsweek. The document was among those turned over by Iraq after the 1995 defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, who ran Iraq's secret weapons program.



There're, of course, more possible citations. I hope that this one is sufficient for now.

[ElvisL1ves]

I'm not convinced that Kerry would be much better. He'd certainly be better...he'd almost have to be...but is that worth my vote?
Um, how could it not be? What reason can you offer for voting for the guy you consider worse over the one you consider better?

P.S. - You Republicans shouldn't be complaining, given how astonishingly conservative Great Debates is. Most of the Republican viewpoints I've seen expressed here would get ripped to shreds on any other board I go to.Okay, got it. That was a whoosh.

[elucidator]

I believe, according the SDMB Protocols, that the 35 megaton thermonuclear whoosh is proscribed, as a protective provision for the irony-impaired.

(Aside to SimonX: OK, OK, I get it: you knew and I didn't. Fine! smartass...)

[ElvisL1ves]

I haven't had my coffee yet, dammit. Lea'me 'lone.

[PatriotX]

Not liking Kerry is understandable... he has culture and education...


This is a pointless, superfluous, cheap shot.

[Squink]

Sanctions lifted as US rewards Pakistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,2763,556924,00.html) (9/24/01)Pakistan welcomed a decision yesterday by the United States to lift economic sanctions imposed in 1998 as a punishment for the country's ambitious nuclear programme.

[Sam Stone]

Not that anyone needs me defending them, but let me get this straight: the OP asks a perfectly reasonable question (for instance, would a Watergate-type scandal do the trick?), and not only do you not answer it, you flip it around as you say, and make an abhorrent assumption about Rashak in the process.

Not too classy.

Huh? I wasn't taking a shot at Rashak. I was using hyperbole to make a point.

Let me re-state it more clearly:

When one person in an election hold opinions that are completely in opposition to what you believe in (i.e. you're a liberal and the challenger is an extreme conservative, or you're a conservative and the challenger is an extreme liberal), then 'your' guy has to be insanely bad before you'll vote against your own principles.

If this election were between Bush and, say, Evan Bayh or even Joe Lieberman, you'd see a lot more Republicans jumping the fence. But John Kerry is out there. It's going to be very hard for him to pick up disaffected conservatives, just as it would be harder for Trent Lott to pick up disaffected Liberals.

[PatriotX]

I believe, according the SDMB Protocols, that the 35 megaton thermonuclear whoosh is proscribed, as a protective provision for the irony-impaired.

(Aside to SimonX: OK, OK, I get it: you knew and I didn't. Fine! smartass...)

Just because you might believe me doesn't mean that there'dn't be others who rather dispute the possibility that we're actively cooperating with a country that has proliferated nuclear technologies to regimes we've determined to be threats to regional stability, has military and intelligence communities with sympathies for both the Taleban and al Qaeda, (IIRC, the current "useless" 9-11 commision discovered that Pakistan's General Hamid Gul thwarted Clinton's attempt at assassinations by missile by "leaking" a timely warning.), and is somewhat democratically challenged.


Hamid Gul is a retired general, (and former intel chief (http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/DC12Df01.html)), who is a "strategic adviser" to the political party in control of half of Pakistan's provinces through US backed free elections. Here's a choice quote:

"we have the nuclear capability that can destroy Madras (India), surely the same missile can do the same to Tel Aviv. Washington cannot stop Muslim suicidal attacks. Taliban are still alive and along with "friends" they will continue the holy jihad against the U.S. America will destroy Iraq and later on repeat the same act of war against Pakistan, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia."


We really need to take a look at some of our strange bed fellows in the War on Terror. Hindsight shows that we've had some clearly questionable judgement in the Cold War when we sided with certain other questionable regimes.
There needs to be a serious assessment on the part of the American electorate of current foreign policy with this in mind, IMHO. YMMV.

[Rashak Mani]

Huh? I wasn't taking a shot at Rashak. I was using hyperbole to make a point.

When one person in an election hold opinions that are completely in opposition to what you believe in (i.e. you're a liberal and the challenger is an extreme conservative, or you're a conservative and the challenger is an extreme liberal), then 'your' guy has to be insanely bad before you'll vote against your own principles.

No offense taken... I understood your example and it was correct. Your quote is precisly the point I want to get too. Kerry aside... does it really take something "insanely bad" for conservative people to give up on Bush ? Naturally most "liberals" think Bush has messed up Iraq and diplomacy too much... how much shit will others take before quitting ?

[PatriotX]

I suppose if W teabags Denny Hastert during a live press conference, I may have to stay home in November.

Am I the only struck by the tone of uncertainty here?



If undeniable proof came out that Bush knew that 9/11 was going to happen, WANTED it to happen and is to this day glad it happened because he's a sick evil SOB who needed a disaster so he could be a cowboy try to save the day and get re-elected, that'd pretty much make me abstain from voting for him on election day.


And the bountiful use of qualifiers?
And wouldn't ya think it'd incite more than an abstention?









Just joking, just joking. I know that these're literary devices of some sorts. I just found the literal phrasing, rather than the implied meaning kind of humorous

[elucidator]

Well, yeah, you gotta strike while the irony is hot.

[rjung]

To inject a little levity into the thread, here's a site that's worth a quick visit:

John Kerry Is a Douche Bag But I'm Voting For Him Anyway (http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/)

A little thin on the content so far, but you gotta love that URL...

[jshore]

If this election were between Bush and, say, Evan Bayh or even Joe Lieberman, you'd see a lot more Republicans jumping the fence. But John Kerry is out there. It's going to be very hard for him to pick up disaffected conservatives, just as it would be harder for Trent Lott to pick up disaffected Liberals.

While I understand why conservatives would want to support a more conservative candidate, I have trouble with the idea that John Kerry is the equivalent on the left to Trent Lott. I think this claim that Kerry is so far left (let alone as obnoxious as Lott) has developed simply because he is the presumptive nominee. Let's face it, when Dean was the presumptive nominee, he was being labeled as extreme. Bush labeled Gore as a tax-and-spend liberal in 2000. And, my guess is that even if Bayh or Lieberman were the presumptive nominees, they would pretty much be being labeled that way. (E.g., they would probably trot out Lieberman's high rating (http://www.capwiz.com/lcv/bio/keyvotes/?id=688&congress=1082&lvl=C) from League of Conservation Voters to label him an environmental extremist. [Note that his rating this year is artificially low only because he missed a lot of votes on the campaign trail and they count not voting as voting against their position; all the votes he actually cast were in LCV's favor.])

And, of course, we have no evidence in modern times that even if a Presidential candidate is quite liberal that he would be able to govern as anything left of a moderate. These scare-tactics regarding Kerry being extremely liberal are mainly B.S.

[jshore]

Let's face it, when Dean was the presumptive nominee, ...

I guess I really meant "front runner". I think it is too strong to say he was ever the presumptive nominee.

[silenus]

Oh, right... Seeking some greater measure of justice and fairness and equality for every citizen is just so condescending! How dare they care about better lives for everyone! How could anyone bring themselves to vote for a party who advocates that?

No condescension here: people who care more about condescension than basic human rights and civil liberties are people we'd be better off without.


Thank you for proving my point. Placing [sic] after my typos makes you so much better a person! As long as people like you vote Democrat, I will vote something else.

[CoatOfArms]

Wisconsin ... just in ... Bush 47% , Kerry 41%. Maybe a landslide with Bush winning 47 states is too pessimistic, now probably a 48 state landslide!

[John Mace]

And, of course, we have no evidence in modern times that even if a Presidential candidate is quite liberal that he would be able to govern as anything left of a moderate.

Since the OP is asking "what will it take...", I believe it is unreasonable to expect conservative voters to say: "That Kerry sure is liberal, but heck, he can't govern as a liberal, so I'll vote for him". In the context of this thread, your statement really doesn't hold water.

These scare-tactics regarding Kerry being extremely liberal are mainly B.S.

The only way to objectively determine that is to look at how he is rated, and he consistently gets rated as one of the more liberal Senators by every group I've seen so far. Do you have some data from a respected politcal analysis group that rates Kerry as a moderate? If so, let's see it.

[Susanann]

I'll defend my OP once more. I know "conservatives" don't like Kerry... and many don't like Bush either. I know that most would still vote party lines rather than go democratic... that is why I ask what it would take for these guys to quit on Bush.
)

Im a conservative who would rather have a republican congress wno will stop Kerry from spending too much, stop kerry from engaging in needless foreign wars, etc, instead of a republican congress who rubber stamps every misadventure by the liberal bush.

[Fiddle Peghead]

Huh? I wasn't taking a shot at Rashak. I was using hyperbole to make a point.



Although I do understand the idea of exaggerating to make a point, I seem to have missed altogether the rest of the thrust of your post. This only goes to show that not only does no one need me to defend them, I'm also obviously not the person that should be called upon to take another poster to task. :)

My apologies.

[elucidator]

Since the OP is asking "what will it take...", I believe it is unreasonable to expect conservative voters to say: "That Kerry sure is liberal, but heck, he can't govern as a liberal, so I'll vote for him"....

I can relate, to a certain degree. In the 2000 election, I saw a center-right against a center-left. As you may already know, my politics are on the conservative wing of the extreme left. So I preferred the lefty guy, but wasn't much excited, being excited about Gore would be like having an orgasm about cottage cheese.

But Bush fooled me as well. I took the stance you illumine, that he wasn't that radical, and the Congresss could keep in check.

But the Bushiviks managed to convince themselves that they won the election, hands down, mandate city. I think if Gore had "won", he might have been more conciliartory, he would have said something like "This election reveals our polarity, I will govern with an eye towards the middle. I recognize that I cannot honestly put forth an agenda of change without a mandate for change."

Did you hear GeeDubya make any such speech?

From the git-go, he has presided as though he won in a landslide. Further, I get the impression that he believes it, as though the vote count were a technicality that can be overlooked. (Or maybe, the outpouring of emotion aftert 9/11 was like a "second election", that annointed him). In GeeDubya we have a decisive leader who does not suffer doubt.

That is precisely the problem.

[Sam Stone]

No sweat.

I think there are other reasons why Kerry is not liked on the right, other than how he might vote the issues. Some of those reasons are:

1) Many conservatives remember the Vietnam war, and remember the outrage they felt when people like Fonda and Kerry were calling the soldiers war criminals and baby killers. There is still a ton of resentment towards this attitude, and Kerry didn't help dispel it on Meet the Press last week when he tried to straddle the issue.

2) The same people are offended that the guy who once portrayed the military as a bunch of scumbags is now heavily playing on his military career as a sign of great character.

2a) Speaking of which... He would help himself a lot if he would stop working Vietnam anecdotes into every freaking thing he says. We get it - you were in Vietnam. You did a good job. Way to go. Now shut up about it. It's now at the point of self-parody.

3) The charge that Kerry is a waffler is sticking. In tough times, Americans don't want a president who holds his finger up to the wind before he can make a decision. Kerry strikes me as someone who is indecisive - and that's not a good quality in a wartime President.

4) You know how George Bush does things that you think are signs of bad character or stupidity, and you wonder why those on the right don't see them? Same thing applies here. Let me give you an example: When John Kerry went skiing, he refused to allow the cameras to follow him down the course the first time. When someone asked him if he was afraid of being photographed falling down, he replied snottily, "I NEVER fall down." So then, on his second run (with cameras rolling) he ran into a secret service agent and fell down. His response? He got up and pointed at the agent and said, "That son of a bitch cut in front of me." Now, this offends conservatives in many ways. First, it's a sign that he won't take responsibilty for his own actions. Second, he publically trashed a secret service agent who was doing his job, just so he could save face. Third, he felt the need to prop up his skiing ability in the first place. I've known guys like this, and I've never liked them. I also don't trust them.

This may be a trivial thing, but so is, say, Bush cleaning his glasses on the coattail of Letterman's producer. But when you already dislike the guy, these episodes stand out. Remember how offended some of you were at that?

5) Kerry refuses to accept responsibility for his actions. For example, yesterday he was asked if he owned an SUV. His response? "No, I don't. My family owns one." His 'family' being he and his wife. Again, it seems like a small thing, but for people who a predisposed to disliking the man, little episodes like this push them farther away. Come on, Kerry! You own a damned SUV. Admit it. If you're too afraid of your 'base' to come clean on driving an SUV, that doesn't say much about how you'll handle tough decisions when you've got France and Russia threatening you with diplomatic problems unless you toe the line, and people marching in front of the White House.

None of these are hugely important in and of themselves, but they help to paint a picture, and in the mind of someone already predisposed to disliking the man, it's not helping.

All of this would be moot if Kerry had some serious proposals we could discuss. But he doesn't. The sum total of his Iraq plan, for instance, is "I'd get the U.N. more involved." That is not a serious plan, and even if that were a useful idea, that's still pretty thin. What are Kerry's opinions on how to quell the violence? What are his opinions on controlling importing of terrorists from Iran and Syria? What are his positions on Libya? Or Iran? Or Pakistan? Who knows?

On the war on terror, all he's said is that it's primarily a law-enforcement problem - which is horribly naive in my opinion and would represent a disastrous roll-back to the Clinton anti-terror policy. What is Kerry's policy on Guantanamo bay? (His wife has a position - she thinks they should be turned into prisoners of war and accorded all the rights of the Geneva Convention. Kerry's reponse is typically vague. He mumbled something about how they are 'combatants', which seems to be Bush's position, and that they should be locked up as long as the U.S. is at war with al-Qaida (how do you tell when it's over?)) How about the military incursions into Syria?

On economics and government policy, Kerry totally fails. He policy plans are a mixture of old-style industrial policy, more progressive taxation, and government 'job creation'. His spending plans and supposed fiscal conservatism don't add up. He wants to create myriad new tax loopholes to 'push' business in directions HE thinks are good. But of course, the other tax loopholes that are already there (put in place by politicians like him for similar reasons) are "corporate welfare" and must be eliminated. The man is an economic illiterate.

So, getting back to the OP - what would it take to give up on Bush? If I were an American and voting, it would take a Democrat with a strong record on defense, and a moderate-to-conservative background on economic issues. Liberal on social issues is fine. If 'Scoop' Jackson were alive and running, he'd get my vote. If Zell Miller or John Breaux were running, they might get it too. If the Libertarians would get their heads out of their asses on the war on terror, I've vote for them in a heartbeat.

But given that the choice is Kerry, Bush would have have to do something incredibly egregious. Nothing he's done so far qualifies. In fact, the things most of you are so outraged about (Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, Iraq) I agree with, and I don't think he lied about. I'm mad at him for his pushing his religious views into government policy (stem cell compromises, etc), and for his gross overspending on domestic issues. I don't see a Democrat being any better on these issues, and substantially worse for security and defense.

[kanicbird]

Dear anti american:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear SMDB Bush Republicans,

After a few books proven to be false, some commissions that are biased and treasonist, monster deficit caused by the former admin, when the Clinton buble burst, and also extended by te attacks on DC and NYC, Haliburton the ONLY company who can do the job required, excpet maybe one French company, but they were in bed w/ the terrorists, the ongoing Iraq quagmire and no post war plans[/quote[ in NO WAY is this a quagmire, we are on our way to a victory, There is simply NO compairson to Vietiam, this shows your bias or you drinking the liberals koolaid.[quote]... Bush still enjoys the support of Red America you forgot white and blue, the true Reds are the opposit side. What would it take for you guys to give up on Bush ? I don't know, he has done many thing I like, He lowered my taxes 1000's of dollars (confirmed), and has actually done somethign about he attacks on our cuntrry, got our country out of a deap rescession caused by the Clinton Admin, he is a leader not a poll watcher, and to top it all off he elimitated telemarketers and spam. I guess if he tryed t appoint himself king or run for a 3rd term I would oppose him, but there is no evidence of that. Also I would vote for John F Kennedy um I mean John F*$%en Kerry if it garenteed Hillary would not be elected again I would imagine anyone would have started to have doubts about Bush as president from so much flak the guy is taking. What flak, Iraq is free, my taxes are lower (did I mention it's comfiremd), the Clinton recession is finally corrected, Spam is on it's way out and we have a national do not call list. You must be getting your news from a biased souce.

So what would it take ? Confirmation of "no post war plans" No? Rummy admiting Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism ? Any thinging man who ever played any RTS game knows that the defeat of Iraq was a defeat of terrorism, also any feeling person is happy to get the bastart SH out of power. Another 9-11 ? We have one each and every year, if you mean another attack against our country then that would re-affirm my vote for W A sex scandal ? Would be somewhat suprised, but wouldn't detue my vote. Losing your job ? No

Not liking Kerry is understandable... he has culture and education... but supporting Bush no matter what isn't. So tell us what it would take to quit on Dubya ?

Kerry is no leader, he is a flip-flop. He tells members of the UAW how many American made SUV's he has, while telling people during Earth Day that he does nto own a SUV (His family does however :rolleyes: ). This is just one of many exapmles, he will say anything to get elected. He is BAD for our country and bad for the middle class.

To be honest it's a no-brainer W in 2004

[Snag]

Both sides are loathesome, but the Republicans don't brag on how they are superior to everybody else because they "care." Condescention really pisses me off, so my vote will go to the religious fanatics instead.

Uh...didn't GWB campaign on a platform for the 2000 elections that he was a "compassionate conservative"? Have you stopped to consider that this is an admission by GWB whereby he admits that conservatives are not perceived by the public at large to be as "caring"? Why else would he have brought it up? How is it condescending when others place the label on you?

And let's see, religious fanatics tend not to be condescending?? That's not even worthy of a response other than :rolleyes:.

[PatriotX]

If you were a little more correct, you'd be wrong. As it is, though, you're not even wrong.

Dear anti american:
proven to be false that are biased and treasonist caused by the former admin, when the Clinton buble burst, and also extended by te attacks on DC and NYC the ONLY company who can do the job required, excpet maybe one French company, but they were in bed w/ the terrorists[quote], the ongoing Iraq quagmire and no post war plans[/quote[ in NO WAY is this a quagmire, we are on our way to a victory, There is simply NO compairson to Vietiam, this shows your bias or you drinking the liberals koolaid. you forgot white and blue, the true Reds are the opposit side I don't know, he has done many thing I like, He lowered my taxes 1000's of dollars (confirmed), and has actually done somethign about he attacks on our cuntrry, got our country out of a deap rescession caused by the Clinton Admin, he is a leader not a poll watcher, and to top it all off he elimitated telemarketers and spam. I guess if he tryed t appoint himself king or run for a 3rd term I would oppose him, but there is no evidence of that. Also I would vote for John F Kennedy um I mean John F*$%en Kerry if it garenteed Hillary would not be elected again What flak, Iraq is free, my taxes are lower (did I mention it's comfiremd), the Clinton recession is finally corrected, Spam is on it's way out and we have a national do not call list. You must be getting your news from a biased souce.

No Any thinging man who ever played any RTS game knows that the defeat of Iraq was a defeat of terrorism, also any feeling person is happy to get the bastart SH out of power. We have one each and every year, if you mean another attack against our country then that would re-affirm my vote for W Would be somewhat suprised, but wouldn't detue my vote. No



Kerry is no leader, he is a flip-flop. He tells members of the UAW how many American made SUV's he has, while telling people during Earth Day that he does nto own a SUV (His family does however :rolleyes: ). This is just one of many exapmles, he will say anything to get elected. He is BAD for our country and bad for the middle class.

To be honest it's a no-brainer W in 2004

Is there a point to asking for citations for any of these?

I'm particularly surpirsed to learn the GWB eliminated spam.

[PatriotX]

Damn liberal conspiracy thwarted my coding

[annaplurabelle]

1) Many conservatives remember the Vietnam war, and remember the outrage they felt when people like Fonda and Kerry were calling the soldiers war criminals and baby killers. There is still a ton of resentment towards this attitude, and Kerry didn't help dispel it on Meet the Press last week when he tried to straddle the issue.I think you know this is bullshit. It's a documented fact that war crimes were committed, and the point Kerry was making was not meant to denigrate the soldiers themselves - he was critisising the leadership that encouraged those actions - he's made that clear, then and now. I know you're not that stupid, so it's obvious you're just into continuing the smear.2) The same people are offended that the guy who once portrayed the military as a bunch of scumbags is now heavily playing on his military career as a sign of great character.

2a) Speaking of which... He would help himself a lot if he would stop working Vietnam anecdotes into every freaking thing he says. We get it - you were in Vietnam. You did a good job. Way to go. Now shut up about it. It's now at the point of self-parody.Be honest - it rankles you that a Democrat has the advantage in this particular race when it comes to personal military experience - nothing more to say here, unless you're willing to admit that it says quite a bit about character (or lack of, when you compare it to G. Bush's record).3) The charge that Kerry is a waffler is sticking. In tough times, Americans don't want a president who holds his finger up to the wind before he can make a decision. Kerry strikes me as someone who is indecisive - and that's not a good quality in a wartime President.I'll note you say "sticking" rather than "accurate". This impression (and the kind of bullshit that follows) is really all you've got to smear him with, and the impression itself doesn't hold up when you compare it to the "waffles" that can be dug up re George Bush. Anyway, are you really trying to argue that you'd prefer a leader who refuses to change his mind/rethink his position when changing facts/reality dictate otherwise???4) You know how George Bush does things that you think are signs of bad character or stupidity, and you wonder why those on the right don't see them? Same thing applies here. Let me give you an example: When John Kerry went skiing, he refused to allow the cameras to follow him down the course the first time. When someone asked him if he was afraid of being photographed falling down, he replied snottily, "I NEVER fall down." So then, on his second run (with cameras rolling) he ran into a secret service agent and fell down. His response? He got up and pointed at the agent and said, "That son of a bitch cut in front of me." Now, this offends conservatives in many ways. First, it's a sign that he won't take responsibilty for his own actions. Second, he publically trashed a secret service agent who was doing his job, just so he could save face. Third, he felt the need to prop up his skiing ability in the first place. I've known guys like this, and I've never liked them. I also don't trust them.Is that your best shot? An indication of your desperation to smear (and perhaps some personal bias). The secret service agent was "doing his job" by cutting into and knocking down someone he was hired to protect??? Calling him an SOB is so far-fetched??? Is Kerry an egotistical, competitive alpha-male? Probably. Are you, Sam? Your posting style and standing here highly suggest that you are. I don't wonder that the behavioural similarity might aggravate you, coming from an ideological competitor. ;)

[annaplurabelle]

To be honest it's a no-brainer W in 2004This I agree with - people with no brains will vote for W in 2004. :)

[Brutus]

I am unable to recall the liberal masses throwing their support behind Bob Dole, a decorated combat vet, when he was running against Bill Clinton. Hmmm.

[Sam Stone]

This was not intended to be my 'best shot'. I was pointing out the SMALL things he does that piss off the people you want to cross over the aisle. Just like Bush's cleaning his glasses on Letterman's producer's coat is a small thing, but when you're predisposed to disliking someone, stuff like this sticks in your memory.


I think you know this is bullshit. It's a documented fact that war crimes were committed, and the point Kerry was making was not meant to denigrate the soldiers themselves - he was critisising the leadership that encouraged those actions - he's made that clear, then and now. I know you're not that stupid, so it's obvious you're just into continuing the smear.


Kerry smeared the entire institution, including the men slogging it out in the rice paddies. He said that they committed atrocities, with the full knowledge and encouragement of their superiors. He implied that it was a systemic problem throughout the military culture, and this is total bullshit. Many of the 'atrocities' that he said were 'documented' have turned out to be made up by the anti-war movement of the time. Of the few atrocities that did occur, like Mai-Lai, occured without the knowledge or approval of the chain of command beyond Calley (who was charged for his crimes).

In any war you'll get occasional atrocities by individuals who lose their cool, or who are just assholes. A measure of the quality and morality of the military is how it responds to these acts. Kerry basically claimed that atrocities were standard operating procedure widespread, and carried out with the full knowledge and tacit approval of superior officers up and down the line. This is simply not true.

[PatriotX]

What if you found out that Bush had trusted known felons, defrauders of Congress, terrorist fundraisers, and those who have illegally passed classified national security secrets to agents of foreign governments, with our national security and with access to classified national security information and gave them influence over our foreign policy?

What if one of the people appointed by GWB tried to use their influence as a chairman of the PotUSA's defense advisory board to arrange for a front for China's military intelligence to buy the phone company that handles the Federal government's and the Army's phone lines despite the objections of the FBI and the NSA?

Would anyone think that GWB's decision to continue trusting people like this was a sign of poor judgement?
Would you believe him if he said he wasn't aware of these histories?

Would all of these things unfortunate things taken together be enough to dissuade anyone from voting for GWB?

[Sample_the_Dog]

I admit, I haven't read all the posts. Got tired of the back and forth, and besides, the OP asks for each one's opinion, so here goes.

I withdraw my support for Bush (yes, I supported him, naturally) despite my serious objections against Kerry, on the following grounds:

Many coworkers and friends see Bush as a return to morality after Clinton. This is a fantasy. At least Clinton isn't pretending to have done his military service.

GWB surrounds himself with "true believers". When he allowed Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to hang Shinseki out to dry for giving honest testimony regarding necessary troop strength... that's when I began to reconsider my position. The term "chickenhawk" stings because it's accurate. Like Bartlett (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/bb20040421.shtml), I'm concerned by the revelations in the Suskind/O'Neill book which demonstrate that GWB from the beginning was more interested in redeeming his father's apparent (not actual, I believe) failures re Iraq and taxes than in responding responsibly to the real situation on the ground, both at home and abroad. It may be argued that his reversal on CO2 was justified, but he allowed Whitman to take the fall, and continued to press the notion that he was immune to reversal. This type of thinking is dangerous in a world leader.

Similarly, he pushes the simplistic "for me or against me" rhetoric, while turning a blind eye to Pakistan and giving the wink to Saudi Arabia. Clearly, the Saudi situation is delicate, as is Pakistan, and I would not want to approach it in a for-or-against manner, but his rhetoric is condescending, insulting, and transparently false in the face of the actual situation.

He treats American citizens like whores. The letter I received with my tax refund check was self-serving drivel.

The real break, however, came during the recent Rice testimony debacle. Until then, I was still ready to support W despite my very serious misgivings. But then he lied with a straight face to the American public, to me, saying that Rice could not testify before a Congressional body. He knows it's not a Congressional body, but he also knows that most people will assume it is. When I heard that, I had the same reaction as when Clinton's "I want you to listen to me... I never had sex with that woman" speech was shown for what it was. Only this time, it was my man who was lying to my face, and snickering to boot. That was the final straw.

The man is not a statesman. He is not particularly intelligent. He certainly is not well spoken. Yes, I believe all of these traits are vital in a President. But most importantly, I do not trust him to make informed, balanced decisions. I'm willing to risk a change. I will not vote for the frat-boy-in-chief with his "y'see" mannerisms and blindness to political pragmatism. He is not a true conservative, certainly not fiscally, nor Constitutionally, and he has not earned my respect or my vote -- and I am not prepared to grant it to him simply because I support the GOP. In fact, my party owes me better, and the leadership needs to understand that. I'm willing to bear a short-term loss if it will improve high-level decision making in the long run.

I'm certainly not saying that I wish I'd voted for Al Gore. But GWB has betrayed his father's legacy and my trust. The Party will have to do without me this year.

[annaplurabelle]

Kerry smeared the entire institution, including the men slogging it out in the rice paddies. He said that they committed atrocities, with the full knowledge and encouragement of their superiors. He implied that it was a systemic problem throughout the military culture, and this is total bullshit. Many of the 'atrocities' that he said were 'documented' have turned out to be made up by the anti-war movement of the time. Of the few atrocities that did occur, like Mai-Lai, occured without the knowledge or approval of the chain of command beyond Calley (who was charged for his crimes).

In any war you'll get occasional atrocities by individuals who lose their cool, or who are just assholes. A measure of the quality and morality of the military is how it responds to these acts. Kerry basically claimed that atrocities were standard operating procedure widespread, and carried out with the full knowledge and tacit approval of superior officers up and down the line. This is simply not true.Sam, I must disagree, and there are documented facts (not "made up") that back me up. It wasn't just Mai-Lai, and the definition of "few" and "occasional" is debatable in this instance. I don't want to hijack this thread with this subject, but the broader point that Kerry was trying to make (then and now) is still pertinant. And has nothing to do with denigrating the troops. I still call total bullshit on that point. What you termed "straddle the issue on MTP" was his way of dealing with the debatable issues about war crimes that are still unanswered re Vietnam. Don't take advantage of a complex issue by feigning ignorance, okay?

BTW, there's no accounting for the "small stuff" that makes someone like/dislike a candidate. I don't think that was the issue here, so I questioned your inclusion of it as a salient point.

Simon X: From the recent polls, it seems most people are aware (however dimly) that G. Bush and co. engaged in dubious actions. Unfortunately, none of them involved anything as "interesting" as a "blow job" or "pussy". So of course it isn't outrageous or actionable. Sad but true... unless you've got a better explanation....

[jshore]

3) The charge that Kerry is a waffler is sticking. In tough times, Americans don't want a president who holds his finger up to the wind before he can make a decision. Kerry strikes me as someone who is indecisive - and that's not a good quality in a wartime President.

Well, if I had $200 million, raised primarily from wealthy donors, I would probably be able to make some charges stick on people too. Nobody claimed the Republican smear machine was ineffective (nor that Kerry is not a politician, as Bush is too, and thus tries to appeal to people by tailoring what he says to his audience).

More to the point on the waffler stuff, here (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040315&c=2&s=corn) is an article from The Nation I linked to before that documents times when Kerry took some tough stands or ran tough investigation...including ones that pissed off the Democratic establishment. Of course, I know you will think The Nation is a biased source but the question is whether the facts in this article are wrong. (At any rate, your posts on Kerry seem to pretty much tow the RNC line without actually citing them, although I dug up one of the cites one time for all to see where the stuff was at least indirectly coming from.)

As for what the American people want, I would hope that they also don't want a President who puts ideology ahead of facts, distorts or cherry-picks scientific and intelligence information to suit his purposes (e.g, Iraq or here (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1322)), and who comes up with his positions first (e.g., his tax cuts or invasion of Iraq) and the rationalizations to sell them second.

[jshore]

Kerry smeared the entire institution, including the men slogging it out in the rice paddies. He said that they committed atrocities, with the full knowledge and encouragement of their superiors. He implied that it was a systemic problem throughout the military culture, and this is total bullshit. Many of the 'atrocities' that he said were 'documented' have turned out to be made up by the anti-war movement of the time. Of the few atrocities that did occur, like Mai-Lai, occured without the knowledge or approval of the chain of command beyond Calley (who was charged for his crimes).

In any war you'll get occasional atrocities by individuals who lose their cool, or who are just assholes. A measure of the quality and morality of the military is how it responds to these acts. Kerry basically claimed that atrocities were standard operating procedure widespread, and carried out with the full knowledge and tacit approval of superior officers up and down the line. This is simply not true.

Do you have cites to support your view? Here (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2004/investigative-reporting/) is a link to the 2004 Pulitzer Prize award for articles documenting some atrocities in Vietnam, with links to the actual articles. I admit that I haven't actually read the articles so I don't know if they claim it was a systemic problem or isolated incidents.

[elfkin477]

If I found out that Bush ate babies, I'd definitely not vote for him. I'd write in for Space Ghost or maybe Nadar (they have similar chances of winning) but I still wouldn't vote for Kerry. The only thing that would make me vote for Kerry was if I was given the following choice:

a. have a loved one murdered because of my refusal

or

b. vote for Kerry

There is nothing Kerry could do to earn my vote. Even if he started performing miracles, I'd be more inclined to study the book of revelations very carefully...

[Binarydrone]

What if you found out that Bush had trusted known felons, defrauders of Congress, terrorist fundraisers, and those who have illegally passed classified national security secrets to agents of foreign governments, with our national security and with access to classified national security information and gave them influence over our foreign policy?

What if one of the people appointed by GWB tried to use their influence as a chairman of the PotUSA's defense advisory board to arrange for a front for China's military intelligence to buy the phone company that handles the Federal government's and the Army's phone lines despite the objections of the FBI and the NSA?

Would anyone think that GWB's decision to continue trusting people like this was a sign of poor judgement?
Would you believe him if he said he wasn't aware of these histories?

Would all of these things unfortunate things taken together be enough to dissuade anyone from voting for GWB?
OK, I will take the bait. Are these things that actually happened, and if so can I please (without dropping the Cite? Bomb™) get a link or two?

[Sam Stone]

I said that atrocities were committed in Vietnam. They were committed in WWII as well. And probably every other war any country has fought. It is a difficult thing to put young men in positions of responsibility, give them weapons, put them under great stress, and then have them face people who are trying to kill them. Stuff happens.

No one would argue that Vietnam was atrocity-free. Kerry went farther than that, though. He claimed it was institutional - that it was formal policy of the United States.

From his 1971 testimony:


There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.


The reason he can say that 'atrocities' were official policy is because he's using an awfully broad definition of 'atrocity'. Interdiction fire? Using 50 caliber machine guns is an 'atrocity'? Shooting in free-fire zones? He claims that these are contrary to the laws of warfare and the Geneva convention. They are not.

Then he goes further and says that anyone who signed off on 'air raid strike areas' is no less a war criminal than William Calley. You don't think this is just a tad over the top?

By Kerry's definition, half the soldiers in Iraq are war criminals. Free Fire zones? Check. Air raids? Check. Using .50 cal guns against people? Check. Interdiction fire? Check.

This was Kerry's problem. By calling these acts 'atrocities and war crimes', he was basically saying that simply being a soldier in a war is an atrocity, because these are standard tools of warfare.

[Sam Stone]

Kerry also said during that testimony that the U.S. war plan was 'tantamount to genocide', a totally outrageous charge. This one at least he retracted on 'Meet The Press' last week. He chalked it up to the heated rhetoric of youth. That's fine, and it's a good thing that he retracted that, but I hope you can understand the outrage that many Vietnam vets and other war supporters felt when Kerry threw those charges around in the 1970's.

[annaplurabelle]

I said that atrocities were committed in Vietnam.And I said it was debatable, as to the extent of said atrocities no?Kerry went farther than that, though. He claimed it was institutional - that it was formal policy of the United States.By his definition then, they were institutional (and in the MTP interview, he tried to modify his terminology, out of respect for the soldiers). I'd say whether or not they were institutional is also still debatable, and worthy of a separate thread.

But as it applies to Kerry as a presidential candidate now, what is your point? Do you really not understand his frame of mind/stance, then or now?Kerry also said during that testimony that the U.S. war plan was 'tantamount to genocide', a totally outrageous charge. This one at least he retracted on 'Meet The Press' last week. He chalked it up to the heated rhetoric of youth. That's fine, and it's a good thing that he retracted that, but I hope you can understand the outrage that many Vietnam vets and other war supporters felt when Kerry threw those charges around in the 1970's.FWIW, I'm a Vietnam War baby. I lost an Uncle there. And I wasn't even born in the USA. So I think I do understand the emotions involved. I'd like to clarify why you think any of this is a detriment to Kerry's viability as C-in-C.

[samclem]

I'd like to clarify why you think any of this is a detriment to Kerry's viability as C-in-C.
Because he's a Democrat. :(

[annaplurabelle]

Forgot this:By Kerry's definition, half the soldiers in Iraq are war criminals. Free Fire zones? Check. Air raids? Check. Using .50 cal guns against people? Check. Interdiction fire? Check.I agree. And you don't think this a problem? You don't want a president who will recognise this as a problem???

[jshore]

I said that atrocities were committed in Vietnam. They were committed in WWII as well. And probably every other war any country has fought. It is a difficult thing to put young men in positions of responsibility, give them weapons, put them under great stress, and then have them face people who are trying to kill them. Stuff happens.

No one would argue that Vietnam was atrocity-free.

Clearly, this is a topic for another thread. But, here (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2004/investigative-reporting/works/introduction.html) is a the summary of the Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative report:


It was an elite fighting unit in Vietnam - small, mobile, trained to kill.

Known as Tiger Force, the platoon was created by a U.S. Army engaged in a new kind of war - one defined by ambushes, booby traps, and a nearly invisible enemy.

Promising victory to an anxious American public, military leaders in 1967 sent a task force - including Tiger Force - to fight the enemy in one of the most highly contested areas of South Vietnam: the Central Highlands.

But the platoon's mission did not go as planned, with some soldiers breaking the rules of war.

Women and children were intentionally blown up in underground bunkers. Elderly farmers were shot as they toiled in the fields. Prisoners were tortured and executed - their ears and scalps severed for souvenirs. One soldier kicked out the teeth of executed civilians for their gold fillings.

Two soldiers tried to stop the killings, but their pleas were ignored by commanders. The Army launched an investigation in 1971 that lasted 41/2 years - the longest-known war-crime investigation of the Vietnam conflict.

The case reached the highest levels of the Pentagon and the Nixon White House.

Investigators concluded that 18 soldiers committed war crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty. But no one was charged.

Since the war ended, the American public has been fed a dose of movies fictionalizing the excesses of U.S. units in Vietnam, such as Apocalypse Now and Platoon. But in reality, most war-crime cases focused on a single event, like the My Lai massacre.

The Tiger Force case is different. The atrocities took place over seven months, leaving an untold number dead - possibly several hundred civilians, former soldiers and villagers now say.

One medic said he counted 120 unarmed villagers killed in one month.

For decades, the case has remained buried in the archives of the government - not even known to America's most recognized historians of the war.


By the way, Sam, are you allergic to giving links so that people can see the conservative / RNC websites from which you dig up this various stuff on Kerry?

[Sam Stone]

annaplurabelle said:


FWIW, I'm a Vietnam War baby. I lost an Uncle there. And I wasn't even born in the USA. So I think I do understand the emotions involved. I'd like to clarify why you think any of this is a detriment to Kerry's viability as C-in-C.


Where did I say that this was a detriment to his viability as C-in-C? I was trying to explain why some people have a visceral dislike for John Kerry. That's all. Whether his testimony in 1971 would hurt him now is an entirely different question.


Forgot this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone
By Kerry's definition, half the soldiers in Iraq are war criminals. Free Fire zones? Check. Air raids? Check. Using .50 cal guns against people? Check. Interdiction fire? Check.

I agree. And you don't think this a problem? You don't want a president who will recognise this as a problem???


If a President of the United States is going to prevent his troops from using .50 cal machine guns, interdiction fire, and air power because he thinks these are 'war crimes', then he is seriously crippling the ability of his armed forces to do the job, and I DO think that's a major problem. These are not war crimes, they are standard tools of warfare. The U.S. also fires on unmarked vehicles that refuse to stop for checkpoints, sometimes killing civilians. They also use smart bombs in residential areas where there are known terrorists. They have also used suppression fire to control dangerous mobs.

This is war. And war is not heck. It's hell. It's brutal, and bloody, and horrible. But it sometimes beats the alternatives. Attempts to sanitize it by claiming that standard tools of warfare are 'atrocities' and 'genocide' simply cripples your own troops and place a level of guilt on them that they do not deserve. This is what Kerry did. This is why a lot of veterans hate the man with a passion.

jshore: I didn't think I needed a cite for a direct quote from Kerry's 1971 testimony in front of Congress - it's all over the net. The quote I posted came from the transcripts of Meet The Press - not exactly a right-wing neocon source. Feel free to go read it yourself.

[annaplurabelle]

Where did I say that this was a detriment to his viability as C-in-C? I was trying to explain why some people have a visceral dislike for John Kerry. That's all. Whether his testimony in 1971 would hurt him now is an entirely different question.Let me say: I like you (as an anonymous internet persona), and I'm not trying to attack you personally.

But, are you saying that "visceral dislike" of Kerry is a major impediment to people not giving up on Bush? Otherwise, I don't see your point in bringing it up in this thread. Surely, it occurs inside party lines as well, doesn't it? (I really don't know; maybe it is a major factor)...This is war. And war is not heck. It's hell. It's brutal, and bloody, and horrible. But it sometimes beats the alternatives. Attempts to sanitize it by claiming that standard tools of warfare are 'atrocities' and 'genocide' simply cripples your own troops and place a level of guilt on them that they do not deserve. This is what Kerry did. This is why a lot of veterans hate the man with a passion.
I do get that. But I think it's obvious Kerry gets that too (which is why he seems to be "waffling" when he modifies his terminology now). Bottom line for me is, I'd rather have a "reluctant warrior" than a "chickenhawk" as C-in-C. I was hoping for a compelling argument that disputes that idea. Got anything?

[jshore]

annaplurabelle said:
jshore: I didn't think I needed a cite for a direct quote from Kerry's 1971 testimony in front of Congress - it's all over the net. The quote I posted came from the transcripts of Meet The Press - not exactly a right-wing neocon source. Feel free to go read it yourself.

Well, this is but one example. And, yes, it is all over the net (particularly on right wing web sites) which means that, unless you wrote that whole thing down from memory, it would have been easy enough to give us a link, no?

My general point is that you come in to these discussions on Kerry and post specific facts, quotes, stories, etc. that clearly are directly informed by things that you read. In one previous thread, when you posted some particular facts on Kerry's votes in regards to defense/intelligence issues along with a statement that you expected this stuff would be used against Kerry in the fall campaign, I in fact traced it down to an RNC sheet on the web. I don't know if you got these facts directly from this sheet or indirectly through a commentator who used it. If the former was the case, I find it somewhat deceiving of you to post these "facts" (which were, in fact, half-truths in many if not all cases) and then say you expect they might be used in the fall campaign when you in fact know that they are coming directly from the Bush campaign or RNC. If the latter was the case, then it is a little less deceiving, although your presentation still makes it appear a bit like you are coming up with these facts on your own and then predicting they will be used against Kerry when in fact you know they are being used against Kerry by the very commentators you read (even if you were unaware they were directly from the RNC).

I thought the general ethos on this board was to show freely and clearly whenever possible where one's information is coming from. Anything less seems like restricting information or sources of information in a way to gain advantage.

[jshore]

In one previous thread, when you posted some particular facts on Kerry's votes in regards to defense/intelligence issues along with a statement that you expected this stuff would be used against Kerry in the fall campaign, I in fact traced it down to an RNC sheet on the web...

In a post on citing etiquette, I guess it is only fair that I ought to provide a cite (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=242081) for the incident that I am referring to.

[blowero]

There is nothing Kerry could do to earn my vote. Even if he started performing miracles, I'd be more inclined to study the book of revelations very carefully...
I think that says it all.

[blowero]

1) Many conservatives remember the Vietnam war, and remember the outrage they felt when people like Fonda and Kerry were calling the soldiers war criminals and baby killers. There is still a ton of resentment towards this attitude, and Kerry didn't help dispel it on Meet the Press last week when he tried to straddle the issue.

My understanding is that Fonda actually betrayed American POWs in Vietnam. Kerry didn't do that, did he? Didn't Kerry complete his service, and later criticize the war as being a mistake? He didn't undermine the war effort while he was serving as a soldier, did he? The truth is, there were war crimes committed in Vietnam. Should we just pretend they never happened? Do you want an honest president, or one who just says that everything America does is good, no matter what the truth?

2) The same people are offended that the guy who once portrayed the military as a bunch of scumbags is now heavily playing on his military career as a sign of great character.

Did he really say the military was "a bunch of scumbags"?

3) The charge that Kerry is a waffler is sticking. In tough times, Americans don't want a president who holds his finger up to the wind before he can make a decision. Kerry strikes me as someone who is indecisive - and that's not a good quality in a wartime President.

Yeah, we wouldn't want a waffling wartime president who, oh...I don't know...says we're invading Iraq because Saddam has WMDs and links to al Qaeda, and when he turns up a blank, instead says we did it to liberate the Iraqis.;)

His response? He got up and pointed at the agent and said, "That son of a bitch cut in front of me."

Yeah, that's not cool. But it still seems like a drop in the bucket compared to Bush.

This may be a trivial thing, but so is, say, Bush cleaning his glasses on the coattail of Letterman's producer. But when you already dislike the guy, these episodes stand out. Remember how offended some of you were at that?

I don't even remember that.

What are Kerry's opinions on how to quell the violence?

What do you want, magic? Kerry didn't start the war in Iraq. The reason for the violence is that many in Iraq view the U.S. as a conquering force bent on ruling Iraq. The reason the ruling council is falling apart is because they don't trust the motives of the U.S. The way to fix that is to get the U.N. involved and make this a true international effort, which is what should have been done from day one. That will serve two purposes: (1) give us the assistance we need, and (2) help dispel the view that the U.S. is trying to take over Iraq. If Kerry is elected, he's gotta clean up Bush's mess; there just isn't going to be a nice & easy way to do it.

On the war on terror, all he's said is that it's primarily a law-enforcement problem -

Cite?

which is horribly naive in my opinion and would represent a disastrous roll-back to the Clinton anti-terror policy.
Oh, not that again. Clinton did a lot to battle al Qaeda. Bush was the one who fumbled the hand-off.

In fact, the things most of you are so outraged about (Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, Iraq) I agree with, and I don't think he lied about.
So you honestly believe that everything Bush said leading up to the Iraq invasion was true? You really believe that?

[annaplurabelle]

On the war on terror, all he's said is that it's primarily a law-enforcement problem -Cite?From the April 18th Meet The Press (http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/4772030/) interview:MR. RUSSERT: But the Republicans, Vice President Cheney included, have pointed out to a comment that you made during a Democratic debate which they think undercuts your support of the war on terrorism. "The war on terror is...occasionally military. ... But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: You do not believe the war on terror is primarily a military operation, not a law
enfor...

SEN. KERRY: No...

MR. RUSSERT: You don't.

SEN. KERRY: ...not primarily.

MR. RUSSERT: You don't.

SEN. KERRY: Not primarily.

MR. RUSSERT: You do not.

SEN. KERRY: Not primarily. Tim, Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. America really needs to stop and focus on the truth again. This administration--and we now know it from Bob Woodward's book. I mean, you can go through the series of events in August when the president was at the ranch taking the longest vacation in presidential history. During that time, the president was talking about Iraq more than he was talking about al-Qaeda. Andy Card came back and made an announcement that they didn't introduce a new product in August because that's not what you do in August. They introduced it in September. They came back and started down the Iraq road. They kept looking for a connection. George Tenet kept saying no connection. The intelligence people said no connection.

MR. RUSSERT: This is the war on terror, Senator.

SEN. KERRY: But let me just finish.

MR. RUSSERT: The war on terror is a law enforcement, not military...

SEN. KERRY: No. I said "primarily." And here's why. If you don't know--if you're going to fight an intelligent war on terror, you don't want to fight it here in America. You do want to fight it abroad. You want to fight it where the cells are originating. And in order to know who they are, where they are, what they're planning and be able to go get them before they get us, you need the best intelligence, best law enforcement cooperation in the world. Now, I've always said once you know where they are, will you use the Delta Force or SEALs or Rangers or Special Forces of some kind? Absolutely. And I will not hesitate to use those forces effectively.

In fact, this administration--I was the one who pointed out they failed to use our forces effectively in Afghanistan. We had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora. Rather than deploy the 10th Mountain Division or the 101st Airborne or the Marines, rather than use the best military in the world to go kill the world's number-one terrorist, what did we do? This administration held them back. They sent the Afghans up into the mountains who a week earlier had been on the other side, and they let him escape.

I think that I can fight a far more effective war on terror. I will build alliances and cooperation. I will make America safer. But I will use our military when necessary, but it is not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence gathering, law enforcement, public diplomacy effort, and we're putting far more money into the war on the battlefield than we are into the war of ideas. We need to get it straight.Agree or not, but at least it's from the horse's mouth....

[Sam Stone]

From last Weekend's Meet The Press (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030/) (link for jshore):


MR. RUSSERT: But the Republicans, Vice President Cheney included, have pointed out to a comment that you made during a Democratic debate which they think undercuts your support of the war on terrorism. "The war on terror is...occasionally military. ... But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: You do not believe the war on terror is primarily a military operation, not a law
enfor...

SEN. KERRY: No...

MR. RUSSERT: You don't.

SEN. KERRY: ...not primarily.

MR. RUSSERT: You don't.

SEN. KERRY: Not primarily.

MR. RUSSERT: You do not.


Gee, I think that's pretty clear.

[Sam Stone]

Oops. Simulpost.


So you honestly believe that everything Bush said leading up to the Iraq invasion was true? You really believe that?


I think that it was a reasonable interpretation of the information he had been given. In Woodward's new book, he describes a scene in which a skeptical Bush is critical of the evidence, and asks George Tenet for his interpretation. And Tenet says, "The WMD case is a slam dunk." Bush asks him again, and Tenet throws up his hands in the air and repeats, "Sir, it's a slam dunk. No question." Plus, he had Cheney and Wolfowitz pushing the war, and they were producing evidence from Iraqi expatriates that looked very damning. Plus there was Hussein's own behaviour, which was hard to explain if he wasn't hiding WMD. On top of that, you had a formal assessment from the Clinton national security team that Iraq did in fact have WMD. This belief was also shared by pretty much every intelligence service in the world.

So no, I don't think Bush lied. I think he honestly pursued a case based on evidence that appears to have been incorrect. But Bush himself had other reasons for going after Saddam, which he articulated in various speeches before the U.N. and the American people, and also in his final ultimatum to Saddam.

And ten years from now,, you're going to have a hard time finding people who will admit that they opposed the war, because in hindsight people will be very glad that it took place. That's just my opinion. Troubles and all, I think the Iraq war was still net benefit both to the war on terror and the state of the world in general. The benefits have not materialized yet because the war is not over. The Ba'athists and terrorists are still fighting. After the handover of power, it's going to be much tougher for the terrorists to gain support from the Iraqi people, since it will be them that they are attacking and not the 'occupiers'.

Slowly but surely, the U..S. is building allies in the middle east. Iraq will remain a friendly country despite real differences with the U.S., just as Kuwait and the Emirates are today. A functioning democracy will serve as a role model and a source of steady pressure on other autocracies in the region. And in the end, this is the only way to win the war on terror - give the people of the middle east something to hope for other than to die in a blaze of fire and go to a better life.

This is the connection to the war on terror that no one on the left wants to admit has any validity. Kerry's 'law enforcement' approach of digging out cells around the world and prosecuting them in court is like solving a wasp problem by swatting at individual wasps rather than taking out the nest. Bush is taking out the nest. The process of doing that sure stirs up the wasps, and that's what we're seeing now. Temporary increased danger and violence, as the people who have much to lose from a stable, free Iraq do everything they can to prevent it. That they are trying so hard should tell what THEY think a free Iraq will do for their cause.

[annaplurabelle]

Sam, reality doesn't support anything you're saying.
After the handover of power, it's going to be much tougher for the terrorists to gain support from the Iraqi people, since it will be them that they are attacking and not the 'occupiers'.The 100,000+ troops that will remain after the "handover" sound like plenty of targets to me. Not to mention thousands of "civilian contractors".

Iraqis blame US and allies for Basra blasts (http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,247414,00.html?):'An Iraqi or a Muslim wouldn't do this. Whoever is doing this, he hates this country.'

'People are accusing the coalition forces of carrying out these attacks because deep in their hearts, they blame them for all of the insecurity, the bloodshed, all of the troubles that they have had over the past year.'

To Mr Abdul Majid Abbas, a 25-year-old engineering student, the best proof of this theory is the simple fact of America's failure to rebuild Iraq after the war.

'Americans could do better than this,' he said. 'For example, after the 1991 war, everything was destroyed - electricity, water - these things were 70 per cent destroyed. In three months, Saddam Hussein rebuilt everything again, even with sanctions. So how could he do that, and they can't even do it in one year?'Slowly but surely, the U..S. is building allies in the middle east.
US role in Middle East vilified at emergency meeting of Islamic countries (http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4908356-103681,00.html)

Mubarak: Arabs Hate US More Than Ever (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0420-01.htm)

Jordan's Snub to Bush Is Tip of Iceberg (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0420-06.htm) Iraq will remain a friendly country despite real differences with the U.S., just as Kuwait and the Emirates are today. A functioning democracy will serve as a role model and a source of steady pressure on other autocracies in the region.The US put pressure on those friendly oil-producing autocrats?

Rest easy, aspiring autocrats of Middle East (http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/story/0,4386,247498,00.html)

And in the end, this is the only way to win the war on terror - give the people of the middle east something to hope for other than to die in a blaze of fire and go to a better life. I think it's naive to imagine that the only hope of the "people of the middle east" was/is to "die in a blaze of fire and go to a better life". I mean, all of them? Do you really think this way?

Sounds to me like that previous naive image: That the Iraqi's would be greeting the invading troops with flowers and sweets.This is the connection to the war on terror that no one on the left wants to admit has any validity.Maybe "the left" has a problem with something that sounds too much like "Vietnamisation". That didn't work out, in spite of all the hopes and sentiments and dead bodies.Kerry's 'law enforcement' approach of digging out cells around the world and prosecuting them in court is like solving a wasp problem by swatting at individual wasps rather than taking out the nest. Bush is taking out the nest.I'll repeat what Kerry said (the part you cut out):

Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda.

Iraq wasn't a "nest" of terrorism before the occupation. One could say that Bush created any "nest" there now.

What about the "nest" in Afghanistan - did Bush remove that one? Last I heard, there were still plenty of "wasps" there... And a little problem with that whole democracy business.

And what about those "wasps" in Madrid? They seemed pretty efficient without having a "nest".

[PatriotX]

OK, I will take the bait. Are these things that actually happened, and if so can I please (without dropping the Cite? Bomb™) get a link or two?

Yes, these're things that actually happened.
I can certainly provide the citations. I'd be crazy to get into this without being able to provide them.
I was just curious about the potential impact of the knowledge. I wondered if maybe these things were just taken for granted.
No one seems to care much. Oh well.


Between
Eliot Abrams, National Security advisor for the Middle East
and
Richard Perle former chair of the Defense Policy Board, which advises the Department of Defense and reports to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
the two of them cover everyone of the charges that I've levelled.

Earlier this year Perle raised money for the international terrorist organization with a record of attacks on Americans, and with a proven, (extensive), operational relationship with Saddam Hussein. Perle was one of the eight "Vulcans" GWB assembled to help him "find Kosovo." The Vulcans schooled the PotUSA on foreign policy. Perle's had numerous conflict of interest scandals just since GWB's presidency began.
Perle's amoral scum who advocates the use of national, biometric id cards to monitor the activities of US citizens.
But GWB et al trust him. Go figure. Must be one of those "big government conservative" things- a "big-government-less-freedom-conservative" sort of thing.

[Kimstu]

And ten years from now,, you're going to have a hard time finding people who will admit that they opposed the war, because in hindsight people will be very glad that it took place. That's just my opinion.


Well, it's probably wise of you to push your prediction ten years into the future, because most of the shorter-term predictions you made a little over one year ago (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=169260&page=1&highlight=Iraq) (12 March 2003) have not panned out all that well:

How many American casualties will there be in an Iraq war?
Less than 500. [...]

Will the Americans be seen as liberators or oppressers by the Iraqi people?
Liberators. [...]

What will Iraq look like a year after the war?
I believe it will be free, and relatively peaceful. While I expect the occasional acts of violence and maybe terror, I believe there will be real progress towards a stable, prosperous country. [...]

What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?
A rise in short-term instability as various terror organizations react.

A year from now, the start of real change in the middle east will be happening. The dissident movement in Iran will gain strength. Hizbollah will either be under attack in Lebanon, or gone. Libya will renounce terrorism. The U.S. government will begin to pressure Saudi Arabia, sparking real change there. [...]

I think this kind of recording of what our thoughts and fears are before an event of this magnitude could be historically useful.


Hmmm. No debate on that last one.


Slowly but surely, the U..S. is building allies in the middle east.


I guess so, if your definition of "slowly but surely" includes "currently increasing enmity towards the US by leaps and bounds but possibly in the future reversing that trend by some unspecified waving of the magic democracy wand".

[Desmostylus]

And ten years from now,, you're going to have a hard time finding people who will admit that they opposed the war, because in hindsight people will be very glad that it took place. That's just my opinion. Troubles and all, I think the Iraq war was still net benefit both to the war on terror and the state of the world in general. The benefits have not materialized yet because the war is not over. The Ba'athists and terrorists are still fighting. After the handover of power, it's going to be much tougher for the terrorists to gain support from the Iraqi people, since it will be them that they are attacking and not the 'occupiers'.
Here's my prediction ten years on: Sam will be moaning that the war in Iraq could have been won, if only the course had been stayed a few years longer. Because whenever the facts don't mesh with Sam's imaginary world, Sam's inclined to think that reality is wrong.

[Kimstu]

In fact, the things most of you are so outraged about (Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, Iraq) I agree with, and I don't think he lied about. [...]

Bush is taking out the nest. The process of doing that sure stirs up the wasps, and that's what we're seeing now. Temporary increased danger and violence, as the people who have much to lose from a stable, free Iraq do everything they can to prevent it. That they are trying so hard should tell what THEY think a free Iraq will do for their cause.


This, I think, is the type of reasoning that's the key to answering the OP's question about why Bush Republicans (and, e.g., Canadian Bush-Republican wannabes like Sam) are still Bush Republicans. Namely, because they are committed to the idea that Bush is doing the right thing and succeeding. You're talking at cross-purposes to ask them "How bad would Bush's failures and deceptions have to get before you'd give up on him?", because their response is "What failures? What deceptions? He's doing just fine."

This response won't change even in the case of policy outcomes that are not particularly fine, or not fine at all. Because the die-hard Bush supporters are committed to the notion that the outcomes are about as fine as we have any right to expect (even if the supporters themselves had higher expectations in the past), and will surely get much finer pretty soon.

No matter what problem or catastrophe may result from the Administration's actions, the reaction you'll get from the diehards will be some combination of the following:

1) Realistically, it was inevitable anyway no matter what anybody did.
2) The Administration's actions were based on the best information available at the time, so if it was in fact a mistake it was one that anybody else would have made too.
3) Anyway, it would certainly have turned out even worse than it did if we had been pursuing any different policy.
4) Anyway, it will certainly turn out much worse in the future if we pursue any different policy now.
5) The more resistance and enmity we provoke, the more that demonstrates that we're doing the right thing.

There's really no arguing with that kind of conviction.

[Snag]

Kimstu makes the point pretty well.

As the political scene is in America at the present, it's unlikely there will be that many more Bush Republicans willing to switch sides than there will be Democrats who will vote Bush because they dislike Kerry so.

It's likely that those that do not like their party's candidate will simply sit out the election this year. If things continue on their present course, (note that I expect the economic recovery to falter by the end of summer) I bet Kerry winds up with a slight edge in actual numbers voting for him. Of course, that doesn't translate to a win unless this happens consistently in key states

[pervert]

... their response is "What failures? What deceptions? He's doing just fine."

This response won't change even in the case of policy outcomes that are not particularly fine, or not fine at all. Because the die-hard Bush supporters are committed to the notion that the outcomes are about as fine as we have any right to expect (even if the supporters themselves had higher expectations in the past), and will surely get much finer pretty soon.

[...]

There's really no arguing with that kind of conviction.But there is a perfectly well understood way to argue with such a position. Explain how the policies in question are not quite as good as expected and then explain how your candidate's policies would necessarily produce better results. The problem, is that Kerry is not able to do that. The Democrats are so focused on Bush bashing that they are unwilling or unable to present any sort of policy to fix what they call a mess with such hyperbole.

Seriously, what does Kerry propose to fix Iraq. If it was such a huge mistake, what is he going to do to fix it. If you answer is merely that he will try and get the UN more involved how is that a large enough policy shift to justify the rhetoric?

I think you right, Kinstu, many Bush supporters will not switch to Kerry for the reasons you mentioned. However, your characterization of those reasons is 180 degrees off. :D

I remember this sort of irrational hatred of Clinton coming from the right a few years ago. It was embarassing then. Somehow, I feel different about it coming from the left. Odd that.

[Sample_the_Dog]

Seriously, what does Kerry propose to fix Iraq.I love it.... "So what would you do to get us out of the mess Bush got us into? Betcha can't! Stumped you there, didn't I? Ha ha!" ;)

[Sam Stone]

Sam, reality doesn't support anything you're saying.
The 100,000+ troops that will remain after the "handover" sound like plenty of targets to me. Not to mention thousands of "civilian contractors".


Of course there will be targets. My point is that when the government is run by Iraqis, it gets harder for the insurgents to claim they are fighting an occupation. Instead, they are fighting Iraqis who are trying to rebuild their country.

Part of the problem here is that we all can't even agree on the basic facts, perhaps because both sides are listening to only what they want to hear. When I hear opponents of the war claim that this is a popular uprising, and that Iraq is spiralling into civil war, and that the U.S. is hated by almost all Iraqis, and that they weren't greeted as liberators, I just shake my head in wonder. Because my perception of what's going on there is totally different.


Iraqis blame US and allies for Basra blasts (http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,247414,00.html?):


Did you even read that link? It quotes some supporters of al-Sadr, the man bloody responsible for the uprising and perhaps even the bombing. It then quotes a professor from Baghdad University who doesn't believe it, and a bunch of other people who don't believe it. So based on finding some people on the street willing to utter a conspiracy theory, you're willing to believe that this is widespread opinion? Hell, you can find people in Berkely who probably think the U.S. set off the bomb.

Andecdotal evidence sucks. How about we pay attention to real data. For instance, there were 17 elections recently in Shiite areas, and in NONE of them did an Islamic fundamentalist come anywhere close to winning. The winners were all people who want Iraq to be democratic with a secular government. al-Sadr himself, the guy responsible for all the latest violence, has very little support even among Shiites. He's seen as a young upstart and rabble rouser who is claiming legitimacy only because of the status of his deceased father.

In fact, a lot of Iraqis fault the U.S. for not doing enough to crack the heads of al-Sadr's minions and other thugs. A lot of the violence in Iraq is coming from criminals (Saddam emptied the jails just before the war) and foreign terrorists. Iraqis want these people dealt with.


US role in Middle East vilified at emergency meeting of Islamic countries (http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4908356-103681,00.html)


And this is surprising? We want to put pressure on dictatorships to reform, and you're suprised that the dictatorships don't like it?


Mubarak: Arabs Hate US More Than Ever (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0420-01.htm)


Yeah, and of course Mubarek would say that - he's dead set against what's going on in Iraq, because it'll put pressure on his own country.

I've been trying to find a link to a poll done a while ago in the middle east which showed that public opinion in countries like Turkey and Jordan has actually improved since the start of the Iraq war. During the run-up to war public opinion plummeted in the Middle East. Now it's almost back up to the levels seen in about 2001. Not quite, but almost. However, there are places where opinion of U.S. has gone up a lot. For example, the Kurdish regions in Turkey and Syria.


I think it's naive to imagine that the only hope of the "people of the middle east" was/is to "die in a blaze of fire and go to a better life". I mean, all of them? Do you really think this way?


Of course it's not all of them. But it's a LOT. Unemployment in some of these countries is as high as 30-50%. They have young, angry populations without work. They are denied basic human rights, and live under extreme laws. They see their leaders living lives of fabulous wealth, and they have nothing. Their leaders have told them that it's all the fault of the Jews and America, rather than their own backwards and despotic policies. So yes, there is a lot of rage, and a lot of hopelessness in the region. This needs to be fixed.


Sounds to me like that previous naive image: That the Iraqi's would be greeting the invading troops with flowers and sweets.


They DID. The Iraqi people celebrated wildly. They ran after American soldiers shouting "Bush! Bush!" The day of their liberation is now celebrated as a national holiday. There is no question that the war was seen as a liberation.

Now, of course, they are mad about different things. No one likes being occupied, and 'liberator' becomes 'occupier' pretty quickly unless the people can see a light at the end of the tunnel. The Bush Administration and the CPA have screwed a number of things up royally in the aftermath of the war, and there is a lot of resentment over it, but that's now. A year ago, the people of Iraq most certainly saw the Americans as liberators. I don't know how that can be beyond dispute. Even today, with all the screwups and violence, a plurality of Iraqis think the war was the right thing to do, and that includes the Sunni areas which actually had it pretty good under Saddam. Support for the war is still in the high 80's in the Kurdish regions and not much lower in the southern Shiite areas.

ABC News Poll - A Better Life (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html):


A year after the bombs began to fall, Iraqis express ambivalence about the U.S.-led invasion of their country, but not about its effect: Most say their lives are going well and have improved since before the war, and expectations for the future are very high.


Some results of the poll (released yesterday):

Was the U.S. Invasion Right?
Yes No
All Iraqis: 48% 41%
Kurds: 87% 9%

Did the war Liberate Iraq or Humiliate Iraqis?
Liberate Humiliate
All Iraqis: 42% 41%
Kurds: 82% 11%

Are attacks on coalition troops acceptable?
Yes No
All Iraqis: 17% 78%
Kurds: 2% 96%

So even with all the violence that's going on, and after being occupied for a year, a plurality of Iraqs STILL think the war was a war of liberation. Why don't you?

And bear in mind that the grouping 'Arabs' includes the Sunnis. The Sunnis has a particular reason to dislike the war. They held all the power under Saddam, and got all the perks, despite being in the minority. If the 'Arab' vote separated out Shiite and Sunni, you'd see even higher support among the Shiites. It should not be surprising that the Sunnis are least happy. For example, Baghdad got most of the electrical power before the war. Now it's shared evenly, so for a long time Baghdad had less electricity than it was used to, and the rest of the country got more.

But here are the really important numbers which would indicate what the future holds in Iraq (and how Iraqis will perceive the U.S. after the occupation ends)

How things are going today:
All North South Central Baghdad
Good 70% 85% 65% 70% 67%
Bad 29 14 34 28 32


Does that suprise you? With all the stuff we hear on this board and elsewhere about how bad things are in Iraq, and how Iraqis were actually better off under Saddam (snort), look at those results! Overall, 70% of Iraqis think their lives are going well. That's a huge number. I'm not sure you'd get a number that high if you took a similar poll in the United States. This bodes well for the future of Iraq if we can stabilize it.


Compared to a year ago, before the war:
All North South Central Baghdad
Better 56% 70% 63% 54% 46%
Same 23 15 21 22 31
Worse 19 13 13 23 23

By a 2-1 margin Iraqis think things are better today rather than worse. Imagine how they'll feel once they have their own government and stability is restored.


How they'll be a year from now:
All North South Central Baghdad
Better 71% 83% 74% 70% 63%
Same 9 4 6 10 16
Worse 7 1 4 9 10

Look at the optimism! Almost all Iraqis now think they have a bright future. This is the most important question of the bunch, because it's an indicator of what the upside is to a stable, democratic Iraq. It is also a good indicator of the lack of desire for a civil war or for animosity between the various ethnic groups in Iraq.

Other polls have shown that Iraq does not want an Islamic government, and it does not want to break apart into three states. Iraqis want to stay together and build a future. They are relatively happy now, and highly optimistic about their future.

If we succeed in Iraq and stabilize it and allow them to build a democracy of sorts, the payoff is HUGE. Once the occupation is over, you're going to see public opinion of the U.S. in Iraq climb again. As a Democracy, they will trade with the west, invite investment from the west, and in general become more comfortable with the west. A free press is the best antidote against the poisonous lies of the old State media and the relentless anti-western spin of al-Jazeerah.

One of the reasons Iraq always made such a good candidate for regime change was because the population has such advantages when it comes to rejoining the free world. Iraqis are well educated and modern. Large areas of Iraq (the Kurdish and Shiite regions) were and are quite friendly towards the west. Maybe more so than in any other country in the Middle East.

Don't get me wrong - it could all still go to hell. Primarily, if the U.S. listens to some on the left and cuts and runs. But if the entire free world gets behind this project and helps Iraqis struggle back onto their feet and build a wealthy democracy in the heart of the Middle East, it will have great repercussions for regime change elsewhere and for reforming the middle east.


Maybe "the left" has a problem with something that sounds too much like "Vietnamisation". That didn't work out, in spite of all the hopes and sentiments and dead bodies.I'll repeat what Kerry said (the part you cut out):

Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda.

Iraq wasn't a "nest" of terrorism before the occupation. One could say that Bush created any "nest" there now.


One of the frustrations I have is that people on the left just aren't listening to our arguments. No one said that Iraq was involved with al-Qaida.. Not even the Bush administration, other than to point out that Abu Zarqawi was being sheltered in Iraq and he IS affiliated with al-Qaida. But certainly no one tried to claim that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

The argument is bigger than that, and more complex. Saddam wasn't involved with al-Qaida, but he was a major troublemaker in the region and was cynically inflaming hatred of the U.S. and Israel for his own ends. He was paying Palestinian suicide bombers. He launched missiles at Israel during the Gulf war, despite the fact that Israel was not involved in any way. He was simply constantly stirring the hornet's nest in the middle east. If there was to be any hope for reform, Saddam had to go.

And there have been big payoffs in the war on terror due to the fall of Saddam. For example, Libya caved in and is trying to reform like mad. Yes, yes, I know that negotiations were going on for a long time, but I believe the tipping point came with the Iraq war. And as a result of Libya turning over, we shook out the Pakistani scientist who was selling nuclear secrets all over the place. Documents found in Iraq have uncovered a huge scam within the U.N. in which Saddam was bribing officials in numerous countries to stand against the U.S. The invasion took away the playground of ansar al-Islam, which is affiliated with al-Qaida.

And, the U.S. military now has a base of operations in a friendly country where it can launch campaigns against the terrorists, and keep an eye on Syria and Iran. Plus, the U.S. could end the sanctions and the no-fly zones and pull its military presence out of Saudi Arabia. The presence of U.S. troops near Mecca and Medina was a very sore point among Muslims, and that's now gone.

Going after terrorists with soldiers in the mountains of Afghanistan is a tactical battle, and an important one. Liberating Iraq was a Strategic battle. An analogy is that the U.S. first attacked in Africa when going after Germany.


What about the "nest" in Afghanistan - did Bush remove that one? Last I heard, there were still plenty of "wasps" there... And a little problem with that whole democracy business.


I didn't say this war was all-or-nothing. Tactical and Strategic battles need to be fought. The war on terror requires special forces, armies, police work, intelligence, diplomacy, and every other tool in the bag. No question.


And what about those "wasps" in Madrid? They seemed pretty efficient without having a "nest".

And after the nest is gone, there are still going to be wasps. 100 years from now, there will still be terrorists. We can't eliminate them all. What we CAN do is prevent rogue states from arming and sheltering them, and we can work towards improving the conditions in the world that breed them. Any idiot with a truck can load it full of fertilizer and diesel fuel and blow up a building. Even idiots in the U.S. do that. But what we need to stop are these large terror organizations that re trying to get their hands on nuclear and biological weapons and who can launch simultaneous attacks using hundreds or thousands of people. They are the only ones powerful enough to actually destroy our society. The lone nuts can do damage, but they can't throw the west into recessions or kill hundreds of thousands of people at a time.

[Sam Stone]

Well, it's probably wise of you to push your prediction ten years into the future, because most of the shorter-term predictions you made a little over one year ago (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=169260&page=1&highlight=Iraq) (12 March 2003) have not panned out all that well:


Gee, I dunno. I think I did pretty well, not being a psychic and all.


Originally Posted by Sam Stone

How many American casualties will there be in an Iraq war?
Less than 500. [...]


And there were. And even with a year of attacks and urban fighting, the number is still close to that number. Whereas some of the people on the anti-war side were claiming thousands and thousands of U.S. casualties.


Will the Americans be seen as liberators or oppressers by the Iraqi people?
Liberators. [...]


Damned right they were. And even after a year of a fairly botched occupation, a plurality of Iraqis STILL sees the Americans as liberators.


What will Iraq look like a year after the war?
I believe it will be free, and relatively peaceful. While I expect the occasional acts of violence and maybe terror, I believe there will be real progress towards a stable, prosperous country. [...]


I stand by this. It is free, and it is relatively peaceful. The violence we see on TV in Fallujah and Najaf masks the fact that in vast swaths of the country there is little to no violence and people are getting on with their lives. See the poll I linked above to see what the Iraqi people themselves think. They seem pretty happy, and pretty optimistic. I'd call that 'real progress'.


What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?
A rise in short-term instability as various terror organizations react.


Uh huh.


A year from now, the start of real change in the middle east will be happening. The dissident movement in Iran will gain strength. Hizbollah will either be under attack in Lebanon, or gone. Libya will renounce terrorism. The U.S. government will begin to pressure Saudi Arabia, sparking real change there. [...]


I blew it on the Hizbollah thing, but I predicted the fall of Libya. I'll take that batting average.

But I may have just been a little early on predicting Hezbollah's demise. I still think that conflict may be coming.


I think this kind of recording of what our thoughts and fears are before an event of this magnitude could be historically useful.

Hmmm. No debate on that last one.


See, this is what I'm talking about. You no doubt chose to reprint those predictions because you see them as being wildly wrong. From my perspective, I'm actually amazed that I came as close as I did. Remember what YOUR side was predicting? Millions dying of starvation, the rise of the 'Arab Street', riots in the middle east, a siege of Baghdad that would kill tens of thousands, Iraqi oil fields burning for years, dams being blown up and flooding the south, yada yada yada.

There's no hope for this debate. We can't even agree on basic facts.

[jshore]

Here is a fuller presentation of the part of the poll that asks about the U.S. invasion, including the issue of the presence of coalition forces and including "Arabs" (i.e., non-Kurds) as well as just "All Iraqis" and "Kurds":


Was the U.S. Invasion Right?
Yes No
All Iraqis: 48% 41%
Arabs: 40% 46%
Kurds: 87% 9%

Did the war Liberate Iraq or Humiliate Iraqis?
Liberate Humiliate
All Iraqis: 42% 41%
Arabs: 33% 48%
Kurds: 82% 11%

Presence of coalition forces:
Support Oppose
All Iraqis: 39% 51%
Arabs: 30% 60%
Kurds: 82% 12%

Are attacks on coalition troops acceptable?
Yes No
All Iraqis: 17% 78%
Arabs: 21% 74%
Kurds: 2% 96%


So, we see that, while a plurality of all Iraqis do think the invasion was right and are about split on the liberate/humiliate question, this is because of the presence of the Kurds...who of course have long been wanting liberation, I think even from the rest of Iraq. Among the Arabs, the plurality do not think the invasion was right (although it's pretty close) and a stronger plurality...even a slight majority...feel it humiliated rather than liberated Iraq. Also, a majority of the Iraqis do not support the (continued, I assume) presence of coalition forces, with this feeling running at a rate of 2:1 against such support amongst the Arabs.

Kind of a mixed bag, I'd say.

[Sam Stone]

As I said, if you broke the 'Arabs' out into Sunni and Shiite, a more complete picture would emerge. Just as the Kurds pull up the 'all Iraqi' numbers, the Sunnis pull down the 'all Arabs' numbers.

The surprising results from the poll are that the Iraqis actually think things are pretty good today, and an overwhelming majority think the future will be even better. You think they thought the same thing under Saddam?

[Sam Stone]

Also, a majority of the Iraqis do not support the (continued, I assume) presence of coalition forces, with this feeling running at a rate of 2:1 against such support amongst the Arabs.


Who would? No one wants to be occupied. But when Iraqis are asked WHEN the coalition forces should leave, most say that they should stay until a new government is ready and violence is under control.

It is, however, important to show Iraqis that this is not a perpetual occupation. That's why Bush is sticking to the June 30 deadline, despite pressure by some in the U.S. to make him push it back. Whether the handover will be as complete as initially desired is another matter, but something has to happen that moves the Iraqi sovereignity forward.

[Brutus]

I love it.... "So what would you do to get us out of the mess Bush got us into? Betcha can't! Stumped you there, didn't I? Ha ha!" ;)

I know it may not have crossed that mind of yours, but if Kerry does win, he will have to deal with Iraq, you know. It's not like the slate gets wiped clean every four years or something.

[CoatOfArms]

Bush Republicans...what does it take to give up on Bush ?
Why in the heck would I give up on Bush, for a loser? ...
Federal Review ... April 20, 2004 ... Bush's sudden surge is also reflected in the Electoral Vote Prediction, where Bush leads Kerry 328 - 210. Of those, Bush has a lead of greater than 5% in states worth 243 electoral votes. That's up from last week's total of 198. One Hundred votes are in states where a candidate leads by a margin of less than 5%.

[Fear Itself]

I know it may not have crossed that mind of yours, but if Kerry does win, he will have to deal with Iraq, you know. Well, that's a win/win situation, Brutus. If I have learned anything from reading your posts, it is that any post-inauguration successes can be claimed by Kerry, but any worsening of the Iraq debacle can always be blamed on the previous administration.

[pervert]

I love it.... "So what would you do to get us out of the mess Bush got us into? Betcha can't! Stumped you there, didn't I? Ha ha!" ;)But that's my point. If you think foriegn relations are a mess (and that is not the rhetoric being used, the democrats are being far more viriolic than that) then you certainly must have an idea of how to fix it. Now I'm willing to accept that as a poster on a message board you may not have a concrete plan. That's fine. But if you want me to vote for someone who belives that we made a colosal blunder in Iraq, then he damn well better have a very good idea how to fix it.

[pervert]

Well, that's a win/win situation, Brutus. If I have learned anything from reading your posts, it is that any post-inauguration successes can be claimed by Kerry, but any worsening of the Iraq debacle can always be blamed on the previous administration.

Ok, I was wrong. Perhaps the democrats do have a plan (of sorts) for dealing with Iraq. ;)

[ambushed]

Thank you for proving my point. Placing [sic] after my typos makes you so much better a person! As long as people like you vote Democrat, I will vote something else.

My dear silenus, I'm not at all surprised that I would have to explain ironic satire to you. You make it so easy and fun to condescend to you! I'm just happy to have you on the other team, my friend...

[jshore]

I know it may not have crossed that mind of yours, but if Kerry does win, he will have to deal with Iraq, you know. It's not like the slate gets wiped clean every four years or something.

You make an excellent point which is that even if defeated, Bush sure will have left one hell of a legacy. I think the argument that Bush has managed to screw things up fiscally, environmentally, internationally, etc. to a degree that it will be hard for anyone following him to do very well with the messes that he has created is one of the most effective arguments the pro-Bush side can make in regards to why it may well be difficult for Kerry to do a very good job.

[ambushed]

Im a conservative who would rather have a republican congress wno will stop Kerry from spending too much, stop kerry from engaging in needless foreign wars, etc, instead of a republican congress who rubber stamps every misadventure by the liberal bush.

You mean like this Republican Congress who've so grossly overspent the national budget -- not counting the staggering cost of Dubya's "needless foreign wars" and "misadventure" in Iraq -- that you Pubbies have cursed us all with the biggest deficit EVER? And the biggest government ever?

A pig-drunk Edward Kennedy has more fiscal discipline than the Republicans!

[ambushed]

Dear anti american:

... proven to be false that are biased and treasonist caused by the former admin, when the Clinton buble burst... excpet maybe one French company, but they were in bed w/ the terrorist... There is simply NO compairson to Vietiam, this shows your bias or you drinking the liberals koolaid... I don't know, he has done many thing I like, He [God?] lowered my taxes 1000's of dollars (confirmed), and has actually done somethign about he attacks on our cuntrry, got our country out of a deap rescession caused by the Clinton Admin, he is a leader not a poll watcher, and to top it all off he elimitated telemarketers and spam. I guess if he tryed t appoint himself king or run for a 3rd term I would oppose him, but there is no evidence of that. Also I would vote for John F Kennedy um I mean John F*$%en Kerry if it garenteed Hillary would not be elected again What flak, Iraq is free, my taxes are lower (did I mention it's comfiremd), the Clinton recession is finally corrected, Spam is on it's way out and we have a national do not call list. You must be getting your news from a biased souce.

No Any thinging man who ever played any RTS game knows that the defeat of Iraq was a defeat of terrorism, also any feeling person is happy to get the bastart SH out of power. We have one each and every year, if you mean another attack against our country then that would re-affirm my vote for W Would be somewhat suprised, but wouldn't detue my vote...

To be honest it's a no-brainer W in 2004

Well, kanicbird, you're right about one thing: Dubya is indeed a no-brainer! :D And I see you've learned a lot from him. (But I kid our intellectually challenged President...)

But don't let that detue your vote!



(P.S.: Sam, you can have him with our blessings...)

[Squink]

(responding to Brutus) You make an excellent point which is that even if defeated, Bush sure will have left one hell of a legacy. I think the argument that Bush has managed to screw things up fiscally, environmentally, internationally, etc. to a degree that it will be hard for anyone following him to do very well with the messes that he has created is one of the most effective arguments the pro-Bush side can make in regards to why it may well be difficult for Kerry to do a very good job. Perhaps, but with regard to Iraq at least, let's not forget that if Kerry becomes president, he will obtain access to all the uber-top secret intelligence that allowed us to do such a fine job of responding to the Iraqi challenge, both pre-war and after the end of major conflict. Surely with all that technical insight to back him up, installing a democracy in Baghad will amount to a cakewalk, even for a liberal president.

[ambushed]

After the handover of power, it's going to be much tougher for the terrorists to gain support from the Iraqi people, since it will be them that they are attacking and not the 'occupiers'.

You've got to be kidding! I never imagined you were so naive, Sam. Or perhaps you're not and you're just eager to keep spouting the party line.

Only the word will change (and then only for some). They will stop attacking the "occupiers" and start attacking the "American puppets". Hell, Sam, they've already been killing Iraqi police officers for some time now!

[cmkeller]

annaplurabelle:

This I agree with - people with no brains will vote for W in 2004.

No, the ones with no brains will vote for Buchanan in 2004...and say they thought they were voting for Kerrey but couldn't figure out the arrows on the ballot.

[Sample_the_Dog]

If you think foriegn relations are a mess (and that is not the rhetoric being used, the democrats are being far more viriolic than that) then you certainly must have an idea of how to fix it. Now I'm willing to accept that as a poster on a message board you may not have a concrete plan. That's fine. But if you want me to vote for someone who belives that we made a colosal blunder in Iraq, then he damn well better have a very good idea how to fix it.Otherwise, you're sticking with the guy who got us into it. Uh, huh.... Yeah... That'll be a good idea....

[blowero]

pervert:

But there is a perfectly well understood way to argue with such a position. Explain how the policies in question are not quite as good as expected and then explain how your candidate's policies would necessarily produce better results. The problem, is that Kerry is not able to do that. The Democrats are so focused on Bush bashing that they are unwilling or unable to present any sort of policy to fix what they call a mess with such hyperbole.

Seriously, what does Kerry propose to fix Iraq. If it was such a huge mistake, what is he going to do to fix it. If you answer is merely that he will try and get the UN more involved how is that a large enough policy shift to justify the rhetoric?

This is really bizarre reasoning. Assuming Kerry's plan is incomplete (which I don't agree with), you're saying that (A) Bush made a huge mistake, (B) Kerry doesn't have a magic plan to make Bush's problem instantly go away, and so (C) you will therefore vote for Bush, the guy who caused the problem in the first place. It's like if the schoolyard bully is punching you in the face, and the teacher says, "Well, I'm not going to stop him unless you have a more detailed proposal to get rid of those bruises on your face."

If nothing else, voting Bush out will at least ensure we don't get into any more intractable situations.

Besides which, getting the UN involved is a VERY LARGE policy shift, one that Bush's "we're always right" administration is unwilling to effect. Bush wants to control every facet of the situation, but how is that helping our country?

[Sample_the_Dog]

See post 77 for why I think Bush has betrayed the party.

I'm tired of Dubyacrats telling me I'm not a true Republican if I don't support the frat-boy-in-chief (y'all haven't, but I get that a lot). I already get enough crap for enjoying punk rock, supporting gay rights (less regulation is better), and promoting taxation of churches (give unto Caesar). Now I have to put up with the notion that loyalty = accepting clearly inferior candidates.

The icing on the cake is how easy this idjit has made it for lefties to attack the GOP. We can do better! We must do better!

In the meantime, chew on this....

Scenario: Hiking in the mountains. Your leader has managed to get you lost and use up all your supplies. Turns out, he actually doesn't have the mountainering experience he claimed to have. And well, you always knew he only had experience hiking in one local area, not the place you're hiking in, although boy his father sure was a good mountaineer. (Granted, he often did the opposite of what this fellow is doing.) The other leaders agree with him. But then, he's managed to estrange nearly everyone who doesn't automatically agree with whatever he decides to do. If he makes a mistake, he refuses to back down, claiming "I won't negotiate with myself". Someone else steps forward who has experience in this type of terrain*, says, "We sure are lost, and it may take some time to get us back on track, but at least I admit we're lost". Do you say, "Well, I think we'll stick with what we've got"?

I sure don't.

I have the guts to vote against my party when my party is wrong. If I do not, then I become a tool of my party, and that's not a position I relish. But then, I'm more focused on local politics anyway.

As a purely trivial example (please no one throw it at me as if I'm equating the two), when my local PBS station starts playing bs like a "medical intuitive" or Wayne Dyer or Depak Chopra, or cultural drek like Riverdance, I stop sending them checks and I tell them why. When my party floats a seemingly electible candidate who nevertheless can't make a politically pragmatic decision to save his life and who doesn't even know that Wales is a country, and who withdraws from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in his first months (don't tell me he didn't -- I saw it happen) while cooking up schemes to divide up Iraq, I retain my right to vote as I please until the leadership wakes the f--k up.

But as I said above, the kicker was when GWB blatantly lied to the public. He's no better than Clinton. And isn't as good a politician. Very sad, but true.

StD

*By terrain, I'm not referring to Iraq, although Kerry's military record, though brief and obviously embellished, is evidently superior to W's. I'm referring to the federal political system. To hell with this outside-the-beltway nonsense. Give me a man who knows the system.

[Mr. Svinlesha]

Sam:

Hiya, Sam! Remember me?

First off, I just want to address something you posted on page 2, (post # 97), that seems to have slipped through the net: I think that it was a reasonable interpretation of the information he had been given. In Woodward's new book, he describes a scene in which a skeptical Bush is critical of the evidence, and asks George Tenet for his interpretation. And Tenet says, "The WMD case is a slam dunk." Bush asks him again, and Tenet throws up his hands in the air and repeats, "Sir, it's a slam dunk. No question."Now, if Woodward’s claim is true, consider some of the statements (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/05/tenet.transcript.ap/) Tenet made at Georgetown University on Feb. 5, 2004, for comparison: By definition, intelligence deals with the unclear, the unknown, the deliberately hidden. What the enemies of the United States hope to deny we work to reveal.

The question being asked about Iraq in the starkest terms is, were we right or were we wrong? In the intelligence business, you are almost never completely wrong or completely right….

Let's turn to Iraq. Much of the current controversy centers on our prewar intelligence, summarized in the national intelligence estimate of October of 2002.

National estimates are publications where the intelligence community as a whole seeks to sum up what we know about a subject, what we don't know, what we suspect may be happening and where we differ on key issues.

This estimate asked if Iraq had chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. We concluded that in some of these categories Iraq had weapons, and that in others where it did not have them, it was trying to develop them.

Let me be clear: Analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the estimate.

They never said there was an imminent threat.….

Did these strands of information weave into a perfect picture? Could they answer every question? No, far from it. But taken together, this information provided a solid basis on which to estimate whether Iraq did or did not have weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them.

It is important to underline the word "estimate," because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof….

Any call that I make today is necessarily provisional. Why? Because we need more time and we need more data….One of these pictures is not like the other, Sam. Either Woodward is lying in his book, or Tenet is lying in his speech. And after all of our debates on and around this issue, I find it frustrating that you still insist that the pre-war intelligence was rock solid. You’ve previously stated that if it was discovered that the US public had been mislead in any way, then “heads should roll.” I want to once again point out that Bush has done apparently nothing in the way of investigating this failure, and that no heads have rolled at all.

Do you not think that a US president should be held accountable for his statements and actions?

Anyway, moving on: Part of the problem here is that we all can't even agree on the basic facts, perhaps because both sides are listening to only what they want to hear. When I hear opponents of the war claim that this is a popular uprising, and that Iraq is spiralling into civil war, and that the U.S. is hated by almost all Iraqis, and that they weren't greeted as liberators, I just shake my head in wonder. Because my perception of what's going on there is totally different.Yeah, I’m not surprised. But you don’t have to take the polar extreme of your position to be the only standard against which to argue. So let us get down to brass tacks, and discuss the problems that the US occupation is really facing, rather than the talking points you’ve stolen from the monkey fist collective or the Independent Media Center. I welcome your invitation to debate “the basic facts,” but would like to point out that every one of your assertions, above, are oversimplifications of very complex issues.

Regarding point 1), that the current problems in Iraq constitute a “popular uprising;” no. The fear is that they can morph into a popular uprising, if the CPA mishandles the situation. (And given the CPA’s history thus far, I consider this fear to be well-grounded. Even you admit that the CPA has been making serious mistakes.) Experts are warning that a hard-handed approach to the stalemate in Fallujah or Najaf will provoke a backlash, and serve to legitimate what appears to be a nascent uprising among a large swath of poor, disenfranchised, and marginalized Iraqis. However, al-Sadr did have a larger base of support than occupation forces believed prior to the uprising. It is possible that his base of support was even larger than indigenous opponents, like Sistani, reckoned. Juan Cole estimates that between 30% and 50% of Iraq’s Shiite community are followers of al-Sadr.

The debate about the nature of the insurgency, really, has centered on its origins. That’s a question about which experts (and other commentators) were originally divided. Some, especially those on the right, argued that the average Iraqi supported the invasion, and that the insurgency was basically foreign-based; that “terrorists,” al-Qaida agitators and so forth, combined with the rump end of the Sunni Baathist resistance, were the real source of the problems. Others, especially those on the left, argued that the insurgency was primarily indigenous (i.e., a “popular” resistance movement). Prior to the latest uprising, I suspect it was a bit of both, although I have a hard time believing that, at least in some areas, the insurgents didn’t enjoy a fairly broad network of indigenous support. Now it seems clear that the latest troubles find their basis primarily within the local population, i.e., that they aren’t the result of al-Qaida influence. That’s why analysts are employing the words “popular uprising.”

There are good reasons to be alarmed at the potential of such a revolt, and of a “two-front” war in which Sunnis and Shiites combine forces to expel the occupation. That one sees the beginnings of such a revolt in the events of the last few weeks is in no sense unreasonable. What’s more, these are exactly the sorts of problems that opponents of the war warned of prior to the invasion. I’ll return to this point further down, but to summarize: you write, “Other polls have shown that Iraq does not want an Islamic government, and it does not want to break apart into three states. Iraqis want to stay together and build a future.” I won’t ask for a cite; I’m aware that Iraqi society is highly educated and “secularized,” compared to other regional actors. But the problem does not disappear just because a significant group – maybe even a majority – rejects an “Islamic government,” in whatever form it might take. The problem is what to do about that, say, 20% of the Shiite community that supports Muqtada al-Sadr fanatically, and that are willing to employ violence to enforce their vision of Iraq upon the rest. Or that sub-group of Kurds who desire full independence from Iraq and willingly pursue it with violent means. Or the conflict between the Arab majority and the Kurd minority over how to effectively divide power at the state level. And so on. All of these problems were foreseen prior to the invasion, but the administration chose to ignore them (as far as I can tell). They certainly weren’t debate extensively here, and when they were brought up, they were met with a resounding silence, simply because no one had any answers. That a majority of Iraqis reject an Islamic state doesn’t really address the underlying problem; in fact, it highlights it.

A lot of wind is being spent claiming that Kerry doesn’t have a vision for getting the US out of this mess, and that might very well be true. But let us also turn the question around and ask ourselves as well, what does Bush propose we do about things? Because really, he and his supporters have gotten the US into this mess, so it’s his (and their) responsibility to get the US out. As far as I can tell, his only solution is a largely symbolic hand-over of “sovereignty” on June 30. At this point, they don’t seem to even know to whom it will be handed. Excuse me if I find this strategy less than satisfactory.

Point 2), the claim that Iraq is “spiraling into civil war,” is a worry, not a statement of fact. Given the events of the last few weeks, and the increasing levels of violence (over 100 US lives lost thus far in April alone), it’s not unreasonable (although I concede that asserting it has happened is).

Regarding point 3), that “Americans are hated by almost all Iraqis,” I must admit I haven’t read that anywhere. I certainly don’t believe it myself, and I don’t think it represents the view of most of us who oppose the war. Do you have a cite, or are you simply “hearing what you want to hear?”

Finally, on point 4), that the invading forces “weren’t greeted as liberators,” it’s certainly not my impression that they were. In some parts of the country, like the Kurdish north, they were greeted that way; but this cannot come as surprise, so I wouldn’t waste time arguing about it with you. But in other areas of the country the greeting was considerably more ambivalent. As liberators, one might reasonably expect spontaneous demonstrations of support, flowers, parades, and so forth. One might reasonably expect as well a dearth of support for insurgency activities, yet they began almost immediately and have continued unabatedly since the end of “major combat operations.” Again, given the near-constant bombings and firefights, one can wonder what you mean with the phrase “greeted as liberators.”

Those who supported the war deployed this claim rhetorically as means of saying, “After all this is over, and Saddam is overthrown, thing will go well for us in Iraq. Since we will be seen as liberators, there will be no, or at least relatively few, post-war problems. We will have the support of the majority of Iraqis.” I haven’t seen this happening, myself, hence my skepticism. Obviously, the idea that we would be “greeted as liberators” would seem to imply that things would go smoothly after the invasion. They clearly have not, hence the oft posed rhetorical question, “I thought we were going to be greeted as liberators? What happened to that?”For instance, there were 17 elections recently in Shiite areas, and in NONE of them did an Islamic fundamentalist come anywhere close to winning. The winners were all people who want Iraq to be democratic with a secular government.I addressed this point above. While it is heartening information (cite, please?), it only highlights the problem; a significant portion of the Iraqi population demands a theocracy, and I wonder what you think should be done about them.al-Sadr himself, the guy responsible for all the latest violence, has very little support even among Shiites.Not according to Juan Cole. The low estimate is 30%. But that can change, if he is perceived as being strong-willed enough to stand up to an unpopular and incompetent secular western occupation.

Given the mystical, millennial, fanatical nature of al-Sadr’s teachings, it is particularly worrisome to find that he has that much support. Cole suspects that al-Sadr suffers severe character pathology, and compares his following to the Branch Dravidians. In fact, a lot of Iraqis fault the U.S. for not doing enough to crack the heads of al-Sadr's minions and other thugs.Well, you wish to deal with facts here. How many Iraqis are “a lot?” What evidence do you have for this assertion? A lot of the violence in Iraq is coming from criminals (Saddam emptied the jails just before the war) and foreign terrorists. Iraqis want these people dealt with.Undoubtedly true, but how much of the violence stems from those sources – and how much is a result of a “popular uprising?”

You go on to reply to annaplurabella’s cites of US unpopularity vis-a-vis the “Arab world” thusly: And this is surprising? We want to put pressure on dictatorships to reform, and you're suprised that the dictatorships don't like it?

Yeah, and of course Mubarek would say that - he's dead set against what's going on in Iraq, because it'll put pressure on his own country.And yet, while admitting here, above, that “putting pressure on dictatorships” is bound to make the US unpopular among them, you originally claimed: Slowly but surely, the U..S. is building allies in the middle east.So, which is it? Is the US building allies, or is it rightfully pissing off oppressive regional dictatorships?

Back shortly (I hope).


Sample the Dog:

Respect.

The Republicans who actually stand up against Bush’s lies and incompetence make the toughest choice of all. If Kerry becomes president, I fully intend to follow the example.

[Mr. Svinlesha]

Sam:

Continuing: on the issue of US troops viewed as “liberators:”They DID. The Iraqi people celebrated wildly. They ran after American soldiers shouting "Bush! Bush!" The day of their liberation is now celebrated as a national holiday.All of this seems strange to me. You’re right; we don’t perceive the facts in the same way.

Some Iraqis did perceive the invasion as a liberation. As you’ve pointed out repeatedly, this was seen most strongly among the Kurds. But not all acted that way. Soldiers entering Basra, for example, were surprised by the lukewarm reception they met there. And in the chaotic looting of Baghdad there were few scenes of Iraqi people running after American soldiers shouting “Bush! Bush!” Rather, I mostly saw scenes of bitter lamentation over the fact that US forces were so poorly equipped to deal with the post-invasion chaos.

Finally, it seems strange to me that you would cite the decision of a US-appointed governing council to declare – is it March 17? – a national holiday as evidence for a broad-based public sentiment that the invasion was actually a liberation. The Iraqis did not come together as a nation and vote for that, did they? Is it wrong to suspect that this holiday reflects the view of the Governing Council, in its relation to the US, rather than the popular will of the Iraqi people?There is no question that the war was seen as a liberation.On the contrary, I think that even to this day Iraqis reveal a deeply ambivalent attitude towards the invasion. I doubt it is possible to fully appreciate the average Iraqi's view of the situation by casting it in the diametrical terms of “invasion/humiliation” or “liberation.” But it also depends by what you mean with the word “liberation.” In fact, as noted by the very cite you link, above: More Iraqis say the United States was right than say it was wrong to lead the invasion, but by just 48 percent to 39 percent, with 13 percent expressing no opinion — hardly the unreserved welcome some U.S. policymakers had anticipated.

As many Iraqis say the war "humiliated" Iraq as say it "liberated" the country; more oppose than support the presence of coalition forces there now….So to my eye, your spin on the poll results seems to be more of an example of you “hearing what you want to hear,” rather than an honest reflection of the poll itself (at least on this point). A year ago, the people of Iraq most certainly saw the Americans as liberators. I don't know how that can be beyond dispute.And a year ago you also thought that it was indisputable that Iraq possessed “WMDs.” Shouldn’t that miscalculation give you pause when you now so readily assert further generalizations about Iraq?

But we were going to address facts. You assert that a year ago, beyond dispute, the “people of Iraq” viewed Americans as “liberators.” Can you provide evidence that this was really the case? Even today, with all the screwups and violence, a plurality of Iraqis think the war was the right thing to do, and that includes the Sunni areas which actually had it pretty good under Saddam. Support for the war is still in the high 80's in the Kurdish regions and not much lower in the southern Shiite areas.I don’t know where you get this from. According to you own sources, support for the war is 87% among Kurds (Question: Was the US invasion right?), but less than half of that (40%) among Arabs. That seems much lower to me. So where do you get the assertion that support for the invasion is “not much lower in the southern Shiite areas?” So even with all the violence that's going on, and after being occupied for a year, a plurality of Iraqs STILL think the war was a war of liberation. Why don't you?I don’t really know what you mean with the word “plurality.” The fact is, there is a near even split: 42% of Iraqs view the invasion as a “liberation,” and 41% view it as a “humiliation.” It is also worth noting that these figure weigh in the overwhelming Kurdish support for the invasion; and as jshore has already pointed out, if you look at the Arab population in isolation (approximately 80% of the total number of Iraqi citizens), you see that only 33% view the invasion as a liberation; by contrast, 48%, almost half, view it as a humiliation. And yet from these figures you claim that a “plurality” of Iraqis “STILL think the war was a war of liberation.” And you make this claim without any evidence, other than anecdotal, regarding Iraqi attitudes directly after the invasion; and at the same time, you eschew anecdotal evidence (at least, when it provides a basis for a view of things you disapprove of, apparently).

I must close for now. Hope to get back to the rest of your post when I get a spare moment.

[Rashak Mani]

Some of the more reasonable posts (I think Sam Stone... not sure) said something about Bush doing a somewhat bad job in Iraq and the economy... but that Kerry and the democrats wouldn't do better from what he has seen.

Personally I think Bush is doing terribly in Iraq... and the results are pretty clear. The "liberated" are pissed... the UN is pissed... the coalition is dissolving and finally a LOT OF MONEY is being spent with little to show for it. Anyone can do a better job in Iraq than Bush. Kerry will probably get a somewhat "clean slate" from Arabs and Iraqis. They will be willing to see if something new might work. Bush has lost all respect outside the US.

As for the Economy... some wacko even said the deficit was Clinton's doing !!! Jesus... can I say republican Porn ! Bush just says "stay the course". Kerry at least will try something else... economically wise he will have a republican congress to hold back on splurging money.

I see even reasonable republicans dismissing Kerry for what he MIGHT do... and forgetting Bush's sins way to easily.

[far_born]

To win Republican votes, I think Kerry will have to beat them at their own game.

My own Modest Proposal is that Kerry should promise to fight twice as many wars and kill twice as many people. It seems to be very popular with Republicans.
Bush has only managed a major conflict every other year. I think this could easily be improved upon.

Just make a list of dictators and go down it alphabetically. No justification is needed outside of liberation after all. The long term consequences are also unimportant. If the other democracies don't like it, well that doesn't matter either.

Promise to invade N. Korea and Iran within the first two years and he's a shoe in.

[XT]

As for the Economy... some wacko even said the deficit was Clinton's doing !!! Jesus... can I say republican Porn ! Bush just says "stay the course". Kerry at least will try something else... economically wise he will have a republican congress to hold back on splurging money.

As I said earlier RM, forget about Iraq, the UN, and everything else...except the economy. Bush's fate rides on whether or not the economy is PERCEIVED to be doing well come election time. If it is...then Bush WILL be re-elected, reguardless of all that other stuff. If its not...then all that other stuff won't really matter as he'll be out anyway. No one will care if Kerry is promissing a 'new way' if the economy picks up (or is PERCEIVED to pick up), because 'why change horses in mid-stream if the economy is doing well'?? And no one will care if Kerry is promissing a 'new way' if it doesn't (or is PERCEIVED to NOT be picking up), as folks will be saying 'its time for a change to get the economy going'.

Its not really that complicated. 40% of folks (I'm using a WAG here) will ALWAYS vote 'Pub, 40% will ALWAYS vote 'Crat...doesn't really matter what their candidate does, what scandals happen, etc etc. The only votes in play are the 20% of independant, non-aligned types. And THEY really care most about how the economy is doing.

-XT

[Sample_the_Dog]

And who's our ambassador to Iraq going to be? John Negroponte, a highly experienced diplomat whose only experience in this region is illegally selling arms to Iran while they were at war with Iraq! This is insane.

[pervert]

Sample_the_Dog, blowero and jshore

You are all missing the point. No one is saying that Bush's "mistakes" are going to be held against Kerry if he wins. No one is saying that major policy shifts are necessary to save the nation but Kerry is not providing enough detail. Nor the bizarre contention that some people want to keep the perpetrator of said "mistakes".

It is the Democrats who want to claim the the Bush administration has benn some sort of calamity. This assertion is disputed. The problem is that they have also not succeeded in providing a very clear idea what will be necessary to correct the problems they are harping on and on and on about. The point of all of this is that it makes the democratic claims (or at least their hyperbolic rhetoric) much less believable because they have no concrete suggestions for how to fix the problems.

Remember back to the 1992 campaign? When bush kept harping about character? Do any of you remember how he failed to make the case that character was all that important to the presidency?

This campaign feels similar to that. The Democrats are whining and harping about all these evil things, but they are unable (or unwilling) to place any serious suggestions for changing them on the table.

Iraq is a vietnam quagmire. We'll put white helmets and UN insignias on our troops. (If the international community will let us)

The economy is in the crapper. We'll create 10 million jobs (I always wondered why they didn't go for a higher number).

Bush lied about pre Iraq intelligence. We promise not to do that. Really. Cross our fingers. (and it is believable because democrats would not stand for lying)

The problem as usual is that these responses might have the right sentiment (if you assume they are correct in their assesment in the first place). But they are somewhat short on specifics. You see, its not that anyone agrees with the assesment but is unwilling to change without concrete solutions. It is that the lack of concrete solutions makes the assesment somewhat suspect.

[Sample_the_Dog]

Sample_the_Dog, blowero and jshore

You are all missing the point.
No, perv, you're missing the point, at least in my case.

I'm not a Democrat, obviously (so I don't care what the Democrats claim about Bush). But my only real choice is going to be between Bush and Kerry.

Bush's sins are so eggregious that I'm actually willing to take a chance on a Kerry administration. W's political method is so flawed at its core that his leadership is bound to be an impediment to rectifying our current situation.

The question is, what would GWB have to do to lose your vote? In my case, he would have to surround himself with yes-men/women, alienate pragmatic Republicans, leave good people like Whitman and Shinseki twisting in the wind, pursue ill-advised fiscal policy (imho in order to redeem his father from the crap he took after reversing his "no new taxes" stance), politicize all processes even to the point of interfering with the NBER (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_08/b3871044.htm) (as well as another scheme to cook the Clinton-era budget books, one of the early red flags I was willing to brush off, but which I don't have time to collect sites for at the moment -- perhaps I'll come back to it), then have his cabinet look me in the eye and lie (about military service, about his NSA testifying to the 9/11 Commission, about the administration's claim that they never said Saddam was an imminent threat).

As I've said above, there are huge problems with Kerry. I am not pro-Kerry. But there are larger problems with Bush. So Bush loses my vote. It's that simple. And no argument that "Well, Kerry's plans aren't specific enough for yet" is going to put W back on the good side of the balance.

PS: Maybe I'm reading this wrong...
Nor the bizarre contention that some people want to keep the perpetrator of said "mistakes".... but if this refers to my statements, then all I have to say is "Huh?" People who wish to re-elect Bush desire to keep in office the perpetrator of the mistakes made by the Bush administration. Obviously. ::scratches head::

[CoatOfArms]

The thread question was "Bush Republicans...what does it take to give up on Bush ?" No "Bush Republican" is going to give up to the MA Left Wing Liberal Kerry or Socialist Nader. Why are so many non-Republicans responding to this thread? A little insecurity :confused:

[Snag]

As I said earlier RM, forget about Iraq, the UN, and everything else...except the economy. Bush's fate rides on whether or not the economy is PERCEIVED to be doing well come election time. If it is...then Bush WILL be re-elected, reguardless of all that other stuff. If its not...then all that other stuff won't really matter as he'll be out anyway. No one will care if Kerry is promissing a 'new way' if the economy picks up (or is PERCEIVED to pick up), because 'why change horses in mid-stream if the economy is doing well'?? And no one will care if Kerry is promissing a 'new way' if it doesn't (or is PERCEIVED to NOT be picking up), as folks will be saying 'its time for a change to get the economy going'.

Its not really that complicated. 40% of folks (I'm using a WAG here) will ALWAYS vote 'Pub, 40% will ALWAYS vote 'Crat...doesn't really matter what their candidate does, what scandals happen, etc etc. The only votes in play are the 20% of independant, non-aligned types. And THEY really care most about how the economy is doing.

-XT

Oh sure, folks are not going to care all that much if our men and women in Iraq keep dying at the rate they are. Haven't things been getting better since we declared victory? Who cares about instability in the middle east anyway?

xtisme, it isn't going to be like 1992 this time around, it'll be more like 1964.

Besides, if nothing else, the war is going to have a huge impact on the economy, sooner or later. With more tax cuts ahead for everyone, I expect sooner.

These are the issues that can push swing voters. Plus it may still be a long, hot summer ahead for the Bush administration, in a number of ways. It would probably be interesting to revisit this thread come September to see if there has been any change of heart regarding the OP at that time.

[Sam Stone]

Mr. Svinlesha: I just spent 45 minutes typing a response to your mega-message, and the hamsters ate it. I'll try to answer later on - I'm too annoyed right now to tackle it again. Rest assured, I haven't forgotten about you.

[XT]

Oh sure, folks are not going to care all that much if our men and women in Iraq keep dying at the rate they are. Haven't things been getting better since we declared victory? Who cares about instability in the middle east anyway?

I obviously totally disagree. While tragic, in cold numbers more folks die a year in automobile accidents in a large city than have died in Iraq so far. I just don't see it as a major issue except for people who were already against Bush anyway. I think that the economy will be the key issue as I've already said.

xtisme, it isn't going to be like 1992 this time around, it'll be more like 1964.

Why?

Besides, if nothing else, the war is going to have a huge impact on the economy, sooner or later. With more tax cuts ahead for everyone, I expect sooner.

Sure, it will have a huge inpact on the economy...sooner or later. If its sooner and the economy turns down, GW is out and Kerry is in. If its later, and the PERCEPTION is that the economy is going up, GW gets the nod and another 4 years.

These are the issues that can push swing voters. Plus it may still be a long, hot summer ahead for the Bush administration, in a number of ways. It would probably be interesting to revisit this thread come September to see if there has been any change of heart regarding the OP at that time.

Sure, there are other issues that may swing some voters besides the economy. However, that works both ways of course. However, I think the core issue IS the economy...thats the issue that will swing the most non-aligned one way or the other. I agree though...it will be interesting to re-visit this thread in September and see who, if anyone, is right. I'm content to wait and see. Its all academic to me anyway as I don't like either Bush OR Kerry and won't be voting for either of them.

-XT

[laigle]

I obviously totally disagree. While tragic, in cold numbers more folks die a year in automobile accidents in a large city than have died in Iraq so far. I just don't see it as a major issue except for people who were already against Bush anyway.

So you don't believe 9/11 was a major issue except for people who were already against Osama anyway?

[CoatOfArms]

I... Its all academic to me anyway as I don't like either Bush OR Kerry and won't be voting for either of them. ...
-XT
This OP was for Bush Repulicans. Why RU posting to this thread ?

[rjung]

Just to speculate: the reason Bush Republicans still plan to vote for Bush in 2004 is because they voted for him in 2000, and to not vote for Bush again would be an admission that they were wrong to elect Bush in the first place. The self-esteem of these folks are so tied up in their need to be "right" that they'll vote for Bush again, despite all the lies and screwups and excuses and everything else in the last four years.

All the other talk -- about the merits of the Iraq war, about John Kerry's "waffling", yadda yadda yadda, are all justifications after-the-fact. Dig to the core of a Bush-backer, and you'll find an insecure child who's too scared to admit they voted for an idjit in 2000.

Just a theory, anyway. But it makes more sense than the "Why I still support Bush" excuses we keep hearing.

[pervert]

PS: Maybe I'm reading this wrong...
... but if this refers to my statements, then all I have to say is "Huh?" People who wish to re-elect Bush desire to keep in office the perpetrator of the mistakes made by the Bush administration. Obviously. ::scratches head::
No, it doesn't. It only means that if you assume that those voting for Bush agree with you about those mistakes. That is if they agree with you that they are mistakes. Many do not. So, they are not voting to keep a "mistaker" (as it were) in office.

As I've said above, there are huge problems with Kerry. I am not pro-Kerry. But there are larger problems with Bush. So Bush loses my vote. It's that simple. And no argument that "Well, Kerry's plans aren't specific enough for yet" is going to put W back on the good side of the balance. Obviously, that's perfectly fair. Your vote is your vote. But try to look at the situation from another angle if you can*. If you assume that the evidence for the list of "mistakes" you gave is pretty clear cut, your positon is fairly reasonable. But what if the evidence is not so clear cut. What if, in fact, much of it is quite suspect. If you assume that the mistakes you blame Bush for are not mistakes at all, (or did not happen) then your valuation of him versuxs Kerry would certainly change. Additionally, if you imagine a Bush supporter taking this view, you can more easily see how he is not voting to keep someone in office who made mistakes (in his mind).

I probably should note that I am not trying to rehash all of the possible mistakes Bush has or hasn't made here. I am certainly not proposing that they did nor that they did not happen. My point is that if you truly want to understand why someone can vote for Bush, you may have to imagine what he looks like from the point of view of someone who does not know about, believe, or agree with your interpretation of any number of the crimes you think Bush is guilty of. Once you let go of the presumption that your interpretation of events is "what happened", you will be better equiped to understand how someone who has a different view of "what happened" may act.

*I'm not at all implying that you cannot see things from the other side. That is just a figure of speech.

[Bigblackafrican]

Doesn't matter if you convert to John Kerry or not.

Dubya will get his azz handed to him in the November election.

And as always look for some cheating and deception. Bush is just plain stupid with an inability to communicate facts.

[pervert]

Dig to the core of a Bush-backer, and you'll find an insecure child who's too scared to admit they voted for an idjit in 2000.

Just a theory, anyway. But it makes more sense than the "Why I still support Bush" excuses we keep hearing.
Do you remember writing that liberals are incapable of condescention in another thread? You are truly a funny person. :D

[CoatOfArms]

... get his azz handed to him in the November election.
And as always look for some cheating and deception. Bush is just plain stupid with an inability to communicate facts.
The OP was ... "Bush Republicans" ... uz'e ain't ...

[Rashak Mani]

And as always look for some cheating and deception. Bush is just plain stupid with an inability to communicate facts.

The problem lies in that he seems pretty good at keeping people beleiving in factoids... not facts.

[Brutus]

...Just a theory, anyway.
And a rather stupid theory.


But it makes more sense than the "Why I still support Bush" excuses we keep hearing.

No it does not. You cannot wrap your mind around the concept that people actually support George W. Bush. You are incapable of rational thought when it comes to figuring out why we support GW. (Even though the reasons have been listed time and time again.) Rather, you just pip up with your little ad hominem barbs and childish snide remarks, all the while ignoring the matter laid out in the OP.

The OP asked:

Bush Republicans...what does it take to give up on Bush ?


You in no way, shape, or form made a rational attempt to answer that. Sure, you are not a 'Bush Republican'. But if you are a mature adult, you could have put yourself into a GW-supporters shoes, and made a good-faith effort to answer. But no, we get little drive-bys that have nothing to do with the actual discussion taking place.

You are not the only one guilty of doing this, of course. I smell desperation in Great Debates from you and yours. The polls numbers in no way reflect your 'blinders-on' view of reality, and it must be disconcerting. But ramping up the number of little snipes in GD will not change the poll numbers, so ease off.

[jayjay]

CoatofArms, no OP gets to unilaterally dictate who can and cannot reply to his/her post.

[Sample_the_Dog]

But what if the evidence is not so clear cut. What if, in fact, much of it is quite suspect.Yeah, and if my aunt had wheels, she'd be a bicycle. :D

I agree with you perfectly on one of your main points. People who believe W is doing a fine job should certainly vote for him.

Most folks where I work are in that camp. Imho, based on what I hear them say, they don't really know much about the administration at all. Still, there can be substantive disagreements among honest people about justifications for the Iraq war and the effectiveness of the administration's fiscal policy.

I'm certainly not going to go out and join the Democratic Party (or the Reform Party or the Libertarians or anyone else), but this year, this candidate doesn't get my chad.

Goodnight, Gracie.

[pervert]

I agree with you perfectly on one of your main points. People who believe W is doing a fine job should certainly vote for him.
Thanks you. But my point was really the reverse of this. That people who are going to vote for Bush likely think he is doing a fine job.

Specifically I (and perhaps they) take offence at the suggestion that support for President Bush is a result of stupidity, nefarious intent, or credulity. There is little evidence that such is the case. Unless you take a few things for granted, namely that he is not, in fact, doing a fine job.

What I am saying, is that you have to stop trying to ask question as the OP did such as "We know all this bad stuff about Bush, why don't you all abandon him?". And ask instead something like "Which of these "scandals" if you believed them would sway your vote from Bush to Kerry."

Such a question would be more productive in my view because it treats both sides of the debate as reasonable people. And, of course, since many of the complaints raised about Bush have to do with occurances while he was president (I'm thinking of the economy here, the Iraq war was clearly an action taken by his administration), a serious political opponent would have to provide clear evidence that he could fix each of those complaints.

Again, I draw your attention to the 1992 campaign. Bush senior kept harping on the idea that Clinton's character would put the United States and the world in danger. His claim rang hollow (at least to me) because of his own failed promise. Kerry has a similar problem IMHO because his complaints do not seem to live up to his solutions.


BTW:Yeah, and if my aunt had wheels, she'd be a bicycle. I did not mean to suggest that the evidence actually is false. Merely to offer a way to "get into the other guy's shoes" as it were.

[CoatOfArms]

I'm certainly not going to go out and join the Democratic Party (or the Reform Party or the Libertarians or anyone else), but this year, this candidate doesn't get my chad.

Goodnight, Gracie.
So, I take it your not a Bush Republican?

[XT]

This OP was for Bush Repulicans. Why RU posting to this thread ?

I didn't realize anyone had put a lock on the thread that said only 'Bush Republicans' could participate. Could you point out where thats in the charter that I can't post in any thread on GD??

So you don't believe 9/11 was a major issue except for people who were already against Osama anyway?

Correct me if I'm wrong (or if you THINK I'm wrong) but I don't believe Ole Osama is running for office. Maybe you could point it out to me where he is? Because I fail to see your point otherwise.

I'm not saying that the Iraq war, 9/11, environmental issues, steel tarrifs or any of the other, er, controversial aspects of our lovely president AREN'T issues...I'm saying that the core issue, the one that will decide the presidency (IMO) is the economy. If you want to disagree with that and think it all rides on the publics perception of the Iraq war, or whether or not GW stuffed a sock down his flight suit on that carrier deck, knock yourself out. We simply disagree.

-XT

[CoatOfArms]

I didn't realize anyone had put a lock on the thread that said only 'Bush Republicans' could participate. Could you point out where thats in the charter that I can't post in any thread on GD??
-XT
Well, the OP said "Bush Republicans ..." and obviously you ain't. So why do you want to put your fingers in the pie? :rolleyes:

[XT]

Well, the OP said "Bush Republicans ..." and obviously you ain't. So why do you want to put your fingers in the pie?

Nope...I sure "ain't". However, nothing precludes me from weighing in on this debate if I choose to. If you don't like my responses, simply ignore them.

-XT

[Sample_the_Dog]

So, I take it your not a Bush Republican?Used to be, which is why I've posted here. Former Bush supporter, and a supporter of the invasion of Iraq. If the OP really wants to know what it takes to make a Republican decide to vote against a sitting Republican President, well, mine's one case in point.

Of course, if the intent was just to lead another liberal rant -- which I have to trust it wasn't, despite the way much of the thread has turned out -- then I've wasted my time. But I have to admit, I'm angry at the man. I don't think he's competent to be in office.

Then again, if "Bush Republican" is defined as someone who will support Bush come hell or high water, then there's no point in this thread at all.

[CoatOfArms]

Nope...I sure "ain't". However, nothing precludes me from weighing in on this debate if I choose to. If you don't like my responses, simply ignore them. -XT
Not really. The OP asked "Bush Republicans ..." Based on principals and ethics you should not be responding to this thread.

[jayjay]

Not really. The OP asked "Bush Republicans ..." Based on principals and ethics you should not be responding to this thread.

You're obviously not from around here...

[XT]

Not really. The OP asked "Bush Republicans ..." Based on principals and ethics you should not be responding to this thread.

I joined the thread because I had some comments to make which I felt were relevant. If you want to dispute my assertions from previous posts, be my guest. But don't try and tell me what my own principals or ethics are or aren't. As I said, if you don't like what I've said, feel free to dispute me or ignore me. But don't tell me where I can and can't post. Only a Mod can do that, and I doubt they would in this case.

-XT

[CoatOfArms]

I joined the thread because I had some comments to make which I felt were relevant.
-XT
Well, obviously, your comments are not relevant because you are not a "Bush Republican" as specified in the OP. Sorry ... :confused:

[Kimstu]

StD: Then again, if "Bush Republican" is defined as someone who will support Bush come hell or high water, then there's no point in this thread at all.

Very good point, StD. I think I and rjung (in that order, chronologically) have been chiefly responsible for causing this confusion in generalizations we've made about "Bush Republicans"---really meaning a certain subset of Republican Bush supporters---and why we think there's nothing that could change their minds.

Yes, there do seem to be some Bush die-hards who would vote for Bush no matter what he did (as long as it wasn't anything liberal), and I think it's interesting and relevant to discuss their motivations here, even if we already know that they would never "give up on Bush". But there are also a number of non-die-hards who nonetheless still support Bush despite having some reservations about him, and I think it was to them that this thread was chiefly directed.

In other words: if you're a Bush Republican who's not ideologically committed to the belief that Bush is basically doing the right thing no matter what, but at present you still think it would be a good idea to re-elect him, what events or Administration actions might change your mind? StD has given a good portrait of how a Bush supporter turned into a Bush opponent out of specific dissatisfactions with the Administration. What would cause a similar level of dissatisfaction among the non-die-hard Republicans who still support Bush?

(Mind you, I'm not sure I quite see the point of the question anyway, but I think the idea is to get a clearer picture of the way that non-die-hard Bush supporters weigh his positives against his negatives.)

[rjung]

Yes, there do seem to be some Bush die-hards who would vote for Bush no matter what he did (as long as it wasn't anything liberal), and I think it's interesting and relevant to discuss their motivations here, even if we already know that they would never "give up on Bush". But there are also a number of non-die-hards who nonetheless still support Bush despite having some reservations about him, and I think it was to them that this thread was chiefly directed.
To be honest, given how many of George W. Bush's policies run counter to the traditional beliefs of the conservative ideology (smaller government, less intervention in foreign affairs, fiscal responsibility), I think the number of folks who are "non-die-hards" while still backing Bush is an incredibly small number.

Seems to me the choice is simple: do you support the candidate because he's wearing the "GOP" badge, or do you support your political ideals?

[Mr. Svinlesha]

xtisme:I obviously totally disagree. While tragic, in cold numbers more folks die a year in automobile accidents in a large city than have died in Iraq so far. I just don't see it as a major issue except for people who were already against Bush anyway.Hmmm…find me a town in the US with a population between 135000 and 150000 that suffered more than 700 traffic fatalities over the last year.

Simon X and Sample the Dog are examples of people for whom the situation in Iraq is a major issue, even though they weren’t originally against Bush. Another is this columnist with the Kansas City Star (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/columnists/8512573.htm) (registration required), who writes:I'm ashamed to say it, but I almost cannot bear to read each morning's news from the war, or look at the photographs — images of vehicles on fire, of wrecked buildings, and of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians carrying their dead and wounded away….

So I do not linger long over the day's news. I read as much of it as I am able, then put it aside, although as I've said I'm ashamed of doing it.

But the truth is, I have worse than that to be ashamed of.

I'm ashamed of believing that Saddam Hussein was worth the price of this thing we're now caught up in.

And ashamed of my credulity in believing the false reasons given for undertaking it.

I'm ashamed of the suffering our mistakes have cost, and of the way in which we have so cavalierly alienated our friends and allies in the world.

I'm ashamed of having accepted, so willingly, the illusions about how this operation would end, when it is now clear the architects of it themselves had no understanding of the difficulty and no sensible plan.

All this is hindsight now. There's no remedy for the regret. Except as a guide for the future, regret is useless. There's but one constructive thing left to do, and I will do it again when the opportunity presents itself.

I will vote.So I’m not sure you’ve convinced me yet. I agree that the economy is also an important consideration, but I doubt the election can be reduced to a single issue.


pervert:But try to look at the situation from another angle if you can*. If you assume that the evidence for the list of "mistakes" you gave is pretty clear cut, your position is fairly reasonable. But what if the evidence is not so clear cut. What if, in fact, much of it is quite suspect. If you assume that the mistakes you blame Bush for are not mistakes at all, (or did not happen) then your valuation of him versus Kerry would certainly change.Well, not to be condescending, but that’s fairly obvious. I think Rashak is wondering what it would take to get “Bush Republicans” to realize that Bush is either inept or willfully mendacious, since there is such an extensive body of evidence for this assertion.Specifically I (and perhaps they) take offence at the suggestion that support for President Bush is a result of stupidity, nefarious intent, or credulity. There is little evidence that such is the case. Unless you take a few things for granted, namely that he is not, in fact, doing a fine job.Consider this recent poll, Most see Iraq link to al-Qaeda (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/8497819.htm) (registration also required): A new poll shows that 57 percent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein gave "substantial support" to al-Qaeda before the war with Iraq, despite a lack of evidence of that relationship.

In addition, 45 percent of Americans have the impression that "clear evidence" was found that Iraq worked closely with Osama bin Laden's terrorist network. Thirty-eight percent believe that before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and 22 percent believe he had a major program for developing them.

There is no known evidence to date that these statements are true….

Despite that record, many Americans continue to believe that the threat from Iraqi weapons and its alleged links to terrorism justified the war. That conviction correlates closely with support for the war and President Bush, the poll found.

For example, among those who say most experts agree that Iraq had banned weapons, 72 percent plan to vote for Bush.

Assertions by the Bush administration about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and its alleged links to terrorism helped shape public perceptions, said Steven Kull, the director of the program.Well, you used the words “stupidity, nefarious intent, or credulity.” Although I’m not completely comfortable with that characterization in all cases (I’ve no doubt that Sam, for example, is none of the above), this poll does provide evidence that something strange is going on. As Sam writes, it seems like even the “facts” are in dispute.

We have a chicken-and-egg question here as well. There appears to be a correlation between 1) supporting Bush and 2) believing many of the administration’s pre-war claims regarding Iraq. But the question arises, which is cause, and which is effect?

57% of the US public (give or take a couple of percentage points) still believes that Saddam supported al-Qaida prior to the war. 45% believe, despite all news coverage to the contrary, that the US has uncovered solid evidence of this cooperation. Of this group, 72% plan to vote for Bush in the next election. Is it possible that they simply don’t know the truth? In that case, one might conclude that ignorance is the driving force behind much of Bush’s support. If these people were to discover that their beliefs were mistaken, they might not support him.

But what if they choose to support Bush first, so to speak, and then as a result willfully choose to ignore information that runs counter to their preconceptions? In such a case they would simply take Bush’s word as truth, and dismiss the rest – as the spin of a partisan, “liberal media,” for example. A lot of us on the left are beginning to ask that question, which, by the way, ties in to the issue Sam raised above concerning the diametrically opposed perceptions of Iraq, the occupation, and so on. For example, one political analyst suggests that the poll results suggest that “We're so polarized right now that people are seeing what they want to see through a very partisan lens.” Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/) wonders:Why would so many Americans cling to patently false beliefs? One can only speculate of course. But I would suggest that the two-party system in the US has produced a two-party epistemology. Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. If it were accepted that Saddam had virtually nothing to do with al-Qaeda, that he had no weapons of mass destruction (nor any significant programs for producing them), and that no evidence for such things has been uncovered after the US and its allies have had a year to comb through Baath documents-- if all that is accepted, then President Bush's credibility would suffer. For his partisans, it is absolutely crucial that the president retain his credibility. Therefore, rather than face reality, they re-jigger it to create a fantasy world in which Saddam and Usamah are buddies (as in the Jimmy Fallon/ Horatio Sanz skits on the American comedy show, Saturday Night Live), and in which David Kay (of whom respondents say they've never heard) never recanted his earlier belief that the WMD was there somewhere.

Of those who maintain that Iraq actually did have WMD, 72% say they are going to vote for Bush.and goes on to reflect upon a recent example: It is bad for the country for policy to be made based on falsehoods, and it is even worse for failed policies not be be recognized as such because the public clings to myths.

I saw how the mythical opinions are generated at the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations where I testified last Tuesday. Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger testified, and began his testimony with a long quote from Usama Bin Laden about how the US was timid and had easily been chased out of Lebanon and Aden with a few bombs. It was an odd way to begin a hearing on what has gone wrong in Iraq.

…it seems clear to me that Schlesinger was trying to shape his Senate testimony so as to hint around that the Iraq War was somehow connected to al-Qaeda, even though we all know that it wasn't. The only one who challenged Schlesinger on this was Rhode Island Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee…

Actually, George Tenet has testified that there was no relation between Saddam and 9/11. What is interesting here is how completely honest and aboveboard Chafee was being, in taking on the Neocon Consensus. That consensus has been adopted by the Right of the Republican Party as its election playbook, and it is repeated on Fox Cable News, on rightwing talk radio, at Republican fundraisers, dinners, and in television interviews all through the Red States. So far the Republican Right has been able to keep its partisans with it on these matters….

If nearly half the country cannot even see that things are going badly wrong in Iraq, one despairs that anyone will work up the political will to try to fix the problems before it is too late. (As an aside, I note in these debates it is often argued by those who support Bush that those who criticize his policies are driven by their dislike of him as a person to spin every possible issue as negatively as possible – hence the epithet “Bush-basher,” and comments like that of xtisme, above, to the effect that the Iraq war is not “a major issue except for people who were already against Bush anyway.”)

Finally, Josh Marshall (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/) wonders about the effect Bush could exert upon this mistaken belief, should he choose to do so: But consider this. And let's consider this a thought experiment, probing the limits of passive presidential deception.

Let's say that 55% of Americans still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction on the eve of the war and that they were providing material support to al Qaida. Let's not question why they believe it. Let's just put it out there.

Now, what would happen if in some major forum -- a press conference or a major speech -- the president were to go before the public and say: "Before the invasion, we believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. We made the best guess based on the intelligence we had. But, now, having looked at all the evidence, it's clear we were wrong. He didn't have them."

Clearly, here we're setting aside questions of bad-faith and willful deception. But let's give him the best foot to put forward.

A week after that speech, or that comment in a press conference, how much do you think those numbers (55%) would change? I suspect they'd change quite a bit.

And what that tells me is that, to a great degree, the portion of the public that is is misinformed on this issue is misinformed because the president continues to deceive them, even if in a passive manner.

And why does he does so? Because it is in his political interest that they remain deceived.Look back at kanicbird’s bizarre post (page 2, # 68). To him, the facts on the ground are simply lies. Any evidence that contradicts his vision of the Bush presidency and its Iraq policies is nothing more than the construction of a “liberal media” that hates Bush, and hates America.

At a more sophisticated level, it works like this: any sort evidence, no matter how fragmentary or suspect, is immediately seized upon and trumpeted as proof that the pro-war side is right. Any evidence that runs counter to that view, on the other hand, is treated differently; we cannot jump to conclusion in that case. We must take a step back, gather more data, analyze more carefully, and then maybe, in 4 or 5 years, we’ll be able to come to a conclusion about it. Thus, on the basis of quite flimsy evidence, the administration can claim that Iraq has extensive contacts with al-Qaida, or that there can be “no doubt” that it possesses some of the most destructive weapons known to man. Then, afterwards, when mountains of evidence reveal these assertions to be false, they step back and claim, “We need more time; we need to gather more data.” The more knowledgeable Bush supporters tend to employ this strategy as well, in my experience. It’s a very effective technique, especially since it creates the illusion that one is being fair-minded and cautiously open to contrary evidence.


Sam:

Bummer about your post. A word to the wise: I always compose my responses in Word, and then cut and paste. That way, if the hamsters attack, I still have a copy to repost.

Am looking forward to your response. I’m still not finished critiquing your last effort, either, so, in the words of the governor of California: “I’ll be back.”

[Rashak Mani]

Look back at kanicbird’s bizarre post (page 2, # 68). To him, the facts on the ground are simply lies. Any evidence that contradicts his vision of the Bush presidency and its Iraq policies is nothing more than the construction of a “liberal media” that hates Bush, and hates America.

I thought no one would mention that wacko post... absolute denial of reality !

Great post Mr. Svinlesha, pretty much summarized it all in one.

As for party politics... I think its gone a bit further than that. Bush has appealed to national and patriotic sentiment that goes way beyond gun toting republicanism. The very issue of "America is Good" is called in doubt if Iraq was invaded for no good reason. To grasp the concept of Iraq being either a major fumble or major deceit isn't something people want to do.

I don't know about other so called "liberals" here... but I sympathize with a lot of what would be called Republican ideas: Smaller Government, no handouts and business minded policies. So I don't like people answering criticism to Bush with criticisms to Clinton... its silly. If Bush is not doing a good job... get another fucking Republican ! I would vote for Powell anyday if I could. There must be some rational republicans left over... even if they have a few distasteful religious or military ideas.... anything but Bush.

[PatriotX]

What if the GWB WH staffed the Pentagon with Mylroie conspiracists?
Would that be enough to change anyone's mind about the quality of the WH's judgement?

[PatriotX]

I thought no one would mention that wacko post... absolute denial of reality !

I addressed it thusly, (but with shitty coding):
"If you were a little more correct, you'd be wrong. As it is, though, you're not even wrong.
I'm particularly surprised to learn the GWB eliminated spam."



I don't know about other so called "liberals" here... but I sympathize with a lot of what would be called Republican ideas: Smaller Government, no handouts and business minded policies. So I don't like people answering criticism to Bush with criticisms to Clinton... its silly. If Bush is not doing a good job... get another fucking Republican ! I would vote for Powell anyday if I could. There must be some rational republicans left over... even if they have a few distasteful religious or military ideas.... anything but Bush.

Take a look at the American Conservative Union's Statement of principles (http://conservative.org/about/principles.asp).
Choice quotes

It is our belief that the Constitution is designed to guarantee the free exercise of the inherent rights of the individual through strictly limiting the power of government.
We further believe that our liberties can remain secure only if government is so limited that it cannot infringe upon those rights.
We believe that any responsible conservative organization must conduct itself within the framework of the Constitution; in pursuance of this belief we refuse to countenance any actions which conflict in any way with the traditions of the American political system.



Maybe you're a conservative and didn't know it?

[Kimstu]

SimonX: What if the GWB WH staffed the Pentagon with Mylroie conspiracists?

"Mylroie conspiracists"? Wozzat?

[google google google...] Oh. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html)

Nah, I think that if someone can still defend the Administration's "Iraqi-threat" scare tactics despite their massive factual wrongness and apparent unscrupulous deceitfulness, they won't be fazed by the revelation that these scare tactics were largely based on the ideas of someone who seems to be a crackpot conspiracy theorist:

At the end of the interview, Mylroie, who exudes a slightly frazzled, batty air, started getting visibly agitated, her finger jabbing at the camera and her voice rising to a yell as she outlined the following apocalyptic scenario: "[...] There is a very acute chance as we go to war that Saddam will use biological agents as revenge against Americans, that there will be anthrax in the United States and there will be smallpox in the United States. Are you in Canada prepared for Americans who have smallpox and do not know it crossing the border and bringing that into Canada?"

This kind of hysterical hyperbole is emblematic of Mylroie's method, which is to never let the facts get in the way of her monomaniacal certainties. In the case of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, she has said that Terry Nichols, one of the plotters, was in league with Ramzi Yousef. Richard Matsch, the veteran federal judge who presided over the Oklahoma City bombing case, ruled any version of this theory to be inadmissible at trial. Mylroie implicates Iraq in the 1996 bombing of a U.S. military facility in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 U.S. servicemen. In 2001, a grand jury returned indictments in that case against members of Saudi Hezbollah, a group with ties not to Iraq, but Iran. Mylroie suggests that the attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 might have been "the work of both bin Laden and Iraq." An overseas investigation unprecedented in scope did not uncover any such connection. Mylroie has written that the crash of TWA flight 800 into Long Island Sound in 1996 likely was an Iraqi plot. A two-year investigation by the National Tran-sportation Safety Board ruled it was an accident. According to Mylroie, Iraq supplied the bomb-making expertise for the attack which killed 17 U.S. sailors on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000. No American law enforcement official has made that claim. Mylroie blames Iraq for the post-9/11 anthrax attacks around the United States. Marilyn Thompson, The Washington Post's investigations editor, who has written an authoritative book on those attacks, says, "The F.B.I. has essentially dismissed this theory and says there is no evidence to support it." A U.S. counter-terrorism official remarked: "Mylroie probably thinks the Washington sniper was an Iraqi."

[Shodan]

I think the Left is going thru something in the twentyfirst century that conservatives went thru in the 90s.

"How can you possibly support that person? He is a known, proven, definite liar! Don't you care anything about truth or morality or the dignity of the US?"

To which the reponse is, "That isn't as important as this other issue that I care more about. Overall, things are going relatively well, and therefore I support the guy."

Which side is showing blinkered ideological blindness? Why not the other?

We are looking at the same set of facts, but thru different lenses. Yes, you too. And your version is no more unquestionably right than my version.

Which is why I thought Sam Stone's question way back on page 1 was a useful one. Under what circumstances would some of our more rabid posters begin to support Bush? What would it take?

Or is the answer "Nothing he could do would change my mind", in which case perhaps stubborn partisan blindness is not confined solely to the GOP side of the aisle.

Regards,
Shodan

[XT]

Hmmm…find me a town in the US with a population between 135000 and 150000 that suffered more than 700 traffic fatalities over the last year.

Well, its not a very valid comparison, as you well know. Combat is just slightly more dangerous than driving your car when you compare relative numbers in population/troops deployed. However, instead of nit picking my example, which breaks down as you know in direct numbers (and was ridiculous IMO for you to make), why not address my core assertion...that is, that Iraq doesn't weigh as heavily with the voters as the economy does/will come November. If you think that Iraq and the current level of troop losses will end up weighing more heavily, or even be relatively the same weight with the voters as the economy simply say that and we can disagree.

Hell, never mind. We'll just wait and see what happens to the economy by November and see how the election goes. If the economy improves (or the perception is that it has) and Bush still loses then I'm obviously wrong...or if the economy goes to shit and Bush still wins then again I'm wrong.

-XT

[Rashak Mani]

To which the reponse is, "That isn't as important as this other issue that I care more about. Overall, things are going relatively well, and therefore I support the guy."

Which side is showing blinkered ideological blindness? Why not the other?

Which is why I thought Sam Stone's question way back on page 1 was a useful one. Under what circumstances would some of our more rabid posters begin to support Bush? What would it take?

Or is the answer "Nothing he could do would change my mind", in which case perhaps stubborn partisan blindness is not confined solely to the GOP side of the aisle.

Regards,
Shodan



When Clinton said he didn't have sex... I thought he was hiding something. Most Brazilians thought it was amusing at worse. Well apparently he did lie... so much for the blue dress and american morality. No casualties beyond the supposed bombing of Belgrade. Lying about Iraq is real nasty vs blowjob nasty.

Kerry is no great leader... or doesn't appear to be so. Still compared to the avalanche of dirt coming up about Bush I did wonder what Bush needed to do in order for his followers to blink at least. Ideological blinders I feel are more on the Bush side than the opposition. With the recent polls about half of americans beleiving in AQ - Saddam connection and that WMDs do exist I feel warranted in this belief.

Sam could start another thread on the topic of course... the reasons I'm against Bush are pretty solid I feel... and even though I'm prone to overlook some good things he might have done... I see much more negative things.

One thing his supporters correctly claim is that Bush is determined and "stays the course" or doesn't flinch evertime a new poll comes around. Though a good part of this is called "stubborn" elsewhere. Bush has followed a certain line of thought and action. We can with certainty say we know what creature he is. Its not a quality to always be the same to me... but he certainly is solid in his ideals. Bad or good. He doesn't flip flop like he likes to compare with Kerry... but this can be very bad. Stubborness combined with self rightneous, no ability to see the other side, and a staff of handlers or yes sayers means Bush will stay the course out of sheer pride, prejudice or lack of ability to admit he can do something else. The world is complex and no plan is immune to defects. Politics and people change. To adapt to changing conditions is good in my view.

So no I cannot ever change my mind on Bush because he apparently is set in the 19th century religious and moralistic views I cannot agree with. He doesn't seem capable of having a more multilateral view of the world... he beleives the US is God's creation and responsible for giving "freedom" to others in God's name. He favors certain elements and factions that are unacceptable. So unless he becomes in a pretty short period of time a real diplomat... a real leader... a real multilateralist and sheds his neo-con creeps I can say I have good reasons to want to see him fall.

[Shodan]

So no I cannot ever change my mind on Bush ...Precisely.

And I assume you don't believe this is so because you are stubbornly stupid or hypocritical or blindly partisan.

Those who disagree with you don't believe that about themselves either.

"After the twenty-six thousand Bush-bashings on the SDMB, anyone who still supports Bush must be a moron or a hypocrite. Bush Republicans - which is it?" is just not a question that can be answered to your satisfaction.

Regards,
Shodan

[Rashak Mani]

And I assume you don't believe this is so because you are stubbornly stupid or hypocritical or blindly partisan.

Regards,
Shodan

Quote the rest please ?!

"So no I cannot ever change my mind on Bush because he apparently is set in the 19th century religious and moralistic views I cannot agree with. He doesn't seem capable of having a more multilateral view of the world... he beleives the US is God's creation and responsible for giving "freedom" to others in God's name. He favors certain elements and factions that are unacceptable. So unless he becomes in a pretty short period of time a real diplomat... a real leader... a real multilateralist and sheds his neo-con creeps I can say I have good reasons to want to see him fall."

[pervert]

But what if they choose to support Bush first, so to speak, and then as a result willfully choose to ignore information that runs counter to their preconceptions?Or what if they simply interpret the value of such evidence diferently than you do? Is it absolutely beyond the realm of possibility that some of the evidence you are talking about is not 100% conclusive?

At a more sophisticated level, it works like this: any sort [of] evidence, no matter how fragmentary or suspect, is immediately seized upon and trumpeted as proof that the pro-war side is right. Any evidence that runs counter to that view, on the other hand, is treated differently; we cannot jump to conclusion in that case. We must take a step back, gather more data, analyze more carefully, and then maybe, in 4 or 5 years, we’ll be able to come to a conclusion about it.Do you not think there is a similar effect running from the other side?

Look. I am not really interested in rehashing all of the evidence for or against various complaints about Bush. That's been done to death. Polls that claim more people believe someting ridiculous are not that persuasive either. How was the question about an Iraq - Al-Qaeada link phrased? Is it possible that they asked something along the lines of "was there a link between Iraq and terrorism before the Iraq war?" Or do you think they asked "Did Saddam Husein give money, arms, training, or safe havens to members of Al-Qaeada involved in the attacks of 9-11?" As I think the article (and you to some extent) are trying to assert that people believe. While I'm at this, do you agree that such a question (mine about how the question was asked) might be a legitimate probe into the poll results? Or am I simply being partisan.

For example, among those who say most experts agree that Iraq had banned weapons, 72 percent plan to vote for Bush. Doesn't this mean that 28% of the respondants believe that Iraq had banned weapons and still will not vote for Bush?

You see, I really think it is that group (although from the other side of the isle) that the OP was addressing. Those who believe that Bush committed all these acts of incompetence and will still vote for him. Unfortunately, he and you seem bent on lumping all Bush supporters (note you use the term "Bush Republicians" without a definition) in with them. Remember he did not ask what would it take for "Bush Republicians" to beleive any of the claims against him. It appears from reading it that he is specifically talking to those who already believe them or from a vantage point which ignores the possiblitiy that reasoned people might disagree with them.


If I may, I'd like to mention one other point. It has seemed to me that the derision heaped on the supporters of the war for their supposed linking it with the war on Terror has been unfairly placed.
[...]Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger testified, and began his testimony with a long quote from Usama Bin Laden about how the US was timid and had easily been chased out of Lebanon and Aden with a few bombs. It was an odd way to begin a hearing on what has gone wrong in Iraq.
[...]
it seems clear to me that Schlesinger was trying to shape his Senate testimony so as to hint around that the Iraq War was somehow connected to al-Qaeda, even though we all know that it wasn't.
How is such a link clear? What if he was merely saying that the Al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq now may be thinking like this. That is, they may think we will cut and run after a few bombs. Such a statement at the begining of testimony with which he intended to influence the Senate to stay the course would not in any way be "odd way to begin".

I know this is not the way you intended the quote, but I'd just like to point out that this is the sort of evidence commonly brought out to claim that the Bush Administration has tried to link the Iraq war and 9-11. If you could see how such evidence might be dismissed, or perhaps how it might be lowered in probitive value, you might be able to understand how so many people disbelieve the things which you take for granted.

[pervert]

Still compared to the avalanche of dirt coming up about Bush[...]

Ideological blinders I feel are more on the Bush side than the opposition. If I may suggest, the avalanche as you suggest might just be because of Ideological blinders from the other side. The hatred of Bush started long before 9-11 or the Iraq war. It is irrational and has not been built slowly over his term in office. I recognize it because I saw the same sort of irrational hatred aimed at Clinton from the other side. The phenomena is almost identical.

[Rashak Mani]

If I may suggest, the avalanche as you suggest might just be because of Ideological blinders from the other side. The hatred of Bush started long before 9-11 or the Iraq war. It is irrational and has not been built slowly over his term in office. I recognize it because I saw the same sort of irrational hatred aimed at Clinton from the other side. The phenomena is almost identical.

Hatred of Bush has always been there, correct. Yet books, reports and info that point out his mistakes are more recent. Iraq is there for anyone to see. It cound't be anyway else... how can you write stuff about a president recently taking office ?

[Kimstu]

Shodan: "How can you possibly support that person? He is a known, proven, definite liar! Don't you care anything about truth or morality or the dignity of the US?"

To which the reponse is, "That isn't as important as this other issue that I care more about. Overall, things are going relatively well, and therefore I support the guy."

Crumbs Shodan, you're suggesting that lying about getting a blowjob from an intern is of comparable importance to lying about the reasons for the United States to start a war?!?

Either you think wars are not that big a deal, or you take extramarital blowjobs really, really, really seriously.

[blowero]

Sample_the_Dog, blowero and jshore

You are all missing the point. No one is saying that Bush's "mistakes" are going to be held against Kerry if he wins. No one is saying that major policy shifts are necessary to save the nation but Kerry is not providing enough detail. Nor the bizarre contention that some people want to keep the perpetrator of said "mistakes".

I didn't miss any point. This is what you said before:

But there is a perfectly well understood way to argue with such a position. Explain how the policies in question are not quite as good as expected and then explain how your candidate's policies would necessarily produce better results. The problem, is that Kerry is not able to do that. The Democrats are so focused on Bush bashing that they are unwilling or unable to present any sort of policy to fix what they call a mess with such hyperbole.

Seriously, what does Kerry propose to fix Iraq. If it was such a huge mistake, what is he going to do to fix it. If you answer is merely that he will try and get the UN more involved how is that a large enough policy shift to justify the rhetoric?

This is ENTIRELY different matter than simply saying "Bush didn't make any mistakes", which now seems to be your contention. Well, if you don't think Bush made any mistakes, then QUITE OBVIOUSLY you aren't going to vote against him, so as far as you are concerned, it makes no difference what the details of Kerry's plan are, because you don't think any change is necessary at all.

The point of all of this is that it makes the democratic claims (or at least their hyperbolic rhetoric) much less believable because they have no concrete suggestions for how to fix the problems.

But that's the point. We say Bush screwed up, and you claim our position lacks merit because we don't have a "more detailed" way out of BUSH's mess (whatever that means). That's absurd. You are not in a position to judge Kerry's plan, because you DON'T EVEN THINK WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY. It doesn't matter WHAT Kerry says, you automatically are going to disagree, because you are in favor of the status quo.

What we have in Iraq right now is a serious counter-insurgency, American soldiers dying every day, and a June 30th deadline to transfer power, with nobody to transfer it to. Sorry, but that's a mess by any definition, no hyperbole required. And it's playing right into bin Laden's hands. He wants nothing more than for the U.S. to take over an oil-rich Middle East country, because that's what he said was going to happen. To the radical factions, it doesn't matter that we're trying to transfer power and failing; they will think we are trying to rule Iraq, and it will simply fuel the fire. The only way out of this dilemna is to get the U.N. involved. We stand a MUCH better chance of convincing all the Iraqi people to accept a new government if we can diffuse the perception that the U.S. ALONE is trying to ram it down their throats. Sure, it's not guaranteed to work, but it's certainly a better idea than what Bush is doing.

I find this to be an eminently sound policy. Exactly what more do you want? Do you want Kerry to draw up detailed battle plans and troop movements before he's even in office and before he has even had a chance to communicate with our allies to secure their cooperation and get their input? The whole point is sharing the responsibility of rebuilding Iraq; making it a true international effort. He can't give ALL the details RIGHT NOW because the details are going to depend on the dynamics of the situation once others are involved.

[Mr. Svinlesha]

Sam:

Returning, then, to where we left off (approximately):Even today, with all the screwups and violence, a plurality of Iraqis think the war was the right thing to do, and that includes the Sunni areas which actually had it pretty good under Saddam. Support for the war is still in the high 80's in the Kurdish regions and not much lower in the southern Shiite areas.The poll you cite gainsays this assessment:There are huge differences in these and many other questions between Arab Iraqis, who account for 79 percent of the population, and the Kurdish minority (17 percent). Forty percent of Arabs say it was right for the United States to invade; that soars to 87 percent of Kurds. Just one-third of Arabs say the war liberated rather than humiliated Iraq; it’s 82 percent of Kurds. Thirty percent of Arabs support the presence of coalition forces, again compared with 82 percent of Kurds.The report does go on to note, “ Positive views of the invasion also are held disproportionately in the South of the country…” but provides no hard data for the extent of that “disproportionately” positive attitude.And bear in mind that the grouping 'Arabs' includes the Sunnis. The Sunnis has a particular reason to dislike the war. They held all the power under Saddam, and got all the perks, despite being in the minority. If the 'Arab' vote separated out Shiite and Sunni, you'd see even higher support among the Shiites. It should not be surprising that the Sunnis are least happy.I remind you again that we are interested in debating the “facts,” to the extent that they can be determined. So I ask you what, beyond your own guesswork and assumptions, leads you to such a conclusion.

In fact, the poll is disproportionately weighed toward the Sunnis:In religious terms, 96 percent of Iraqis are Muslim. In this poll 40 percent identified themselves as Sunni Muslim, 33 percent as Shia, and 23 percent did not cite an affiliation within Islam.So here is one curious discrepancy: in a country where 96% of the population are practicing Muslims, 23% of those polled “did not cite an affiliation within Islam.” In addition, the poll does not represent the population proportionately in terms of religious affiliation: although the Shia constitute the largest group of Muslims in Iraq (around 60%), only 33% of the respondents claimed membership in that sect.

There are two possibilities here. If your assertion is correct, then the poll underestimates the actual satisfaction Iraqis feel with regard to the occupation, their optimistic view of the future, and so on, because the satisfied Shiites are underrepresented in the poll results. However, it also possible that many Shiites are also dissatisfied with the invasion and occupation, view it as a humiliation, and so forth. If that’s the case, then poll actually underestimates the actual dissatisfaction extant among the Iraqi population. In this context it is perhaps worth remembering that the Sadrists, who comprise about 30% of the Shiites, are most definitely not happy with the occupation, and are the source of the latest uprising. So I’m not sure you can make generalization about the results in terms of Sunnis and Shiites, and notice that the authors of the poll have been careful not to do so as well.

The poll-takers were not unaware that there might not be a simple answer to the question of the US invasion, so they also included the following question: From today's perspective and all things considered, was it absolutely right, somewhat right, somewhat wrong or absolutely wrong that US led coalition forces invaded Iraq in Spring 2003? The answer: 20% considered it “absolutely right;” 29% considered it “somewhat right;” 13% considered it “somewhat wrong;” 26% considered it “absolutely wrong;” and 13% had “no opinion.” (This adds up to 101%, and so there must be a misprint somewhere.) With this more nuanced question, we find that more Iraqis consider the invasion “absolutely wrong” than consider it “absolutely right.”

Now we come to some of the answers that I do find surprising, and that I don’t quite know what to make of: But here are the really important numbers which would indicate what the future holds in Iraq (and how Iraqis will perceive the U.S. after the occupation ends)
How things are going today:
All North South Central Baghdad
Good 70% 85% 65% 70% 67%
Bad 29 14 34 28 32

Does that suprise you? With all the stuff we hear on this board and elsewhere about how bad things are in Iraq, and how Iraqis were actually better off under Saddam (snort), look at those results!Just to start off with, I certainly haven’t read anyone who claims that the Iraqis were actually better off under Saddam. But to answer your question honestly, yes, it does surprise me. However, the devil is, as always, in the details:Again there are regional and ethnic differences. In the Kurdish north, 70 percent say their lives overall are better than before the war; in the south, 63 percent. That declines to 54 percent in the central region, and falls under half – to 46 percent – in the greater Baghdad area, home to more than a quarter of Iraqis.First off, before we cream our pants over these results, I think we need to put them into perspective. We are, after all, comparing the current post-war situation with the previous brutal dictatorship, so the standards of comparison are rather low. Even so, in Baghdad, home to 25% of the Iraqi people, less than half feel that they are better now than prior to the invasion.

And in fact one can wonder a bit about how Iraqis in general employ the terms “good” or “better.” Consider, for example, these demographics:The poll also paints a compelling demographic portrait of the Iraqi people. In just 20 percent of Iraqi households does the main breadwinner hold a full-time, outside job; 58 percent are self-employed. Average household income is the equivalent of $164 per month, for an average of eight people per household. Eighty-one percent of households have a refrigerator; 44 percent, an air conditioner (the average daily high temperature in Baghdad in August is 108 degrees); 44 percent, a washing machine; 37 percent, a telephone; 21 percent, a still camera. There are disparities across regions, with the south of the country substantially poorer.In 80% of Iraqi households the breadwinner is either unemployed, or employed part-time. And yet, apparently, 70% of the population feels that things are going “well” for them. This seems a contradiction, at least on the surface. That's a huge number. I'm not sure you'd get a number that high if you took a similar poll in the United States.Yes indeed. Doesn’t that fact alone give you pause? This bodes well for the future of Iraq if we can stabilize it.Ah, yes. There’s that ever-so-troublesome word again: “if.” By a 2-1 margin Iraqis think things are better today rather than worse.Although this summary is again a gross simplification of the poll results, I once again suggest that we consider the pre-war conditions with which Iraqis are comparing their lives today. Is it really so surprising that they think things are at least marginally better? Look at the optimism! Almost all Iraqis now think they have a bright future.No, Sam, they think, apparently, that things next year will, with luck, be better than this year’s misery. This is the most important question of the bunch, because it's an indicator of what the upside is to a stable, democratic Iraq. It is also a good indicator of the lack of desire for a civil war or for animosity between the various ethnic groups in Iraq.Well, I think you simply draw far too many broad conclusions from far too little solid data. I doubt anyone really wants a civil war, if it can be avoided; but this poll says nothing, as far as I can tell, about the “animosity between various ethnic groups in Iraq.” If we succeed in Iraq and stabilize it and allow them to build a democracy of sorts, the payoff is HUGE.This is not a “fact,” Sam. It’s an assertion. Neither you nor I can see what the “payoff” will be a few years down the road, as much as you would like to pretend otherwise. It may turn out for the better, if we’re lucky; but doesn’t it seem like an awful risk to take for the small chance that it might succeed?

In addition, I have to point out to you that there is no “we” here. There is you, sitting on your butt in front of a computer in Canada, and there are US and British soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq, along with countless Iraqi combatants and non-combatants. If this damn fool war does come to a successful conclusion, it will be because of them, not you and them. Just to be clear. Once the occupation is over, you're going to see public opinion of the U.S. in Iraq climb again. As a Democracy, they will trade with the west, invite investment from the west, and in general become more comfortable with the west.How quickly that “if we succeed” has become a certainty in your mind, and in your argument. A free press is the best antidote against the poisonous lies of the old State media and the relentless anti-western spin of al-Jazeerah.That must be why Bremer shut down al-Sadr’s newspaper, the act which sparked off the entire uprising. And let us not forget that al-Jazeerah’s “relentless anti-western spin” is an expression of the press freedom you cherish.

More later.

[pervert]

This is ENTIRELY different matter than simply saying "Bush didn't make any mistakes", which now seems to be your contention.No, I am not making that contention in this thread.

Well, if you don't think Bush made any mistakes, then QUITE OBVIOUSLY you aren't going to vote against him, so as far as you are concerned, it makes no difference what the details of Kerry's plan are, because you don't think any change is necessary at all.So, you were addressing your comments to those who think Bush made mistakes and will still vote for him. Is this what you meant by "Bush Republicans"?

We say Bush screwed up, and you claim our position lacks merit because we don't have a "more detailed" way out of BUSH's mess (whatever that means).No, that's not what I meant. I do not fault Kerry's plan for lacking details. In fact I don't find many things wrong with some of the things in Kerry's plan. Neither does Bush as far as that goes, he seems to be "moving toward Kerry" according to some pundits over the weekend. My problem is that the details of Kerry's plan don't live up to the rhetoric. Let's look.

What we have in Iraq right now is a serious counter-insurgency, American soldiers dying every day, and a June 30th deadline to transfer power, with nobody to transfer it to.Well, without getting into a big hijack, I think both of these contentions are overblown. While it is true that we have insurgency problems and that the final face of the interim government is not known, it is not true that there is a general uprising nor that there is nobody to transfer power to.

The only way out of this dilemna is to get the U.N. involved. We stand a MUCH better chance of convincing all the Iraqi people to accept a new government if we can diffuse the perception that the U.S. ALONE is trying to ram it down their throats. This is my problem with Kerry's plan. Simply involving the UN will do next to nothing to convince Al-Qeada or the Iraqi insurgents that the army occupying Iraq is legitimate. Seriously, if Iraq is such a quagmire, if it was such a crime against international law, how is putting UN uniforms on the American troops going to change anything. I understand that it will change things a little. But the guys shooting at American troops will still have American troops to shoot at. Do you really think they will stop shooting because of the white U and N on the helmets? Or perhaps they will simply hold back a couple rounds out of each clip?


Sure, it's not guaranteed to work, but it's certainly a better idea than what Bush is doing.But it is exactly what Bush is doing. He's just not doing it as fast (by a couple percent) as you want.

Exactly what more do you want? Well, to be frank I'd like one of 2 things. Either stop using the bizarre conspiracy rhetoric or live up to it. If the invasion of Iraq was a crime against international law, then call for turning Bush over to the Internationl Tribunal or the World Court. At least call for a Security Council resolution. If UN participation in Iraq is the only thing that can fix it, then call for REPLACING American troops with troops from other nations. At least call for making the relative percentages more equal (by more than a couple percentage points). It might be nice to have the names of some of these nations to hand if anyone asks who Kerry thinks might put them into Iraq.

Do you want Kerry to draw up detailed battle plans and troop movements before he's even in office and before he has even had a chance to communicate with our allies to secure their cooperation and get their input? The whole point is sharing the responsibility of rebuilding Iraq; making it a true international effort. He can't give ALL the details RIGHT NOW because the details are going to depend on the dynamics of the situation once others are involved.Of course he can't give all the details. I certainly don't expect him to. Odd that this is exactly your complaint about the June 30th turn over. ;)

[Rashak Mani]

Pervert,

Involving the UN isn't only about putting Blue Helmets on US soldiers... it would at the least allow dozens of countries to actively help out in Iraq... money or military. At least less americans would be necessary... meaning less targets and less "provocation".

Arab peacekeepers would help a lot... I think.

[Mr. Svinlesha]

Shodan: Which is why I thought Sam Stone's question way back on page 1 was a useful one. Under what circumstances would some of our more rabid posters begin to support Bush? What would it take?

Or is the answer "Nothing he could do would change my mind", in which case perhaps stubborn partisan blindness is not confined solely to the GOP side of the aisle.Well, obviously, wandering around accusing every who disagrees with you of partisanship is no way to run a debate.

But I can easily think of a number of circumstances in which I would support Bush. Here’s a short, incomplete laundry list of things he would need to do to get my vote:
Admit that the administration’s pre-war claims regarding Iraq’s possession of WMDs, it’s alleged contacts with al-Qaida, and it’s status as a significant threat were wrong/exaggerations/lies.


Reject his previously asserted prerogative of “preventative war.”


Fire Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney, or at the very least hold them accountable for their misleading public statements.


Withdraw funding for his Missile Defense system and invest those fund in anti-terrorist activities.


Repeal his tax cuts.


Actively participate in the Kyoto agreement and work aggressively for a better environment.


Tie any economic or military support of Israel to the making of significant gains in the “peace process” and the withdrawal of illegal settlements on the West Bank.


Stand up for the rights of gays to marry, and dismiss the idea of a Constitutional amendment banning SSM.
Were he to do these things, and convince me that he was sincerely repentant for misleading the nation into war, I might consider voting for him.

Also, I have to wonder along with Kimstu about the moral compass of a man who can’t tell the difference between lying about a blow-job and lying about a war. If you honestly can’t make this distinction, then I guess nothing will dent your partisanship.


pervert:Or what if they simply interpret the value of such evidence diferently than you do?That’s what I mean. They choose to interpret the evidence differently. I cited kanicbird as an example. Do you wish to argue that his interpretation of the evidence is more reasonable than my own? Knock yerself out.Is it absolutely beyond the realm of possibility that some of the evidence you are talking about is not 100% conclusive?Of course not. But I believe that much of the evidence is highly conclusive, if anyone were to approach it objectively. The evidence of the Bush administration’s wrongdoings with regard to Iraq, for example, is significantly more conclusive than the evidence we had of Iraq’s possession of “WMDs;” in the latter case we went to war, yet in the former we are met with much hand waving, relativism, and warnings that our views are not 100% conclusive.Do you not think there is a similar effect running from the other side?There probably is, but I don’t experience it as being as egregious as the rhetoric I hear the from the right.

Would you like to post a few examples? Look. I am not really interested in rehashing all of the evidence for or against various complaints about Bush. That's been done to death. Polls that claim more people believe someting ridiculous are not that persuasive either. How was the question about an Iraq - Al-Qaeada link phrased? Is it possible that they asked something along the lines of "was there a link between Iraq and terrorism before the Iraq war?" Or do you think they asked "Did Saddam Husein give money, arms, training, or safe havens to members of Al-Qaeada involved in the attacks of 9-11?"That’s easy enough to find out (http://www.pipa.org/). You can download the questionnaire and inspect it for yourself. While I'm at this, do you agree that such a question (mine about how the question was asked) might be a legitimate probe into the poll results? Or am I simply being partisan.Sorry to disappoint you, but I find it a completely legitimate to ask such critical questions. It is well known that polls differ in their outcomes in part as a result of the way in which questions are phrased.

However, if you were to employ spurious objections to the way the poll was conducted simply because you didn’t like the results, then I might think you were being partisan. You see, I really think it is that group (although from the other side of the isle) that the OP was addressing. Those who believe that Bush committed all these acts of incompetence and will still vote for him. Unfortunately, he and you seem bent on lumping all Bush supporters (note you use the term "Bush Republicians" without a definition) in with them. Remember he did not ask what would it take for "Bush Republicians" to beleive any of the claims against him. It appears from reading it that he is specifically talking to those who already believe them or from a vantage point which ignores the possiblitiy that reasoned people might disagree with them.I’m not sure what you intend with this passage. The OP may be unclear, which might lead to some confusion; but I agree with Rashak that, given the state of things, one wonders what it would take to convince some people of the Bush administration’s mendacity and incompetence.How is such a link clear? What if he was merely saying that the Al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq now may be thinking like this. That is, they may think we will cut and run after a few bombs. Such a statement at the begining of testimony with which he intended to influence the Senate to stay the course would not in any way be "odd way to begin".Well, it seemed clear to Dr. Cole, and seems clear to me, by virtue of the fact that in a hearing addressing the ongoing problems in Iraq, the speaker chose to begin his presentation with a quote from bin Laden, who has little or nothing to do with the issue at hand. And the point is that one finds a continuing effort on the part of certain war supporters to rhetorically link al-Qaida and Iraq by consistently referring to them in the same sentence, or the same breath, or under the same rubric. Although they are two substantially different problems, really, administration officials seem to constantly blur them together into one large, monolithic issue. This rhetorical simplification leads listeners to associate al-Qaida with Iraq, even though we know, factually, that no such connection exists. This, in it’s turn, is probably what leads many Americans to wrongly believe that there existed a substantial, proven connection between the two, as evidenced by the poll referenced above.

[pervert]

Hatred of Bush has always been there, correct. Yet books, reports and info that point out his mistakes are more recent. Iraq is there for anyone to see. It cound't be anyway else... how can you write stuff about a president recently taking office ?Iraq is there for anyone to see, yes. But what do the facts of the case mean? Surely we are too close to the event to have an objectively "true", if you will, perspective on it. I find it troubling that so many books have been written about the current administration. I tend to think that it is unlikely that good information can come out of events this close to those events. If such information is coupled with an identifiable agenda, then it is more than merely suspect in my view.

Again, I am not arguing that any view is right or wrong here. I am simply trying to make the case the the case for or against Iraq is not so clear cut that reasonable people cannot disagree. In which case, the huge avalanche of books may have as much to do with ideological agendas as it does with any Bush missteps.

[pervert]

pervert:That’s what I mean. They choose to interpret the evidence differently. I cited kanicbird as an example. Do you wish to argue that his interpretation of the evidence is more reasonable than my own? Knock yerself out.No thank you. I am merely asserting that there may be a middle ground.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I find it a completely legitimate to ask such critical questions. It is well known that polls differ in their outcomes in part as a result of the way in which questions are phrased. No disappointment. I was just asking.

However, if you were to employ spurious objections to the way the poll was conducted simply because you didn’t like the results, then I might think you were being partisan.How would you tell?

I’m not sure what you intend with this passage. The OP may be unclear, which might lead to some confusion; but I agree with Rashak that, given the state of things, one wonders what it would take to convince some people of the Bush administration’s mendacity and incompetence.Yes, but this was not the question in the OP. It was more along the lines of what else would Bush have to do to convince you to vote for someone else.

Well, it seemed clear to Dr. Cole, and seems clear to me, by virtue of the fact that in a hearing addressing the ongoing problems in Iraq, the speaker chose to begin his presentation with a quote from bin Laden, who has little or nothing to do with the issue at hand.Are you saying that there is no Al-Quaeada fighters there now? Are you asserting that the philosophy of AQ is irrelevent to the current situation?

And the point is that one finds a continuing effort on the part of certain war supporters to rhetorically link al-Qaida and Iraq by consistently referring to them in the same sentence, or the same breath, or under the same rubric. Although they are two substantially different problems, really, administration officials seem to constantly blur them together into one large, monolithic issue.Well, there is certainly a single umbrella under which they can be encompassed. Surely you can see that they both belong to a sort of "Islamic Militant" demographic. Although there may be more of these two things which are not like the other, surely you can acknowledge that they are not exclusively distinct. Within certain contexts certainly they are unique issues. But within other contexts, surely you can see similarities.

This rhetorical simplification leads listeners to associate al-Qaida with Iraq, even though we know, factually, that no such connection exists.Don't you mean that no such link existed before the war?

[blowero]

No, I am not making that contention in this thread.

You said:

No one is saying that Bush's "mistakes" are going to be held against Kerry if he wins. No one is saying that major policy shifts are necessary to save the nation but Kerry is not providing enough detail. Nor the bizarre contention that some people want to keep the perpetrator of said "mistakes".

You say it's bizarre to contend that some people want to keep the perpetrator of said "mistakes". If you are NOT contending that Bush made no mistakes, then why did you put "mistakes" in quotes like that, as if to say they weren't mistakes?

There are only 5 possibilities:

1. You believe Bush made mistakes, but will vote to keep him.
2. You believe Bush didn't make any mistakes, and will vote to keep him.
3. You believe Bush made mistakes, but will vote against him.
4. You believe Bush didn't make any mistakes, but will vote against him anyway. (I think we can rule this one out.)
5. You won't be voting in this election at all.

So assuming you vote for Bush, you must either contend that he didn't make any mistakes, or you must admit that you want to "keep the perpetrator of said mistakes". Those are the only 2 logical possibilities, yet you deny them both.

And if you're NOT voting for Bush, then this whole debate is moot.

So, you were addressing your comments to those who think Bush made mistakes and will still vote for him. Is this what you meant by "Bush Republicans"?

I'm not the one who used that term. However, do you not fall under the category of "those who think Bush made mistakes and will still vote for him"?

No, that's not what I meant. I do not fault Kerry's plan for lacking details. In fact I don't find many things wrong with some of the things in Kerry's plan. Neither does Bush as far as that goes, he seems to be "moving toward Kerry" according to some pundits over the weekend. My problem is that the details of Kerry's plan don't live up to the rhetoric. Let's look.

Well, without getting into a big hijack, I think both of these contentions are overblown. While it is true that we have insurgency problems and that the final face of the interim government is not known, it is not true that there is a general uprising

I didn't say there was a general uprising. I said there is a "serious counter-insurgency". Surely you aren't arguing with that?

nor that there is nobody to transfer power to.

I disagree. When asked that question in his press conference, Bush was clearly stymied. He had no answer.

This is my problem with Kerry's plan. Simply involving the UN will do next to nothing to convince Al-Qeada or the Iraqi insurgents that the army occupying Iraq is legitimate. Seriously, if Iraq is such a quagmire, if it was such a crime against international law, how is putting UN uniforms on the American troops going to change anything. I understand that it will change things a little. But the guys shooting at American troops will still have American troops to shoot at. Do you really think they will stop shooting because of the white U and N on the helmets? Or perhaps they will simply hold back a couple rounds out of each clip?

I think I see now why you don't like the plan. If you think this is just about painting letters on helmets, you obviously don't understand the issue at all.

But it is exactly what Bush is doing. He's just not doing it as fast (by a couple percent) as you want.

He's not doing it AT ALL. But for the sake of argument, let's say you're right, and he's just not doing it as fast. I STILL would want a guy in office who is going to get it done faster.

Well, to be frank I'd like one of 2 things. Either stop using the bizarre conspiracy rhetoric or live up to it.

This is what I like to call "attack by adjective". You take your opponent's position and simply add unfavorable words like "bizarre", "conspiracy", and "rhetoric", substituting that for any kind of cogent argument.

If the invasion of Iraq was a crime against international law, then call for turning Bush over to the Internationl Tribunal or the World Court.

This is getting truly bizarre. Now you're criticizing Kerry for NOT calling for Bush to be tried for war crimes? Give me a break - if Kerry said anything like that, you'd be whining your ass off.

At least call for a Security Council resolution.

You mean like this?:
"The US should immediately seek a UN Security Council resolution authorizing a mission with responsibility for the transition and elections."
(from Kerry's website)

If UN participation in Iraq is the only thing that can fix it, then call for REPLACING American troops with troops from other nations.

You mean like this?:
"We should send a high-level mission to consult with our NATO partners to encourage their participation and get other countries to participate so that American soldiers and the American people are not bearing nearly all the burden and all the risk."

At least call for making the relative percentages more equal (by more than a couple percentage points). It might be nice to have the names of some of these nations to hand if anyone asks who Kerry thinks might put them into Iraq.

When he says "Our NATO partners", he probably assumes that you either are aware of which countries they are, or that you are capable of looking it up. If you're expecting him to furnish a list of all the countries that have already agreed to furnish troops, I have to point out that Kerry isn't president yet. I don't know if you're aware, but the person who actually is president gets to negotiate with other heads of state. The challenging candidate does not.

Of course he can't give all the details. I certainly don't expect him to. Odd that this is exactly your complaint about the June 30th turn over. ;)
Yeah, that's really odd how our CURRENT PRESIDENT who got us into the war and maintains that June 30th is a hard deadline, doesn't even know who's going to take over, and how Kerry, who isn't the current president, and isn't privy to all the information and decision-making that THE PRESIDENT is supposed to be, wouldn't be able to furnish the exact same details.:rolleyes:

[Kimstu]

pervert: Surely you can see that they both belong to a sort of "Islamic Militant" demographic.

Huh? Bin Laden is certainly an Islamic militant, but Saddam Hussein? He's Muslim, but his regime was in no way Islamist---rather, the Ba'ath Party is hardline secularist. Heck, Saddam's Vice-Prez was a Christian, something unheard of in Islamist polities.

And I don't think it's quite accurate to call Hussein a "militant", even. He was a power-hungry brutal dictator, for sure, but he wasn't about fomenting any uprisings or rebellions or encouraging militant Islam in general. He had no real interest in promoting "Muslim power" or power for anybody but himself.

Saying that al-Qaeda and Saddam's Ba'athist regime somehow belong to the same "demographic" is a bit akin to saying that, say, John Ashcroft and Jimmy Carter fall under the same ideological umbrella because they're both Christian activists. Quite a stretch.

[pervert]

And I don't think it's quite accurate to call Hussein a "militant", even. He was a power-hungry brutal dictator, for sure, but he wasn't about fomenting any uprisings or rebellions or encouraging militant Islam in general. He had no real interest in promoting "Muslim power" or power for anybody but himself.Well, I'm not sure this is a useful distinction. He wanted power for himself and he used militant islamic sentiments amongst his own people and those in other nations to get it. Are you sure that that last sentence cannot be applied to both individuals?

[pervert]

Please try not to go too far. I am not saying anything as radical as you are accusing me ov.
If you are NOT contending that Bush made no mistakes, then why did you put "mistakes" in quotes like that, as if to say they weren't mistakes?I was only trying to suggest that the mistakes might not be mistakes. For the sake of this discussion, a question was asked assuming things not in evidence here. More problematic, the question was asked assuming that many Republicans who support Bush agree that the mistakes are proven, but support him anyway. My only point in making the statement you quoted was to call this assumption into question.

I'm not the one who used that term. However, do you not fall under the category of "those who think Bush made mistakes and will still vote for him"?No.

I didn't say there was a general uprising. I said there is a "serious counter-insurgency". Surely you aren't arguing with that?That the insurgency is serious I don't contend with. That this seriousness rises to the level the Kerry seems to imply from time to time, I do contend with.

I disagree. When asked that question in his press conference, Bush was clearly stymied. He had no answer.Which in and of itself does not mean that there is "nobody". It may mean he can't say. It may mean that the final structure of the body is not finished. Use you logical skills and think up the rest of the possibilities. You did a good job with the possibilities for Bush supporters.

I think I see now why you don't like the plan. If you think this is just about painting letters on helmets, you obviously don't understand the issue at all.Cool! Please cure me of my ignorance. If the UN is more engaged in Iraq, what will the actual consequences vis a vie troop composition be? Is it your contention that large percentages of American troops will be withdrawn and replaced with Canadian, Nato, Russian, who? I don't need a guarantee, just an opinion that makes sense. If you think that involving the UN will amount to substantially more than initials on helmets, let me know what it will be.

He's not doing it AT ALL.That's not true. There are UN officials there at his request doing some of the work that need to be done.

But for the sake of argument, let's say you're right, and he's just not doing it as fast. I STILL would want a guy in office who is going to get it done faster.Which is totally cool. But then I would expect that the rhetoric about the war would be toned down a little bit. If all you want to do is speed up the current policies why do you call those policies crimes. If all you want to do is modify the troop composition or increase it a little one way or another, why do you call the situation a quagmire?

This is what I like to call "attack by adjective". You take your opponent's position and simply add unfavorable words like "bizarre", "conspiracy", and "rhetoric", substituting that for any kind of cogent argument.I'm sorry, I was refering to the suposition that I heard about this weekend. Apperently there is a rumor floating around that Bush conspired with the Saudis to fix oil prices just before the election.

This is getting truly bizarre. Now you're criticizing Kerry for NOT calling for Bush to be tried for war crimes? Give me a break - if Kerry said anything like that, you'd be whining your ass off.No, No, No. Do try to follow. I am criticizing Kerry for not living up to his rhetoric. If he wishes to imply that the invasion of Iraq was criminal then he should call for prosecution of those who committed the crime. If not, then he should tone down his rhetoric. Does that really not make sense to you?

You mean like this?:
"The US should immediately seek a UN Security Council resolution authorizing a mission with responsibility for the transition and elections."
(from Kerry's website)No. I meant that if he really thought the invation was a break with internation law, perhaps he should call (or promise that he will call) for a resolution condeming the invasion. Perhaps he could include language clarifying the No Preemptive war policy he supports.

You mean like this?:
"We should send a high-level mission to consult with our NATO partners to encourage their participation and get other countries to participate so that American soldiers and the American people are not bearing nearly all the burden and all the risk."No. Replacing American troops with Nato troops would amount to replacing American troops with American troops in a different uniform. Unless you have an idea which country might be willing to pony up a couple hundred thousand troops. Not a firm commitment, of course, just an opinion.

Yeah, that's really odd how our CURRENT PRESIDENT who got us into the war and maintains that June 30th is a hard deadline, doesn't even know who's going to take over, and how Kerry, who isn't the current president, and isn't privy to all the information and decision-making that THE PRESIDENT is supposed to be, wouldn't be able to furnish the exact same details.:rolleyes:Again, I'm not asking for firm details. You keep saying this. It is not true. All I am asking for is either a reduction in the rhetoric or an increase in the radical nature of the proposals to solve the problems raised. That is, if the current policies are so wrong, I'd expect more significant differences in Kerry's proposals to replace them.

Even that is overstating it a little I am really not asking Kerry to do anything. I am just pointing out that powerful rhetoric is empty if it does not call for significant changes in policy. I should note also, that I do not think Kerry is the only one guilty of this. It seems to be a disease of our current politicians that every issue has to be the "issue of the century" as it were. Nothing is a simple difference of opinion. It can't be because we are so apathetic that we don't vote if there is not some great danger to be saved from. The Bush camp's claims of waffling against Kerry are akin to the sort of thing I am talking about here.

[Shodan]

Shodan:Well, obviously, wandering around accusing every who disagrees with you of partisanship is no way to run a debate.

But I can easily think of a number of circumstances in which I would support Bush. Here’s a short, incomplete laundry list of things he would need to do to get my vote:
Admit that the administration’s pre-war claims regarding Iraq’s possession of WMDs, it’s alleged contacts with al-Qaida, and it’s status as a significant threat were wrong/exaggerations/lies.
Reject his previously asserted prerogative of “preventative war.”
Fire Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney, or at the very least hold them accountable for their misleading public statements.
Withdraw funding for his Missile Defense system and invest those fund in anti-terrorist activities.
Repeal his tax cuts.
Actively participate in the Kyoto agreement and work aggressively for a better environment.
Tie any economic or military support of Israel to the making of significant gains in the “peace process” and the withdrawal of illegal settlements on the West Bank.
Stand up for the rights of gays to marry, and dismiss the idea of a Constitutional amendment banning SSM.
Were he to do these things, and convince me that he was sincerely repentant for misleading the nation into war, I might consider voting for him.

Would you vote for him, or would you simply disbelieve in the sincerity of his conversion and vote for Kerry or Nader anyway?

The difference for me would be, even if Kerry began espousing reasonable conservative positions, I would believe his record rather than his protests. And so I would still not vote for him.

I suppose if it were Lieberman or someone similar who was running, it might be different, but it would tend too much to be an election-year ploy by someone behind in the polls in the case of Kerry. Especially with his inconsistent record of flip-flops.

Also, I have to wonder along with Kimstu about the moral compass of a man who can’t tell the difference between lying about a blow-job and lying about a war. If you honestly can’t make this distinction, then I guess nothing will dent your partisanship.
Well, I do tend to believe that lying is lying, especially under oath. I am not aware of any instance in which Bush lied under oath, so in legal terms, there is really no comparison between Bush and Clinton. And in moral terms, Clinton is clearly the more extensive liar.

But I meant to illustrate something beyond "Clinton is a liar". You dismiss Clinton's mistruths as insignificant. Thus, not only is his lying about adultery dismissed, but also his history of sexual harassment, misuse of the office, etc., etc.

I see Bush as acting in good faith thru out the Iraq invasion.

We are seeing the same set of facts, but thru different lenses. You see Clinton, and see a man who only lied about adultery. I see Clinton, and I see him lying about adultery, the budget, and practically every other subject under the sun. And I see him taking military action against Iraq, not because he much cared about the WMD he said they had, but to avoid impeachment. Certainly it is not a full scale invasion - more's the pity. But those who died in the Clinton missile attacks are just as dead as those who died in the Bush invasion. And to less purpose - Clinton didn't achieve much of anything at all with his missiles, while Bush demonstrated once and for all that Iraq and Saddam are no longer the threat everyone believed them to be.

You see Bush, and you see a man who lied about WMD. I see a man who clearly acted on a belief that was almost universally believed, and actually followed thru on a threat he believed to be real. And it is only because he acted that we know any more than we did when Clinton bombed Iraq, or Kerry or Albright or Hilary or Gore all spoke about the threat that Saddam posed.

Maybe I am more partisan than you. Even if Kerry were to begin to behave like a reasonable conservative, I would tend to disbelieve him.

But put it this way. In the absence of a "road to Damascus" experience by Kerry, there is really no reasonable alternative to Bush. Bush isn't perfect, but he is better than any of the alternatives.

So maybe my answer to the OP is, that Bush would have to do a lot worse, and there would have to be someone out there who I think would do better. And, despite all the bashing, Bush is not doing as badly as the lefties would have us believe, and Kerry is still much worse.

Although thanks for your straightforward answer to the question.

Regards,
Shodan

[Voyager]

Well, I'm not sure this is a useful distinction. He wanted power for himself and he used militant islamic sentiments amongst his own people and those in other nations to get it. Are you sure that that last sentence cannot be applied to both individuals?

A cite for Saddam using militant Islamist sentiment among Iraqis, please? He did try to play the Islam card against the West, feebly indeed. If you think Saddam was a militant Islamist, you need to explain the state of women in Iraq, who were no more oppressed than anyone else. Compare this to the state of women in Afghanistan under the Taliban, in Iran, and, yes, under our friends the Saudis.

Aside: it appears the Bush Republicans are becoming moral relativists. Lies aren't lies when looked at a certain way. Or is it the same mindset that calls for yet another study about global warming, or that says that evolution is not actually proven yet? The argument is very much in line with what we hear from the White House, I have to give it that.

[pervert]

A cite for Saddam using militant Islamist sentiment among Iraqis, please? Well, here is a speech he gave to his people way back when. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/20/irq.war.saddam.transcript/) It certainly does seem to echo various militant islamist themes. Perhaps I am overgeneralizing. Would you not see anyone as a militant islamist unless they were an ordained Imam?

This is another text of an older speech.

If I am really totally off the wall here, could you please provide me with a useful definition of militant islamist that might not include Saddam? I'm willing to be wrong, but it seems to me that Saddam had turned Iraq into a militant organization aligned with other islamic militant organizations. Perhaps they were not closely tied to all such organizations. Perhaps his professions of islamic faith were not genuine (although I also doubt those same professions from OBL). But saying that he was something very similar does not seem at all far fetched to me.

[pervert]

Oops. Here is the second link I intended to post in that last one. Sorry. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,869642,00.html)

[Voyager]

Well, here is a speech he gave to his people way back when. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/20/irq.war.saddam.transcript/) It certainly does seem to echo various militant islamist themes. Perhaps I am overgeneralizing. Would you not see anyone as a militant islamist unless they were an ordained Imam?


Doesn't seem all that different from an American President who called upon God before a battle - and it wouldn't make that president a militant Christian. The text seems far less militantly Islamic than I was expecting, to tell you the truth.


If I am really totally off the wall here, could you please provide me with a useful definition of militant islamist that might not include Saddam? I'm willing to be wrong, but it seems to me that Saddam had turned Iraq into a militant organization aligned with other islamic militant organizations. Perhaps they were not closely tied to all such organizations. Perhaps his professions of islamic faith were not genuine (although I also doubt those same professions from OBL). But saying that he was something very similar does not seem at all far fetched to me.

The very first thing I'd expect from a militantly Islamic leader of a country is the institution of Islamic Law, something Saddam definitely did not do. They would then support Islamic groups in other, more secular countries to try to form more Islamic states. Would you, for instance, consider Assad of Syria as an Islamic militant? He's probably the closest analog to Hussein.

[pervert]

The very first thing I'd expect from a militantly Islamic leader of a country is the institution of Islamic Law, something Saddam definitely did not do. But doesn't this presume some sort of true devotion?

They would then support Islamic groups in other, more secular countries to try to form more Islamic states.Or perhaps rhetorically or actually fight islamic countires because they are not enough or of the right kind of islamist?

Would you, for instance, consider Assad of Syria as an Islamic militant? He's probably the closest analog to Hussein.I'm not sure. He does seem to support Islamist organizations in Lebbenon I think. But maybe that was his father?

Let me be clear. I'm not claiming that Saddam is identical to Ossama Bin Laden. I am merely trying to suggest that the proposition that they are in some ways similar is not ridiculous.

I'd make the distinction between a Islamic militant and Islamic activist this way. A militant is someone who uses the Islamic rhetoric, quotes from the quran, Islamic practices or other aspects of muslim culture to aquire power over others specifically in an attempt to commit violence against those who cannot be controled. An activist is somone who supports or promotes that culture or those practices because he honestly believes they are a better way to live (or at least that they are God's will for how people should live). Specifically, a militant does not necessarily follow any of the rules he sets for his people. Remember the technology found in the homes of the Taliban leaders which was forbidden to Afghanistan's citizens? They were militants. Some aspects of each may overlap making it hard to distinguish.

I think your definition cannot be used to distinguish between Islamic charities, for instance, and terrorist organizations.

[pervert]

As I was listening to various news programs this evening, another thought struck me. It could also be that Kerry could take the other tack. He could say that the war was a mistake, but were in it now so we have to make doubly sure we will win it. He could then support serious increases in troop strength. I'm not sure that would please his peacnik supporters, but it might be the sort of significant policy shift I was talking about in the last couple posts.

I'm not ready to say that it would be enough to sway my vote, but it does seem to be more reasonable than simply saying we shouldn't be there at all but I'm going to keep us there at about the same troop strength for the forseable future.

BTW, In the "Is Bush Really in Charge" thread, I did identify a notion that might make me change sides. It was asserted that Bush believes in Creation Science. IF such a thing could be adequately proven it might be enough.

[Sam Stone]

Okay, I have recuperated from my lost-message rage, and I'll try again...


Sam:

Hiya, Sam! Remember me?


How're ya doin'?


First off, I just want to address something you posted on page 2, (post # 97), that seems to have slipped through the net:
Quote:
I think that it was a reasonable interpretation of the information he had been given. In Woodward's new book, he describes a scene in which a skeptical Bush is critical of the evidence, and asks George Tenet for his interpretation. And Tenet says, "The WMD case is a slam dunk." Bush asks him again, and Tenet throws up his hands in the air and repeats, "Sir, it's a slam dunk. No question."

Now, if Woodward’s claim is true, consider some of the statements Tenet made at Georgetown University on Feb. 5, 2004, for comparison:
<snip a bunch of contradictory stuff by Tenet>


Maybe I'm going to surprise you here, but I agree with everything you said. If Tenet actually said that to Bush (and there were, apparently, lots of witnesses and Woodward swears by it), then Tenet's head should roll. That he's still on the team is an indictment of Tenet AND Bush. Bush is ultimately responsible, and if he had sunshine blown up his ass by his CIA director over an issue as critical as war, it's his responsibility to get rid of the man. So why hasn't he? The cynical (and accurate) answer would be because he doesn't want another Richard Clarke-ish loose cannon running around with a grudge right before the election. If there's going to be a house cleaning, it's going to come after Nov. 2.

But not firing Tenet is not exactly a fatal error, because it's somewhat understandable from a political perspective. If Bush fired Tenet now, you know that Kerry would be running around saying Bush is looking for scapegoats. It would look like the administration is panicking.


I find it frustrating that you still insist that the pre-war intelligence was rock solid....


And where did I say that? I said that Bush made reasonable decisions given the intelligence he was presented. That the intelligence was wrong is not really in question now, is it? The important question is how everyone got it wrong. And I mean everyone. France, Germany, Britain, the U.S., Australia.. Even Jordan's intelligence service thought Saddam had WMD. And given that Syria and Libya both have advanced WMD programs, it's quite surprising that none was found in Iraq, don't you think?

It was reasonable to believe that Iraq had WMD. That they apparently didn't is confusing, and a lot of people are still scratching their heads over that.

But there is still a possibility that WMD will be found. Did you hear about that explosion in Fallujah today? Do you know what it was? The Iraq Survey Group (which is still very active in the WMD hunt) had pinpointed a suspected WMD site, and they sent a team in to check it out. When they arrived, the building blew up. Perhaps booby-trapped.

And Jordan just foiled a massive chemical attack. The people they caught said the plan was hatched in Iraq by Abu al-Zarqawi. The terrorists were caught with several tons of sulfur dioxide and 'other chemicals', and no one seems to know where it came from, other than that it came through Syria.

But certainly, no WMD were found on the scale that the U.S. presented, so the intelligence was wrong even some amounts of WMD are found. This requires an investigation. I would support a bi-partisan investigation into the intelligence failures that preceded the war. But that investigation has to take place after the election (and not because I'm protecting Bush, but because it would turn into a useless mud-slinging contest if it were held now).


...let us get down to brass tacks, and discuss the problems that the US occupation is really facing, rather than the talking points you’ve stolen from the monkey fist collective or the Independent Media Center. I welcome your invitation to debate “the basic facts,” but would like to point out that every one of your assertions, above, are oversimplifications of very complex issues.


First of all, you've been doing an admirable job of keeping this civil, which is why I'm taking the time to give you serious responses. Don't blow it with cheap shots like saying I've 'stolen talking points from the monkey fist collective'. Continuing...


Regarding point 1), that the current problems in Iraq constitute a “popular uprising;” no. The fear is that they can morph into a popular uprising, if the CPA mishandles the situation. (And given the CPA’s history thus far, I consider this fear to be well-grounded. Even you admit that the CPA has been making serious mistakes.) Experts are warning that a hard-handed approach to the stalemate in Fallujah or Najaf will provoke a backlash, and serve to legitimate what appears to be a nascent uprising among a large swath of poor, disenfranchised, and marginalized Iraqis. However, al-Sadr did have a larger base of support than occupation forces believed prior to the uprising. It is possible that his base of support was even larger than indigenous opponents, like Sistani, reckoned. Juan Cole estimates that between 30% and 50% of Iraq’s Shiite community are followers of al-Sadr.


From what I can tell, Juan Cole is full of it. I have not seen anyone else claim that Sadr's support was greater than a small minority.

Here's another ABC Poll (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/WorldNewsTonight/iraq_poll_040405.html), this one focuses on Shiites. I'll discuss more of it later, but note this paragraph:


In terms of al-Sadr, a bare 1 percent of Iraqis name him as the national leader they trust most. On Iran, just 3 percent name it as a model for Iraq in the coming years, and just 4 percent say it should play a role in rebuilding Iraq.


al-Sadr is widely seen as being the leader most supported by Iran, and his uprising appears to have been funded in part from Iran. There is VERY little support for this in Iraq. al-Sadr's support has grown a bit since the uprising, as those who oppose the U.S. cheer him on. But this support still isn't above 20%, and it's very shallow - the minute the uprising ends, he's going to lose a lot of this temporary support.


Now it seems clear that the latest troubles find their basis primarily within the local population, i.e., that they aren’t the result of al-Qaida influence. That’s why analysts are employing the words “popular uprising.”


And I flat-out disagree. The Shiite uprising is almost completely contained within the small group of al-Sadr's followers. He may also be getting help from Iran (hence his embracing of Hezbollah). The Sunni uprising is a mix of ex-regime dead-enders and foreign terrorists from Syria and elsewhere. Neither of these is a 'popular uprising'. It is what Abu al-Zarqawi said he wanted - an attempt to stir up trouble between Sunnis and Shiites at the same time, in hopes of causing chaos or a civil war before the handover of power. As Zarqawi himself said, the forces trying to tear apart Iraq are facing a clock that is running out, because once Iraqis begin governing themselves further attacks will be seen as attacks against Iraqis rather than against an occupying power. I predicted this violence several months ago when Zarqawi's letter surfaced (and was of course ridiculed for that), and I predict now that the violence will continue to get worse between now and June 30. After that, it depends on how the handover goes and how it is perceived within Iraq.

From the ABC Poll:

As reported previously, anger at the United States peaks among Sunni Arabs in Iraq, not Shiites. According to the poll, Shiites are about 30 points less likely to say the invasion was wrong or to say it humiliated Iraq, and 12 percent of Shiites say attacks on coalition forces are acceptable, compared with 38 percent of Sunni Arabs. (That rises to 71 percent of Sunnis in Anbar province, which includes the city of Fallujah, a hotbed of the resistance.)


Got that? Only 12% of Shiites say attacks against the coalition are acceptable. That's an awfully small number if 50% of Shiites are following al-Sadr. In fact, that 12% probably represents al-Sadr's current followers - and no one else.


There are good reasons to be alarmed at the potential of such a revolt, and of a “two-front” war in which Sunnis and Shiites combine forces to expel the occupation.


This is indeed a concern in the future. Currently, there have been signs of cooperation in two ways - cooperation in working together agaist the U.S., and cooperation to show solidarity in opposition to the attacks. if things aren't handled properly, this could become a problem.


...you write, “Other polls have shown that Iraq does not want an Islamic government, and it does not want to break apart into three states. Iraqis want to stay together and build a future.” I won’t ask for a cite; I’m aware that Iraqi society is highly educated and “secularized,” compared to other regional actors.


Aw, I'll give you a cite anyway, just because I'm feeling nice. From the same poll:


What Iraq Needs At This Time
Shiite Arabs Sunni Arabs
An Iraqi Democracy 91% 76%
Single Strong Leader 83 85
A Government Mainly of Religious Leaders 69 44
A Government Made Up of Experts 66 65

Preferred System of Government
Shiite Arabs Sunni Arabs
Democracy 40% 35%
Islamic State 26 15
Single Strong Leader 23 35


It's clear that the Sunnis and Shiites want a democratic, non-theocratic state. And of course, if you throw Kurds into the mix the result skews WAY towards a secular democracy. I'd say there is virtually no chance of a fair election causing Iraq to choose an Islamic state.


But the problem does not disappear just because a significant group – maybe even a majority – rejects an “Islamic government,” in whatever form it might take. The problem is what to do about that, say, 20% of the Shiite community that supports Muqtada al-Sadr fanatically, and that are willing to employ violence to enforce their vision of Iraq upon the rest.


See the above poll. Only 12% think violence against the coalition is acceptable. Of that 12%, only a certain number will be actually willing to pick up arms. And that 'fanatic support for al-Sadr' would be about 1%, not 20%. Let's not exaggerate the problem.


Or that sub-group of Kurds who desire full independence from Iraq and willingly pursue it with violent means.


Apparently a VERY small sub-group. See previous poll. The Kurdish North is peaceful, rapidly improving, and VERY friendly to the United States. The Kurds maintain their Peshmerga militias primarily in fear of a Shiite or Sunni government that might seek to oppress them again. NOT because they want to violently break away from Iraq. An overwhelming percentage of Kurds say they want to stay part of Iraq. Again, don't exaggerate the problem.


Or the conflict between the Arab majority and the Kurd minority over how to effectively divide power at the state level. And so on. All of these problems were foreseen prior to the invasion, but the administration chose to ignore them (as far as I can tell).


They did? Wasn't the Iraq Governing Council's makeup an attempt to prevent exactly such problems? Your leap from, "there are potential problems" to "these problems have been ignored" is not warranted. The CPA is trying. They know what the problems are. They've made a bunch of mistakes. But they've also gotten an awful lot right. By focusing only on the mistakes or problems left unsolved it's easy to paint a picture of gross negligence. A more reasonable point of view is that they are trying, and the results to date are a mixed bag. Some mistakes seem pretty obvious in hindsight, such as disbanding the army and instantly creating several hundred thousand enemies. De-ba-athification was taken too far, etc. The thing is, the successes are quiet and fly under the radar. The failures stand out.


They certainly weren’t debate extensively here, and when they were brought up, they were met with a resounding silence, simply because no one had any answers. That a majority of Iraqis reject an Islamic state doesn’t really address the underlying problem; in fact, it highlights it.


The thing is, your side applied a 'shotgun' approach to detailing problems. If you list every potential problem, you're bound to get some right. But shall we go back and look at all the disasters your side predicted that DIDN'T happen? You know, like the mass famines, the invasion by Turkey, the oil fields on fire, ecological disaster from Saddam blowing the dams and flooding vast swaths of land, the siege of Baghdad, WMD being used against the troops (your side believed in them too - when it was convenient to do so), riots on the 'Arab Street', etc. None of THOSE came to pass, did they?

And if you'll go back and look at the conversations then, I was quite realistic about the problems facing the occupation. I said the most troubling thing for me about the war was that I was not convinced the government could handle the reconstruction. As a small-l libertarian, I am very suspicious of grand government plans - they usually fail. I thought that the risk was worth it. Apparently, the Iraqis thought so too.

[Sam Stone]

Continuing...



A lot of wind is being spent claiming that Kerry doesn’t have a vision for getting the US out of this mess, and that might very well be true. But let us also turn the question around and ask ourselves as well, what does Bush propose we do about things? Because really, he and his supporters have gotten the US into this mess, so it’s his (and their) responsibility to get the US out. As far as I can tell, his only solution is a largely symbolic hand-over of “sovereignty” on June 30. At this point, they don’t seem to even know to whom it will be handed. Excuse me if I find this strategy less than satisfactory.


As I understand it, the plan is: Between now and June 30 establish a legitimate authority to which control can be handed over. Bush has enlisted al-Brahimi in that effort, among others. After June 30, a provisional authority will begin organizing and planning for an election in January of 2005. This will require a census among other things. During this period, the U.S. will be actively working to restore order - including, it looks like, an increase in the number of soldiers. The plan to turn over security to Iraqi forces has been set back after mass defections during the latest violence. Therefore, the government is learning from their mistake and bringing back some qualified Ba'ath officials and ranking officers (the ones who can not be tied to atrocities and appear to have been just doing their jobs during the Saddam era). This carries a risk of its own, but may be necessary. Anyway, the Iraqi officers are being re-trained, and they are starting joint patrols so they can learn on the job. This is going to take a lot of time, and requires an Iraqi command structure strong enough to control the police and security forces.

Over time, more and more security will be handed over to Iraqis. Hopefully, after the January elections a legitimate government will arise, backed by the people. This government will be given sovereign control, with the proviso that the U.S. be allowed to maintain enough forces in Iraq to keep security and secure the borders (exactly as was done with Japan and Germany).

That's the plan. It may change as events on the ground unfold, but for now it's pretty clear.

What was Kerry's again?


Point 2), the claim that Iraq is “spiraling into civil war,” is a worry, not a statement of fact. Given the events of the last few weeks, and the increasing levels of violence (over 100 US lives lost thus far in April alone), it’s not unreasonable (although I concede that asserting it has happened is).


I worry about it too. Anyone who thinks a peaceful Iraq is a fait accompli is selling something. Where we differ is in our perception of what's going on there now. As I've been citing, the current uprisings have almost no popular support. Nor does al-Sadr. And most especially, the insurgents in Fallujah. As I understand it, Fallujah has always been a trouble spot. Saddam recruited many of his henchmen from there, and it is seen by Iraqis as being a last holdout of the old regime. There are a lot of Iraqis who are mad not because of attacks in Fallujah, but because the U.S. hasn't use more force in getting control back. But the situation is very volatile, and it wouldn't take too many screwups before you see those currently small numbers grow dramatically. So your fears are not unfounded.


Regarding point 3), that “Americans are hated by almost all Iraqis,” I must admit I haven’t read that anywhere. I certainly don’t believe it myself, and I don’t think it represents the view of most of us who oppose the war. Do you have a cite, or are you simply “hearing what you want to hear?”


I'll admit that 'hated by all Iraqis' is a bit of hyperbole. But certainly many opponents of the war have a highly distorted impression of what the average Iraqi thinks of the United States. As I've shown, support is actually quite high.


Finally, on point 4), that the invading forces “weren’t greeted as liberators,” it’s certainly not my impression that they were. In some parts of the country, like the Kurdish north, they were greeted that way; but this cannot come as surprise, so I wouldn’t waste time arguing about it with you. But in other areas of the country the greeting was considerably more ambivalent. As liberators, one might reasonably expect spontaneous demonstrations of support, flowers, parades, and so forth. One might reasonably expect as well a dearth of support for insurgency activities, yet they began almost immediately and have continued unabatedly since the end of “major combat operations.” Again, given the near-constant bombings and firefights, one can wonder what you mean with the phrase “greeted as liberators.”


I posted the results of the recent poll which shows that even today, a year after the regime fell, and even amidst all the current violence, the largest group of Iraqis polled still believe it was a war of liberation. Do you doubt that the number was higher immediately after? Do you not remember the cheering when Saddam's statue fell? Or the images of people running alongside the tanks shouting, "Bush! Bush!" I would say that on the eve of war at least 90% of the population felt that they were being liberated.


Those who supported the war deployed this claim rhetorically as means of saying, “After all this is over, and Saddam is overthrown, thing will go well for us in Iraq. Since we will be seen as liberators, there will be no, or at least relatively few, post-war problems. We will have the support of the majority of Iraqis.” I haven’t seen this happening, myself, hence my skepticism.


But I just showed you poll results that show that nearly 50% of Iraqis STILL support the invasion. And if you took out the Sunnis who lost power and resent it, the rest of the country still overwhelmingly supports the invasion (Kurds - 87%. Southern Shiites: 56% Other Shiites: 46%). Bear in mind that this poll was taken during perhaps the worst period since the war for the Shiites. If you'd taken a poll immediately after the war, the numbers in the south would be much higher. Remember the reception the Brits got when they rolled into some of the southern Shiite cities? "Flowers and candy" was about it.


Obviously, the idea that we would be “greeted as liberators” would seem to imply that things would go smoothly after the invasion. They clearly have not, hence the oft posed rhetorical question, “I thought we were going to be greeted as liberators? What happened to that?”


Being greeted as liberators does not imply eternal undying love for a continuing occupation. No one wants to be occupied. Arabs are especially unlikely to tolerate what they see as subjugation. Kind of like Americans, no?

The tension you see now has two components - one is the calculated attempt to sow chaos by terrorists and ex-regime members who hope to occupy a power vacuum if they can get the U.S. to go home. This is also al-Sadr's plan (that, or just a rise in status by being the one to stick a finger in the CPA's eye). The other is an entirely understandable slow rise of tension due to being occupied. The real danger is where those two forces intersect. The insurgents threaten Iraqis and slow the progress that would make them feel more comfortable with occupation. In turn, the rising discontent will eventually feed the insurgency (although that has not happened yet). This is why the June 30 day MUST stay firm - even if it's a very limited handover of power to an interim government, it's a sign that things are progressing. Pushing that date off would play into the hands of those who are claiming that the U.S. intends to occupy Iraq permanently. If something doesn't happen on June 30 I predict riots and a rise in status of the insurgents.


Quote:
For instance, there were 17 elections recently in Shiite areas, and in NONE of them did an Islamic fundamentalist come anywhere close to winning. The winners were all people who want Iraq to be democratic with a secular government.

I addressed this point above. While it is heartening information (cite, please?)


As you wish. (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/18443.htm)

Both the Saddamites and the Sadrites fear elections and will do all they can to prevent them. Their fears are not groundless. In every one of the 17 cities where municipal elections have been held so far, victory has gone to democratic and secularist parties and individuals. And it is no accident that these are precisely the cities where attempts at fomenting insurgency have failed.

Democratic and secularist figures have also won all the elections held by professional associations representing medical doctors, lawyers, teachers, academics and businessmen.


Continuing...

...t only highlights the problem; a significant portion of the Iraqi population demands a theocracy, and I wonder what you think should be done about them.


As long as the government abides by a constitution that recognizes basic human rights, including the rights of women, then I would let them form whatever government they want. Obviously, a secular government is the desired outcome, but I predicted before the war that there was little support for an Islamic state, and I was right. Iraqis are educated, relatively sophisticated, and have a history of secular government.


Quote:
al-Sadr himself, the guy responsible for all the latest violence, has very little support even among Shiites.

Not according to Juan Cole. The low estimate is 30%.


Why do you consider Juan Cole an expert? His 30% 'low' number is still a gross exaggeration. Methinks this is just partisan spin.


But that can change, if he is perceived as being strong-willed enough to stand up to an unpopular and incompetent secular western occupation.

Given the mystical, millennial, fanatical nature of al-Sadr’s teachings, it is particularly worrisome to find that he has that much support. Cole suspects that al-Sadr suffers severe character pathology, and compares his following to the Branch Dravidians.


Precisely why he doesn't have much support. Well, that and because he is considered to be a young hothead who is using his Father's name to attain a standing he does not deserve. Not only does he lack support, but there is a large amount of disdain for him among many Shiites.


Quote:
In fact, a lot of Iraqis fault the U.S. for not doing enough to crack the heads of al-Sadr's minions and other thugs.

Well, you wish to deal with facts here. How many Iraqis are “a lot?” What evidence do you have for this assertion?


I'll have to get back to you on this one. This is a tough thing to google for to get exact cites.

I'm also going to pass over a bunch more exposition on the nature of the uprising. I've said enough on that.


You go on to reply to annaplurabella’s cites of US unpopularity vis-a-vis the “Arab world” thusly:
Quote:
And this is surprising? We want to put pressure on dictatorships to reform, and you're suprised that the dictatorships don't like it?

Yeah, and of course Mubarek would say that - he's dead set against what's going on in Iraq, because it'll put pressure on his own country.

And yet, while admitting here, above, that “putting pressure on dictatorships” is bound to make the US unpopular among them, you originally claimed:
Quote:
Slowly but surely, the U..S. is building allies in the middle east.

So, which is it? Is the US building allies, or is it rightfully pissing off oppressive regional dictatorships?


I was speaking of Iraq. America's worst enemy in the region, now America's friend. Libya has also moved out of the 'enemy' column, although I wouldn't exactly call it an ally. And if Iraq can be stabilized, I think you'll see a huge thaw in relations with Jordan. Syria and Iran are royally pissed right now, but on the other hand they are also feeling a lot of new pressure. Syria in particular has been facing revolts amongst the Syrian Kurds, and surprisingly responded not with a bloodbath but by actually listening to their demands. But certainly the U.S. is in a much better position to influence Syria now than it would have been had Saddam still been in the game. And with Syria goes Lebanon. No one said that this was going to happen overnight, but I see Iraq as a beachhead. Not just in a military sense, but a cultural one.


Continuing: on the issue of US troops viewed as “liberators:”
Quote:
They DID. The Iraqi people celebrated wildly. They ran after American soldiers shouting "Bush! Bush!" The day of their liberation is now celebrated as a national holiday.

All of this seems strange to me. You’re right; we don’t perceive the facts in the same way.


But the facts are on my side. I refer you back to the polls we have been discussing. If 46% of all Iraqis think the war was a liberation today, do you not believe that the number was even higher on the day of the war?


Some Iraqis did perceive the invasion as a liberation. As you’ve pointed out repeatedly, this was seen most strongly among the Kurds. But not all acted that way. Soldiers entering Basra, for example, were surprised by the lukewarm reception they met there. And in the chaotic looting of Baghdad there were few scenes of Iraqi people running after American soldiers shouting “Bush! Bush!” Rather, I mostly saw scenes of bitter lamentation over the fact that US forces were so poorly equipped to deal with the post-invasion chaos.


That is a separate issue. You can be liberated and still be mad at your liberators for making some boneheaded mistakes. But it WAS a war of liberation. Go back and look at the tape of Saddam's statue falling, and tell me that that wasn't a scene of liberation. Go ask the Marsh Arabs. Or, as you say, the Kurds. The reason that 46% number is not much higher today is largely because of the Sunnis, but then they were the ones with all the power. When determining whether a war is one of liberation, you don't count the people who you liberated the country FROM.


Finally, it seems strange to me that you would cite the decision of a US-appointed governing council to declare – is it March 17? – a national holiday as evidence for a broad-based public sentiment that the invasion was actually a liberation.


That's because I don't think the governing council is a mere puppet body. I think they felt the new holiday was an important part of separating Iraq from its vicious past and forming a new sense of national unity.

[Sam Stone]

Last one...


Quote:
There is no question that the war was seen as a liberation.

On the contrary, I think that even to this day Iraqis reveal a deeply ambivalent attitude towards the invasion. I doubt it is possible to fully appreciate the average Iraqi's view of the situation by casting it in the diametrical terms of “invasion/humiliation” or “liberation.”


One thing that struck me about that poll - it's a rather odd way to phrase the question, don't you think? Is the choice really between liberation and humiliation? What do you suppose the numbers would have looked like if the question was, "Would you like Saddam back?" 95% no, perhaps?


Quote:
A year ago, the people of Iraq most certainly saw the Americans as liberators. I don't know how that can be beyond dispute.

And a year ago you also thought that it was indisputable that Iraq possessed “WMDs.” Shouldn’t that miscalculation give you pause when you now so readily assert further generalizations about Iraq?


Wow. What a non-sequitur.


Quote:
Even today, with all the screwups and violence, a plurality of Iraqis think the war was the right thing to do, and that includes the Sunni areas which actually had it pretty good under Saddam. Support for the war is still in the high 80's in the Kurdish regions and not much lower in the southern Shiite areas.

I don’t know where you get this from. According to you own sources, support for the war is 87% among Kurds (Question: Was the US invasion right?), but less than half of that (40%) among Arabs. That seems much lower to me. So where do you get the assertion that support for the invasion is “not much lower in the southern Shiite areas?”


See the poll I linked above. Southern Shiites: 56% war was right, 28% that it was wrong. Exactly a 2-1 margin.


Quote:
Even today, with all the screwups and violence, a plurality of Iraqis think the war was the right thing to do, and that includes the Sunni areas which actually had it pretty good under Saddam. Support for the war is still in the high 80's in the Kurdish regions and not much lower in the southern Shiite areas.

The poll you cite gainsays this assessment:
Quote:
There are huge differences in these and many other questions between Arab Iraqis, who account for 79 percent of the population, and the Kurdish minority (17 percent). Forty percent of Arabs say it was right for the United States to invade; that soars to 87 percent of Kurds. Just one-third of Arabs say the war liberated rather than humiliated Iraq; it’s 82 percent of Kurds. Thirty percent of Arabs support the presence of coalition forces, again compared with 82 percent of Kurds.


The number I quoted for all Iraqis was 46%, which was the largest representative position. My statement was factually correct. I did not say a 'majority' of Iraqis, I said a plurality. For those who aren't clear on the definition: In a polling or election with more than 2 choices, a plurality is defined as the choice that receives the largest number of votes, despite still being less than 50%.


The report does go on to note, “ Positive views of the invasion also are held disproportionately in the South of the country…” but provides no hard data for the extent of that “disproportionately” positive attitude.
Quote:
And bear in mind that the grouping 'Arabs' includes the Sunnis. The Sunnis has a particular reason to dislike the war. They held all the power under Saddam, and got all the perks, despite being in the minority. If the 'Arab' vote separated out Shiite and Sunni, you'd see even higher support among the Shiites. It should not be surprising that the Sunnis are least happy.

I remind you again that we are interested in debating the “facts,” to the extent that they can be determined. So I ask you what, beyond your own guesswork and assumptions, leads you to such a conclusion.


See the poll I linked above.


In fact, the poll is disproportionately weighed toward the Sunnis:
Quote:
In religious terms, 96 percent of Iraqis are Muslim. In this poll 40 percent identified themselves as Sunni Muslim, 33 percent as Shia, and 23 percent did not cite an affiliation within Islam.


And since 40% of Arabs are Sunni, they pull down the average for 'Arabs'. As I said, if you take them out of the mix the picture changes dramatically. This is exactly my point.


The poll-takers were not unaware that there might not be a simple answer to the question of the US invasion, so they also included the following question:
Quote:
From today's perspective and all things considered, was it absolutely right, somewhat right, somewhat wrong or absolutely wrong that US led coalition forces invaded Iraq in Spring 2003?

The answer: 20% considered it “absolutely right;” 29% considered it “somewhat right;” 13% considered it “somewhat wrong;” 26% considered it “absolutely wrong;” and 13% had “no opinion.” (This adds up to 101%, and so there must be a misprint somewhere.) With this more nuanced question, we find that more Iraqis consider the invasion “absolutely wrong” than consider it “absolutely right.”


Well, that's one way to spin it. The other is that 49% considered it totally or somewhat right, while 39% felt it was totally or somewhat wrong. Still a plurality, no?


Now we come to some of the answers that I do find surprising, and that I don’t quite know what to make of:
Quote:
But here are the really important numbers which would indicate what the future holds in Iraq (and how Iraqis will perceive the U.S. after the occupation ends)
Code:
How things are going today:
All North South Central Baghdad
Good 70% 85% 65% 70% 67%
Bad 29 14 34 28 32

Does that suprise you? With all the stuff we hear on this board and elsewhere about how bad things are in Iraq, and how Iraqis were actually better off under Saddam (snort), look at those results!

Just to start off with, I certainly haven’t read anyone who claims that the Iraqis were actually better off under Saddam.

Hans Blix. Last week. Along with tons and tons of people against the war. I'm surprised you haven't heard this point of view.


But to answer your question honestly, yes, it does surprise me. However, the devil is, as always, in the details:
Quote:
Again there are regional and ethnic differences. In the Kurdish north, 70 percent say their lives overall are better than before the war; in the south, 63 percent. That declines to 54 percent in the central region, and falls under half – to 46 percent – in the greater Baghdad area, home to more than a quarter of Iraqis.


I'm not sure what your point is. I posted those very values. It's not surprising that the lowest results would be in the greater Baghdad area - again, during the Saddam regime Baghdad got a disproportionate amount of resources and perks. A large number of highly paid regime officials lived there. Baghdad had most of the electrical power. Because Saddam lived there, it was maintained quite nicely and had beautiful green spaces and monuments. For those willing to toe the line and keep their mouths shut, Baghdad wasn't too bad. But if you want to break the numbers down even further, check out how the people of Sadr City in Baghdad felt. As soon as you get away from the middle-class government workers and Ba'athists, things change rapidly.


First off, before we cream our pants over these results, I think we need to put them into perspective. We are, after all, comparing the current post-war situation with the previous brutal dictatorship, so the standards of comparison are rather low. Even so, in Baghdad, home to 25% of the Iraqi people, less than half feel that they are better now than prior to the invasion.

And in fact one can wonder a bit about how Iraqis in general employ the terms “good” or “better.” Consider, for example, these demographics:


Before we go any further, I'd like to point out that you have been unquestioning in your acceptance of data that portrays the war and occupation in a bad light, including outageous figures like 50% Shiite support for al-Sadr, based on nothing more than the word of a partisan like Juan Cole. But now you are engaged in parsing the positive data with a microscope, trying to deconstruct it away. While this may be a natural tendency for people on both sides of the issue (including myself), I just wanted to point it out. A little healthy introspection never hurt anyone.


Quote:
The poll also paints a compelling demographic portrait of the Iraqi people. In just 20 percent of Iraqi households does the main breadwinner hold a full-time, outside job; 58 percent are self-employed. Average household income is the equivalent of $164 per month, for an average of eight people per household. Eighty-one percent of households have a refrigerator; 44 percent, an air conditioner (the average daily high temperature in Baghdad in August is 108 degrees); 44 percent, a washing machine; 37 percent, a telephone; 21 percent, a still camera. There are disparities across regions, with the south of the country substantially poorer.

In 80% of Iraqi households the breadwinner is either unemployed, or employed part-time. And yet, apparently, 70% of the population feels that things are going “well” for them. This seems a contradiction, at least on the surface.


Can I provide what I think is the answer? The answer is that you're looking at it from the perspective of a rich westerner who doesn't know what it's like to be under the boot of a tyrant. My reading of the high percentage of people who say that 'life is good' despite what both you and I would consider to be extreme hardship is that the Iraqis view their current circumstances in relation to their lives under Saddam. When you are afraid to speak to strangers, when every knock at the door makes your heart jump with fear, when every family knows people who have vanished or been tortured and murdered in front of their loved ones, freedom must be a glorious thing. Just to be able to walk outside and speak your mind to a stranger would be liberating.

But also, standards of living ARE improving in Iraq, in some cases quite dramatically. Doctors, teachers, and other professionals have seen their wages rise ten-fold. Electricity throughout the country is now much more available than it was before the war. Fresh water is available in all areas, including some areas that NEVER had it. The shops are bursting with goods, automobiles are being imported into the country at a fantastic rate, satellite dishes and telephones are being purchased in huge quantities, and people can contact relatives outside the country for the first time in decades.

There is still a long way to go, but that 70% figure did NOT surprise me. I expected it.


Quote:
That's a huge number. I'm not sure you'd get a number that high if you took a similar poll in the United States.

Yes indeed. Doesn’t that fact alone give you pause?


No. Are you suggesting the results were rigged? I think my explanation above suffices.


Quote:
This bodes well for the future of Iraq if we can stabilize it.

Ah, yes. There’s that ever-so-troublesome word again: “if.”


Nothing worth doing comes easy. I never pretended the reconstruction and stabilization of Iraq was a fait accompli. Rather, I felt that it was the moral thing to do, and that the risks of failure were worth it, given the tremendous potential gains from a success.


Quote:
Look at the optimism! Almost all Iraqis now think they have a bright future.

No, Sam, they think, apparently, that things next year will, with luck, be better than this year’s misery.


And they wouldn't think that if they thought their country was spiralling into civil war, or that they were about to be permanently occupied. That was my whole point.


Quote:
This is the most important question of the bunch, because it's an indicator of what the upside is to a stable, democratic Iraq. It is also a good indicator of the lack of desire for a civil war or for animosity between the various ethnic groups in Iraq.

Well, I think you simply draw far too many broad conclusions from far too little solid data. I doubt anyone really wants a civil war, if it can be avoided; but this poll says nothing, as far as I can tell, about the “animosity between various ethnic groups in Iraq.”


It does tend to indicate what Iraqis think of the likelihood of a civil war. But I was also drawing on other data, such as the apparent reasonableness with which the Kurds and Arabs in the north are settling their differences. Remember that? That was another of the anti-war side's potential disasters - Arabs displaced Kurds in the north in a number of areas, and it was assumed that there would be a bloodbath as the Kurds took their property back. But both sides seem to have been quite reasonable. The Kurds have also made significant overtures to the Shiites, and vice versa. And the governing council didn't show a lot of internecine conflict, despite being made up of proportional members of all three areas. In fact, the much-feared civil war between the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites seems to have completely fizzled so far. That's not to say it couldn't still happen, but if you've got your good/bad ledger book open, this one's got to go in the 'good' column.


Quote:
If we succeed in Iraq and stabilize it and allow them to build a democracy of sorts, the payoff is HUGE.

This is not a “fact,” Sam. It’s an assertion. Neither you nor I can see what the “payoff” will be a few years down the road, as much as you would like to pretend otherwise. It may turn out for the better, if we’re lucky; but doesn’t it seem like an awful risk to take for the small chance that it might succeed?


We'll just have to disagree about this one. I see Democracy as a good thing, period. I also see it having a positive influence in the Middle East. I also see it being the creator of a powerful economy in an economically depressed region.

In addition, I have to point out to you that there is no “we” here. There is you, sitting on your butt in front of a computer in Canada, and there are US and British soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq, along with countless Iraqi combatants and non-combatants. If this damn fool war does come to a successful conclusion, it will be because of them, not you and them. Just to be clear.


What a shame that after all this you had to end with a cheap shot.

[elucidator]

... But shall we go back and look at all the disasters your side predicted that DIDN'T happen? You know, like the mass famines, the invasion by Turkey, the oil fields on fire, ecological disaster from Saddam blowing the dams and flooding vast swaths of land, the siege of Baghdad, WMD being used against the troops (your side believed in them too - when it was convenient to do so), riots on the 'Arab Street', etc. None of THOSE came to pass, did they?....

Just this one point, Big Svin can have the easy stuff.....

Overlooking the wonderland of misinformation contained in the phrase "your side"... these monstrosities were not remotely unlikely...except for the part about WMD's being used against our troops, that is fundamentally impossible, consequent of non-existence. And again, the unfounded slur that "our side" believed them "when it was convenient". Kindly reserve your mind-reading act to local access cable, OK?

A man who bets his ass, your ass, and mine on drawing one card to an inside straight is a fool. Even if he wins the pot, he's still a fool. Things in Iraq aren't going particularly well, they could have gone a lot worse.

And may yet, for that matter. It ain't over till the fat lady is shot.

[iamme99]

Althought I voted for Bush last time around, I am not a Bush Republican, so I will limit my comments here to posting the below excerpt from conservative Republican Scott Ritter. I keep hearing of an awfully lot of Republicans who are turning tail on Bush.

Former U.N. inspector talks 'real' Iraq policy
by Mike Fila, Photo by Lisa Johnson
April 26, 2004

Former chief weapons inspector to Iraq Scott Ritter said Wednesday that President Bush created an extremely turbulent situation in Iraq.

“President Bush poses the greatest threat to America that we have seen in modern history,” Ritter told an audience in the University Union's Potomac Lounge.

Though his accusations were extreme, Ritter— an unabashedly conservative Republican (my highlight)—argued they are not unfounded.

Ritter, a former intelligence officer for the US Marine Corps who served as the UN's Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, said the U.S. government “brought us into this war on false pretenses.”

Although the Bush administration says it is looking for weapons of mass destruction, Ritter explained, the government has a hidden agenda.

“Our real policy has been regime change,” Ritter said. “Our plan was to dethrone Saddam, not to find weapons of mass destruction.”

“President Bush poses the greatest threat to America that we have seen in modern history,” (http://www.thetowerlight.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/04/26/408c82475974a)

[annaplurabelle]

Iraqis blame US and allies for Basra blastsDid you even read that link? It quotes some supporters of al-Sadr, the man bloody responsible for the uprising and perhaps even the bombing. It then quotes a professor from Baghdad University who doesn't believe it, and a bunch of other people who don't believe it. So based on finding some people on the street willing to utter a conspiracy theory, you're willing to believe that this is widespread opinion? Hell, you can find people in Berkely who probably think the U.S. set off the bomb.

Anecdotal evidence sucks. How about we pay attention to real data.It would be nice if we had "real data" about a future event, wouldn't it? I was responding to your speculation about how Iraqis would react to future terror attacks. My anecdotal cite was at least on par with your speculations, which were pure personal opinion.Of course it's not all of them. But it's a LOT. Unemployment in some of these countries is as high as 30-50%. They have young, angry populations without work. They are denied basic human rights, and live under extreme laws. They see their leaders living lives of fabulous wealth, and they have nothing. Their leaders have told them that it's all the fault of the Jews and America, rather than their own backwards and despotic policies. So yes, there is a lot of rage, and a lot of hopelessness in the region. This needs to be fixed.I see I'm seconding this question, but just how much is "a LOT". Let's not forget that your original point was that this hopelessness lead to becoming a suicide bomber. Consider the number of the population of the "people of the middle east", and then consider the number of suicide bombers to date, and then try to make your case on the basis of that percentage. A LOT???

I still think your perception of the "people of the middle east" is a bit naive, to say the least.I didn't say this war was all-or-nothing. Tactical and Strategic battles need to be fought. The war on terror requires special forces, armies, police work, intelligence, diplomacy, and every other tool in the bag. No question.And this differs from Kerry's stated postion how exactly? Read that MTP cite again (my cite - not your sound-bite edit).One of the frustrations I have is that people on the left just aren't listening to our arguments. No one said that Iraq was involved with al-Qaida.. Not even the Bush administration, other than to point out that Abu Zarqawi was being sheltered in Iraq and he IS affiliated with al-Qaida.Sam please. They ALL said it. I'd quote all 61 comments, but as a kindness to everyone who knows this already I'll direct you to Iraq on the Record (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/), the searchable database of the Bush admin.'s statements about Iraq. You wanna talk about frustrated??? And after the nest is gone, there are still going to be wasps. 100 years from now, there will still be terrorists. We can't eliminate them all. What we CAN do is prevent rogue states from arming and sheltering them, and we can work towards improving the conditions in the world that breed them. Any idiot with a truck can load it full of fertilizer and diesel fuel and blow up a building. Even idiots in the U.S. do that. But what we need to stop are these large terror organizations that re trying to get their hands on nuclear and biological weapons and who can launch simultaneous attacks using hundreds or thousands of people. They are the only ones powerful enough to actually destroy our society. The lone nuts can do damage, but they can't throw the west into recessions or kill hundreds of thousands of people at a time.Well, analogies are fun, but let's say your "wasp" analogy might be flawed:

Let's say we can liken terrorists to microbes: Kill the current host, and they will simply find another host to infect. Of course, while you are in the process of "killing the host", the host is weakened, and thus subject to secondary infection, which might mutate into forms never before considered, and which you are unprepared to treat appropriately. Unfortunately, these microbes are highly contagious. In effect, your "cure" leads to a new strain of the disease, and a possible epidemic. Happens in medicine all the time...

What happens to your "rogue state/nest/primarily military" analogy then???

And how many nests can be removed, practically speaking? (Not forgetting that no nests have been "removed" thus far, and western miltary force is already streched beyond limit)I posted the results of the recent poll which shows that even today, a year after the regime fell, and even amidst all the current violence, the largest group of Iraqis polled still believe it was a war of liberation.I won't comment on that poll much, since Mr. Svinlesha has most succinctly done so, but I'd like you to note the date it was completed - before even the Basra attacks during the Shia holiday.

"Recent" is relative to acceleration of events. Polls change with changing circumstances. Remember when Bush had a 70+ approval rating?Do you not remember the cheering when Saddam's statue fell?Do you not remember how often this event has been debunked as media event/propaganda? How many Iraqis were in that square?

[blowero]

Please try not to go too far.

I never do.

I am not saying anything as radical as you are accusing me ov.

I didn't "accuse" you of anything. If you believe I have misstated anything, please detail it. Don't just say I'm "accusing you of radical things." Let's avoid vagueness, o.k.?

Quote:
Originally Posted by blowero
If you are NOT contending that Bush made no mistakes, then why did you put "mistakes" in quotes like that, as if to say they weren't mistakes?
----------------------
I was only trying to suggest that the mistakes might not be mistakes.

You were suggesting that the mistakes might not be mistakes, but later claimed that you never said Bush didn't make any mistakes. There's 2 sides to every issue, and you seem to be on both of them. ;)

For the sake of this discussion, a question was asked assuming things not in evidence here. More problematic, the question was asked assuming that many Republicans who support Bush agree that the mistakes are proven, but support him anyway. My only point in making the statement you quoted was to call this assumption into question.

Well answer the question then. Do you think Bush has made any mistakes? Why are you tap-dancing around it?

Quote:
I'm not the one who used that term. However, do you not fall under the category of "those who think Bush made mistakes and will still vote for him"?
--------------------------
No.

All right. Then which is it? Do you think Bush didn't make any mistakes, or are you not voting for him?

Quote:
I didn't say there was a general uprising. I said there is a "serious counter-insurgency". Surely you aren't arguing with that?

That the insurgency is serious I don't contend with. That this seriousness rises to the level the Kerry seems to imply from time to time, I do contend with.

Well without you specifying what exactly it was that Kerry said, I have no way to answer that.

Quote:
I disagree. When asked that question in his press conference, Bush was clearly stymied. He had no answer.

Which in and of itself does not mean that there is "nobody". It may mean he can't say. It may mean that the final structure of the body is not finished. Use you logical skills and think up the rest of the possibilities. You did a good job with the possibilities for Bush supporters.

It's "not finished" because the people who were supposed to take power bailed out. C'mon - you do read the papers, don't you?

Quote:
I think I see now why you don't like the plan. If you think this is just about painting letters on helmets, you obviously don't understand the issue at all.

Cool! Please cure me of my ignorance. If the UN is more engaged in Iraq, what will the actual consequences vis a vie troop composition be? Is it your contention that large percentages of American troops will be withdrawn and replaced with Canadian, Nato, Russian, who? I don't need a guarantee, just an opinion that makes sense. If you think that involving the UN will amount to substantially more than initials on helmets, let me know what it will be.

How can I know that before Kerry has had a chance to negotiate with our allies?

Quote:
But for the sake of argument, let's say you're right, and he's just not doing it as fast. I STILL would want a guy in office who is going to get it done faster.
--------------------------
Which is totally cool. But then I would expect that the rhetoric about the war would be toned down a little bit. If all you want to do is speed up the current policies why do you call those policies crimes. If all you want to do is modify the troop composition or increase it a little one way or another, why do you call the situation a quagmire?

Bush is spouting just as much rhetoric as Kerry, if not more. That's what you do when you campaign. Why do you hold Kerry to a higher standard than Bush? The war was a mistake, and Kerry needs to point that out. As far as I'm concerned, the point can't be made too strongly.

Quote:
This is what I like to call "attack by adjective". You take your opponent's position and simply add unfavorable words like "bizarre", "conspiracy", and "rhetoric", substituting that for any kind of cogent argument.
-----------------------
I'm sorry, I was refering to the suposition that I heard about this weekend. Apperently there is a rumor floating around that Bush conspired with the Saudis to fix oil prices just before the election.

What does that have to do with it?

Quote:
This is getting truly bizarre. Now you're criticizing Kerry for NOT calling for Bush to be tried for war crimes? Give me a break - if Kerry said anything like that, you'd be whining your ass off.
---------------------
No, No, No. Do try to follow.

Oh, I follow. If you can't express your ideas any better, that's YOUR problem.

I am criticizing Kerry for not living up to his rhetoric. If he wishes to imply that the invasion of Iraq was criminal then he should call for prosecution of those who committed the crime. If not, then he should tone down his rhetoric. Does that really not make sense to you?

Again, I need a quote, not just vagueness.

Quote:
You mean like this?:
"The US should immediately seek a UN Security Council resolution authorizing a mission with responsibility for the transition and elections."
(from Kerry's website)

No. I meant that if he really thought the invation was a break with internation law, perhaps he should call (or promise that he will call) for a resolution condeming the invasion. Perhaps he could include language clarifying the No Preemptive war policy he supports.

Why? Wouldn't the better course of action be to try to fix the problem, as per Kerry's plan?

Quote:
You mean like this?:
"We should send a high-level mission to consult with our NATO partners to encourage their participation and get other countries to participate so that American soldiers and the American people are not bearing nearly all the burden and all the risk."

No. Replacing American troops with Nato troops would amount to replacing American troops with American troops in a different uniform. Unless you have an idea which country might be willing to pony up a couple hundred thousand troops. Not a firm commitment, of course, just an opinion.

Yes, NATO consists of only United States.:rolleyes:

I don't get you. You whine that Kerry ought to propose replacing U.S. troops with allied troops, but when I point out that that's exactly what he is proposing, then you say it can't be done. It's alway bait & switch with you, isn't it?

Quote:
Yeah, that's really odd how our CURRENT PRESIDENT who got us into the war and maintains that June 30th is a hard deadline, doesn't even know who's going to take over, and how Kerry, who isn't the current president, and isn't privy to all the information and decision-making that THE PRESIDENT is supposed to be, wouldn't be able to furnish the exact same details.
-------------
Again, I'm not asking for firm details. You keep saying this. It is not true. All I am asking for is either a reduction in the rhetoric or an increase in the radical nature of the proposals to solve the problems raised. That is, if the current policies are so wrong, I'd expect more significant differences in Kerry's proposals to replace them.

Oh, now you don't want more details; you want more radicalism. I don't think you know what you want. I think you'd be against Kerry no matter what proposal he were to come up with. You would find something to criticize. And the thing is, you don't even have a rational objection; you just come up with vague things like "it should be more radical". That says nothing.

Even that is overstating it a little I am really not asking Kerry to do anything. I am just pointing out that powerful rhetoric is empty if it does not call for significant changes in policy. I should note also, that I do not think Kerry is the only one guilty of this. It seems to be a disease of our current politicians that every issue has to be the "issue of the century" as it were. Nothing is a simple difference of opinion. It can't be because we are so apathetic that we don't vote if there is not some great danger to be saved from.

I couldn't disagree more. This is not some trifling issue. This is a WAR that Bush started, in which American lives are lost almost every day. It may not be THE issue of the century, but it's in the top ten. What I don't believe you are understanding is that the ENTIRE CRITICISM of Bush's Iraq policy is that he in effect thumbed his nose at our allies and the world. In spite of your contention that this is some picayune matter, it is in fact the CRUX of the issue. Bush has pissed off everyone who used to be our friends, and as a result, we are forced to go it alone in Iraq. This is a major, major issue. There is no issue more important right now. The difference between whether a head of state tries to work with his allies, or tells them to take a hike, is CRUCIAL.

[blowero]

One more thing. You keep harping on the fact that Kerry is blasting Bush for the Iraq war, and asking "What's Kerry going to do about it?", and complaining that he doesn't have enough proposals, or not radical enough, or whatever you're trying to say. But you're forgetting that nobody can UNDO what Bush has done; they can only try to make the best of the crappy cards Bush has dealt. So it's perfectly consistent to say that Bush screwed up royally, even if one doesn't have a time machine to go back and UNDO what Bush did. So if Bush gives you lemons, you make lemonade. What other choice does one have?

[Fear Itself]

So if Bush gives you lemons, you make lemonade. What other choice does one have?The Republican view seems to be, "Shut up and eat your goddam lemons!"

[Kimstu]

Shodan: You see Bush, and you see a man who lied about WMD. I see a man who clearly acted on a belief that was almost universally believed, and actually followed thru on a threat he believed to be real.

I don't have a problem with your different interpretation (except for the "almost universally believed" part: while it is certainly true that almost everybody thought it very possible that Saddam might have WMD, most people in the world were very skeptical of the claim that it was so certain that Saddam did have immediately-dangerous WMD that it was imperative for the US to take him out soonest, which is what the Administration was telling us).

But it doesn't square with what you said in the post I was responding to. You gave the following sample dialogue as an example of changing-places perspectives between conservatives and liberals with regard to Clinton and Bush:

"How can you possibly support that person? He is a known, proven, definite liar! Don't you care anything about truth or morality or the dignity of the US?"

To which the reponse is, "That isn't as important as this other issue that I care more about. Overall, things are going relatively well, and therefore I support the guy."


You were the one who said that this dialogue was applicable to both presidents, except that the liberal and conservative parts would be reversed. That clearly implies that you thought it was accurate to call Bush, as well as Clinton, "a known, proven, definite liar".

Now you're saying that in fact, you don't actually believe that Bush is a "known, proven, definite liar". I don't care which position you hold and am happy to debate on the basis of either assumption, but it gets confusing when you flip-flop.

[Mr. Svinlesha]

pervert:

In debating you I find myself confronted with what appears to be a complete epistemological relativist. It would seem you judge all possible interpretations to be of equal weight, no matter how outlandish they might be.

I’m quite certain that other possible interpretations of Schlesinger’s opening testimony exist. However, when faced with a number of such possible interpretations, one must at some point or another make a judgement call, at least if one intends to take a stance on the issue. One selects the interpretation that, in one’s best judgement, clarifies or explicates the question at hand. In this particular instance, in order to underscore the tentative nature of his assertion, Dr. Cole selected the word “seems:” “It seems clear to me…” This indicates to me that he is open-minded and willing to reconsider, should new evidence present itself, but that based upon his own current experience things appear to be something like this.

Naturally one can call that judgement into question. Merely asserting that other possible interpretations exist, however, is not the equivalent of a forceful argument in favor of a competing interpretation. Rather, it more akin to “playing Devil’s advocate;” and it is difficult to get anywhere in the discussion if one’s debating opponent meets one’s arguments by simply asserting, for example, “Well, it’s possible that we could interpret X this way instead, as well.”

I mention this because it seems to me that you sometimes get lost in this world of competing interpretations. That’s just a casual impression, of course, so I freely admit I could be wrong. But I think as well it tends to lead to very confusing debates. I seem to notice that your debating opponents get a bit confused by you at times, and can’t really tell what you’re on about. They find themselves “swatting at flies,” as you present one possible alternative interpretation after another, usually without arguing for why one alternative is significantly better than the others.

The observation that decision-makers in the Bush administration tend to make rhetorical connections between disparate events like “9/11”, “Hussein’s regime,” “terrorists,” “WMDs,” and “al-Qaida” is not the exclusive property of the left, or of those who oppose the war. (Let me be clear: there are of course factual connections between terrorism, al-Qaida, and 9/11, obviously. There are also, possibly, some connections between Hussein’s regime and terrorism, as well as between al-Qaida and “WMDs.” There appears to be no connection whatsoever, however, between, for example, Hussein’s regime and “WMDs,” or Hussein’s regime and al-Qaida. I mention this to avoid confusion.) Anyway, for a further example, I would like to draw your attention to the Army War College report, Bounding the Global War on Terrorism, by Jeffery Record, professor in the Department of Strategy and International Security at the US Air Force’s Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama. This report can scarcely be considered the product of a partisan, left-wing think tank, yet Record would almost certainly agree with Cole’s observations: The administration has thus postulated a broad, international terrorist threat to U.S. national security interests that encompasses (1) three geographic levels of terrorist organizations--national, regional, and global, as well as (2) rogue states--specifically Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Also on the threat list are (3) any individuals or entities that proliferate WMD to terrorist organizations or rogue states, and (4) failed states, like the Taliban’s Afghanistan, that may not sponsor terrorism overseas but that willingly or unwillingly provide safe haven and assistance to organizations that do.

Discrimination, however, is not the first word that comes to mind in examining the administration’s language on terrorism. Administration rhetoric is not clear, for example, on the matter of whether there are strategically and operationally consequential differences between terrorist organizations and rogue states….

As it approached war with Iraq, the administration insisted on co-conspiratorial links between the Saddam Hussein regime and al-Qaeda; repeatedly raised the specter of the dictator’s transfer of WMD to al-Qaeda; and encouraged the view that Saddam Hussein had a direct hand in the 9/11 attacks. At war’s end, it hailed the regime’s destruction as a victory in the war on terrorism.

In September 2002, President Bush declared, “You can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terrorism. They’re both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.” He added that “the danger is that al-Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam’s madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.”

In a formal news conference on March 6, 2003, just days before he launched Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, the President linked the case for war against Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, implying that Saddam Hussein would replicate them once he got nuclear weapons. “Saddam is a threat. And we’re not going to wait until he does attack,” he declared. “Saddam Hussein and his weapons [of mass destruction] are a direct threat to this country,” he reiterated. “If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime . . . free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September 11, 2001, showed what enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what . . . terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.”Let’s pause to inspect Bush’s argument here. He claims that we can’t “distinguish” between al Qaida and Iraq, because, “They’re both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.” Now, how much sense does this make, really? We might argue, for example, that PAK Pong-chu, Premier of North Korea, is equally as bad, equally as evil, and equally as destructive as, say, Charles Manson. Does this mean that we can no longer make reasonable distinctions between the two?

After quoting a number of other examples, Record goes on to note: The President thus postulated, at least with respect to the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, a monolithic, direct terrorist threat to the United States in the form of undeterrable WMD attacks. By implication, the threat extended to Iran and North Korea as well, because as rogue states they, too, like Saddam’s Iraq, regard WMD “as weapons of choice,” as “tools of intimidation and military aggression” that could “allow these states to attempt to blackmail the United States and our allies to prevent us from deterring or repelling the aggressive behavior of rogue states.” Thus, as threats, terrorists, terrorist organizations, and terrorist states are one and the same.

Unfortunately, stapling together rogue states and terrorist organizations with different agendas and threat levels to the United States as an undifferentiated threat obscures critical differences among rogues states, among terrorist organizations, and between rogue states and terrorist groups. One is reminded of the postulation of an international Communist monolith in the 1950s which blinded American policymakers to the influence and uniqueness of local circumstances and to key national, historical, and cultural differences and antagonisms within the “Bloc.” Communism was held to be a centrally directed international conspiracy; a Communist anywhere was a Communist everywhere, and all posed an equal threat to America’s security. A result of this inability to discriminate was disastrous U.S. military intervention in Vietnam against an enemy perceived to be little more than an extension of Kremlin designs in Southeast Asia and thus by definition completely lacking an historically comprehensible political agenda of its own.He then goes on to list some of the commonalties and significant differences among these conflated threats. Foremost among the differences is the fact that rogue states are emendable to traditional forms of military deterrence, while sub-state entities (such as terrorist networks) cannot be deterred in that manner. (Again, this in is no left wing hooey clap-trap; prior to becoming National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice herself made precisely the same argument in a paper published in Foreign Policy Review.)

(I’m sorry I don’t have a link to this report, by the way; I’ve downloaded it on my hard disk. Does anyone out there know where pervert could locate a copy, should he so desire?) I know this is not the way you intended the quote, but I'd just like to point out that this is the sort of evidence commonly brought out to claim that the Bush Administration has tried to link the Iraq war and 9-11. If you could see how such evidence might be dismissed, or perhaps how it might be lowered in probitive value, you might be able to understand how so many people disbelieve the things which you take for granted.I don’t “take this thing for granted,” and as you can see, I’m willing to forcefully argue that there is some real merit to this view. But of course, it is not my only point of contention against Bush; I could fill entire notebooks. This is why I feel that the evidence against Bush is really so overwhelming. It’s definitely not something that I’ve decided in a casual, hap-hazard manner; I’ve exhausted hours of my free-time reflecting (and writing) on these issues.

Regarding the question of a critic’s potential partisanship, you ask:How would you tell?Again, this question seems to reflect back upon your basic relativism, I think. I would make a judgement call; are this person’s objections reasonable or unreasonable?

Would my judgement be totally objective? Or course not. But I do my best. Are you saying that there is no Al-Quaeada fighters there now? Are you asserting that the philosophy of AQ is irrelevent to the current situation?With regard to first question: no. I don’t know if there are or aren’t. Do you? With regard to the second question: yes. Well, there is certainly a single umbrella under which they can be encompassed. Surely you can see that they both belong to a sort of "Islamic Militant" demographic. Although there may be more of these two things which are not like the other, surely you can acknowledge that they are not exclusively distinct. Within certain contexts certainly they are unique issues. But within other contexts, surely you can see similarities.See my reference to the War College report, above, for a response. Don't you mean that no such link existed before the war?I certainly do mean that no link existed between al-Qaida and Hussein’s regime before the war; nor does one exist afterwards, since there is no Hussein regime anymore. I also mean that the difficulties faced by coalition forces in Iraq today are only tangentially related to al-Qaida and it “philosophy,” whatever that might be.

[Sevastopol]

Shodan: You see Bush, and you see a man who lied about WMD. I see a man who clearly acted on a belief that was almost universally believed, and actually followed thru on a threat he believed to be real.

I don't have a problem with your different interpretation (except for the "almost universally believed" part: while it is certainly true that almost everybody thought it very possible that Saddam might have WMD ...


In fact this is another flat out lie from the songbook. Try googling the following:

"Robin Cook" "resignation speech"
"David Wilkie" WMD
"Paul O'Neill" evidence

Although, I'm not sure I have the right spelling for O'Neill. These 3 were privy to the intelligence in, respectively England, Australia and the US.

The better view, recently confirmed by the Israelis as well, is that the US's allies kept a diplomatic silence about the lack of evidence supporting the war Bush was determined to have.

[Mr. Svinlesha]

Shodan:Would you vote for him, or would you simply disbelieve in the sincerity of his conversion and vote for Kerry or Nader anyway?Well, I’d have to see concrete steps made in all of those areas, as well, rather than just campaign promises. But I just want to try to make clear that my distaste for Bush stems first from his stance on the issues and only secondarily from my view of him as a person, at least as far as I can tell. In fact, to a great extent, my view of him as a person is also derived from his position on various issues.

I’ll concede that there are a few left-wingers out there whose views are determined primarily by their visceral dislike of George Bush. So what? By painting all of his critics with this brush, you actually avoid really tackling the issues. Instead of arguing the merits of a view, for and against, you risk dismissing it as just another anti-Bush rant, a-priori. It’s a great way to save oneself the trouble of actually having a serious debate.

In addition, this constant accusation of partisanship from one side or the other effectively collapses all critical discourse. How can we meaningfully debate any issue if, from the start, I dismiss everything you say as left-wing Bush-bashing partisanship, while you dismiss everything I say as a rabid right-wing demagoguery (or vice-versa)? It’s an effective rhetorical tactic if you’re interested solely in winning debating points, but it paralyzes the possibility of a meaningful, fruitful exchange of ideas. It’s really little more than a species of ad hominum; “I don’t have to actually meet your claims with evidence and counter-arguments, really, since it’s all a bunch of Bush-bashing and left-wing spin to begin with.” And it seems to me that the public discourse in America has collapsed, precisely because of these tactics (at least in part). I find them to be prominent among right-wing commentators and pundits, but won’t accuse the right solely of such sins; I know Michael Moore ain’t exactly a choir boy regarding this point, either. I read stuff on the net over here in Sweden, shake my head, and think, “Yeesh, you guys have all gone crazy over there.” The political polarization in the States is the worst I’ve ever experienced. Nobody can talk to anybody, because as soon as you open your mouth, somebody’s accusing you of blind partisanship, no matter how reasonable you try to be, simply because you take a position. But I meant to illustrate something beyond "Clinton is a liar". You dismiss Clinton's mistruths as insignificant. Thus, not only is his lying about adultery dismissed, but also his history of sexual harassment, misuse of the office, etc., etc.Well, I wouldn’t want to go that far, especially when you put it like that. But I do think that Clinton’s false testimony in this instance can’t be classified as an example of “sexual harassment,” and as far as adultery goes, it really ain’t none of my business. I see Bush as acting in good faith thru out the Iraq invasion.And I just don’t, and I wonder what more could possibly be done to convince you that he (and his administration) mislead you and your country into an unprovoked, unnecessary, and extremely expensive war. You once wrote: It has, unfortunately, gone way beyond the point of sober reflection. Some liberals now are attempting to deny reality. To claim that the evidence is ambiguous that Saddam "may or may not" have WMD is to take that step.You wrote this was because you believed, unquestioningly, what this administration told you. And yet all of those claims – every single one, Shodan, every last single one!! – have turned out to be false. There were no “WMDs.” There were no programs. There were no connections to al-Qaida. There were no Scuds. There were no mobile weapons labs. There were no aluminum tube centrifuges. There were no attempts to purchase uranium from an African country. There were no chemical carrying drones. The list goes on and on. There was nothing – nothing, nada, zip, zero, null set, or in Swedish if you like, INGENTING. Doesn’t this make you scratch your wooly (or not-so-wooly) pate and wonder, just a little bit – could I have been lied to? So maybe my answer to the OP is, that Bush would have to do a lot worse, and there would have to be someone out there who I think would do better. And, despite all the bashing, Bush is not doing as badly as the lefties would have us believe, and Kerry is still much worse.Well, I’m certainly no fan of Kerry’s. But my view here is similar to yours, only reversed: Bush would have to do a lot better, and Kerry considerably worse, before I’d change my stripes.Although thanks for your straightforward answer to the question.My pleasure.

Sam:

You’re next, bub.


Gotta go to work, though, so it might be a day or two before I manage to work up a good response. Stay tuned!

[Shodan]

Shodan: You see Bush, and you see a man who lied about WMD. I see a man who clearly acted on a belief that was almost universally believed, and actually followed thru on a threat he believed to be real.

I don't have a problem with your different interpretation (except for the "almost universally believed" part: while it is certainly true that almost everybody thought it very possible that Saddam might have WMD, most people in the world were very skeptical of the claim that it was so certain that Saddam did have immediately-dangerous WMD that it was imperative for the US to take him out soonest, which is what the Administration was telling us).Well, I suspect we are going to go around on differing interpretations again, but practically nobody had any doubt of the danger from Iraq's WMD when Clinton lobbed missiles at them - not Clinton, not Hilary, not Kerry, not Gore, not etc. The notion that it was obvious that Iraq never had WMD only arose after the invasion. Before that, and when it was a Democrat in the White House, nary a peep of doubt as to Saddam and his WMD. And this includes conviction strong enough to warrant killing Iraqis.

But it doesn't square with what you said in the post I was responding to. You gave the following sample dialogue as an example of changing-places perspectives between conservatives and liberals with regard to Clinton and Bush:


You were the one who said that this dialogue was applicable to both presidents, except that the liberal and conservative parts would be reversed. That clearly implies that you thought it was accurate to call Bush, as well as Clinton, "a known, proven, definite liar".

Now you're saying that in fact, you don't actually believe that Bush is a "known, proven, definite liar". I don't care which position you hold and am happy to debate on the basis of either assumption, but it gets confusing when you flip-flop.
No, I was saying that both sides felt the dialogue applied to the other guy. Republicans said thru out the 90s that Clinton was lying (and a scumbag). And Democrats defended him. And Republicans were dumbfounded that so obvious a slimeball as Clinton would still be taken seriously (and could win elections and get substantial approval ratings).

Now it is Democrats on the other side, with equal dumbfoundedness. How can Republicans still support a liar like Bush (they say)? Isn't it obviously, clearly, blatantly true that he is a liar (they say)?

Which accounts for much of the tendency of Democrats to conclude that only stupidity or evil can account for continuing Bush support. It seems so clear to them that Bush is eee-vil, that they can account for his lead in the polls in no other way. In the same way, Republicans had no idea how (for instance) the same groups that campaigned against sexual harassment with such fervor when Clarence Thomas or Bob Packwood were accused, would instantly change their tune when Clinton was accused. When Anita Hill makes accusations against Thomas, she is "speaking the truth to power", said her supporters. When Paula Jones and Juanita Broadderick say the same against Clinton, she is "trailer trash", said Clinton's supporters.

As I said, both sides are seeing the same facts, but thru different lenses. I can't remember the exact quote, but some feminist or other said she would be happy to have sex with Clinton because he kept abortion legal. As in my example, issues besides sexual harassment are more important to that woman. Therefore she can excuse or condone behavior that would be instantly condemned in an ideological opponent.

I am not saying that I, or any partisan, believes that Clinton and Bush are morally equivalent. I am saying that both sides are unable to see that the other side has a different view on the same facts.

And are confused by it.

Regards,
Shodan

[Kimstu]

Shodan: No, I was saying that both sides felt the dialogue applied to the other guy. Republicans said thru out the 90s that Clinton was lying (and a scumbag). And Democrats defended him.

But I don't think anybody seriously tried to argue that he wasn't lying about his affair. We just said that lying about your personal sex life isn't important enough for us to be concerned about.

You, on the other hand, are claiming that Republicans don't think Bush is a liar. In other words, Democrats admitted that Clinton lied about a blowjob but didn't think it was important, while Republicans are claiming that Bush hasn't lied at all. So your dialogue doesn't apply in both cases. The two cases look more like this:

Republican says to Democrat about Clinton:
"How can you possibly support that person? He is a known, proven, definite liar! Don't you care anything about truth or morality or the dignity of the US?"

To which the reponse is, "That isn't as important as this other issue that I care more about. Overall, things are going relatively well, and therefore I support the guy."

Democrat says to Republican about Bush:
"How can you possibly support that person? He is a known, proven, definite liar! Don't you care anything about truth or morality or the dignity of the US?"

To which the reponse is, "No, he's not a liar."


You can see why I got confused when you originally claimed that this dialogue illustrated how "the Left is going thru something in the twentyfirst century that conservatives went thru in the 90s."

[elucidator]

It must be like that "deal-breaker" moment, when something you really wish were plausible finally reaches a break-point. Like a guy with a used car....

"Say, damn, that's a 1956 T-Bird convertible! How much?"

"700 dollars."

"That's a great price!"

"Well, there are problems. Tranny is shot, and the brakes don't work...."

"Kind of balance out, won't go, can't stop...."

"Chassis is rusted out...."

"Some duct tape, some bondo, several very thick layers of primer...."

"A dead guy was locked in the trunk for about three months....."

"Hmmmmm. Winter or summer?"

[Desmostylus]

The notion that it was obvious that Iraq never had WMD only arose after the invasion. I'd suggest that this "notion" is entirely inside you own head. Who said it was "obvious that Iraq never had WMD"? You did. The rest of us wanted proof. Bush and co lied about the proof, in the same way that you are now lying about the way the debate was conducted.

[athelas]

>Bush and co lied about the proof

Cite?

[Rashak Mani]

BTW, In the "Is Bush Really in Charge" thread, I did identify a notion that might make me change sides. It was asserted that Bush believes in Creation Science. IF such a thing could be adequately proven it might be enough.

Yes I think Bush beleives in or gives creationism real consideration... again religion getting way too much attention. Anyone got a specific cite it would be nice to post it.


And where did I say that? I said that Bush made reasonable decisions given the intelligence he was presented. That the intelligence was wrong is not really in question now, is it? The important question is how everyone got it wrong. And I mean everyone. France, Germany, Britain, the U.S., Australia.. Even Jordan's intelligence service thought Saddam had WMD. And given that Syria and Libya both have advanced WMD programs, it's quite surprising that none was found in Iraq, don't you think?

It was reasonable to believe that Iraq had WMD. That they apparently didn't is confusing, and a lot of people are still scratching their heads over that.

The UN had a report on it... the US dismissed it. WMD were an excuse... never a reason to invade Iraq. Cherry picked info from the sources that gave them what they wanted... When Powell went to the UN with a phone tap and some WMD trucks everyone was dumbfounded by how little the US had. So no we weren't scratching our heads after that... after that I was sure that Iraq had at best old stuff... nothing dangerous in 45 minutes to UK or US.

Why was Blair so convinced of the 45 minute threat ? Obviously reports were being inflated by underling happy to please their masters. It was all about Regime change... not security.


Well, I do tend to believe that lying is lying, especially under oath. I am not aware of any instance in which Bush lied under oath, so in legal terms, there is really no comparison between Bush and Clinton. And in moral terms, Clinton is clearly the more extensive liar.

I see Bush as acting in good faith thru out the Iraq invasion.

You see Bush, and you see a man who lied about WMD. I see a man who clearly acted on a belief that was almost universally believed, and actually followed thru on a threat he believed to be real.

So Clinton lied... did Kerry ? Why keep comparing blowjobs with Iraq invasion ? Kerry is the contender now. Bush might not have lied... but he sure is stretching those WMD... those terrorist threats... those AQ connections. Bush asked for an got the reports that supported his view on Iraq. No one outside the coalition of the willing thought that WMD were an adequate excuse. It was never about Terrorism ...


But I just showed you poll results that show that nearly 50% of Iraqis STILL support the invasion

See my other thread about Polls in Iraq. The common man in Iraq will be swayed by their leadership... their leadership (all religions but Kurds) has been neglected and disregarded by the CPA. The CPA is isolated. You said Al-Sadr barely has support... then the US surrounds him and kills loads of people. Now he has loads of support. So its one mistake after another. The US is acting the villain's part perfectly.


America's worst enemy in the region, now America's friend. Libya has also moved out of the 'enemy' column, although I wouldn't exactly call it an ally.

Thank God for UN and USA sanctions no ? Why do people keep thinking that Bush scared them into compliance... when in fact they have been under economic sanctions that clearly were the major factor ? Or that his US educated son had a major influence. Americans should beleive more in moral power than military power.

[Squink]

>Bush and co lied about the proof

Cite?
On March 30, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld said in an ABC News interview when asked about WMDs: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1109-11.htm

If you don't like my link, find another one. Rumsfeld's lie is slathered all over the internet.

[Shodan]

My damn PC keeps freezing up on me. Third time lucky.

You wrote this was because you believed, unquestioningly, what this administration told you. And yet all of those claims – every single one, Shodan, every last single one!! – have turned out to be false.
Every one?
There were no “WMDs.”
Yes, there were. (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm)

There were no programs.
Yes, there were. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/)

There were no connections to al-Qaida.
Yes, there were. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1144791,00.html)

There were no Scuds.
Yes, there were, at least at one point. (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/scud_info_ii/ )

There were no mobile weapons labs. There were no aluminum tube centrifuges. There were no attempts to purchase uranium from an African country. There were no chemical carrying drones.These parts are true or mostly true. Or perhaps it would be more accurate that the Bush adminstration claims about the aluminum tubes cannot be proven beyond doubt. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36348-2002Sep18?language=printer)

And it would seem that the idea that Iraq definitely, clearly, unmistakably didn't have any chemical munitions is not as certain as it might be. (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/117/world/Explosion_levels_suspected_che:.shtml )

I think we are hitting on the same issue as before. We look at the same set of facts, and draw very different conclusions.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

I'd suggest that this "notion" is entirely inside you own head. Who said it was "obvious that Iraq never had WMD"? You did. The rest of us wanted proof. Bush and co lied about the proof, in the same way that you are now lying about the way the debate was conducted.
No, you are as full of shit as you usually are.

A lie is a statement known to be false as it is made. You claim that Bush and Co. lied. Therefore, they must have known that Iraq did not have WMD.

No evidence exists that this is the case. I know the less honest lefties repeat it ad infinitum, but that doesn't establish it, especially not when it comes from you, who we already know is prone to telling ugly and racist lies about Bush and others who disagree with you. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=251997&page=3) Accordingly, you have no credibility as regards related subjects. Sorry.

Regards,
Shodan

[Rashak Mani]

There were no connections to al-Qaida.
Yes, there were.

Your link is about AQ connections AFTER the invasion ! So get your stuff right... claiming AQ connections PRIOR TO INVASION was false. Now Iraq is Terror Disney.

Also you don't invade countries because of primary WMD like chemical shells. Bush claimed a REAL menace. Why does the US spend billions in intelligence and then cannot find these WMD ?

[MMI]

Are we having fun with tenses, Shodan?

Mr. Svinlesha referred to present tense statements made by the administration (in the past) about Iraq's purported (then) current WMD's. Which claims have been generally to have not been accurate descriptions of the facts on the ground when the statements were made.

The administration's claims of knowledge of the (then) current facts on the ground cannot be validated by referring to events that occurred years before the claims were made. My statement "The Russians are putting nuclear missiles in Cuba!" is not rendered true by the events of the Kennedy administration.

You can argue that Iraq's history certainly makes more plausible the administration's claims, but it does not, can not, validate them.

[pervert]

Thank you for your considered response. I'll only address a few points. In the interests of avoiding a hijack, I'll avoid getting into one on my debating style, but I think a couple things are relevant.

In debating you I find myself confronted with what appears to be a complete epistemological relativist. It would seem you judge all possible interpretations to be of equal weight, no matter how outlandish they might be.Not at all. Unless you mean that I view all possible interpretations (interpretations, mind you, not the facts on the ground as it were) as similarly suspect.

However, when faced with a number of such possible interpretations, one must at some point or another make a judgement call, at least if one intends to take a stance on the issue.That's correct. I certainly agree. I have no problem with you accepting one interpretation over another as long as you recognize that part of your data as an interpretation. Its only when you put a quote from an editorial and imply that it is evidence of a particular minds set or intention on that part of those quoted that I have a problem. I only questioned your point because I have heard so many people cite an example where the administration mentioned Iraq and AQ in the same speech, paragraph, or sentence and claimed this as proof that they were trying to claim Saddam was involved in 9-11. Meanwhile, a careful (or even honest) reading of all of this evidence (that I've seen anyway) doesn't even come close to claiming such a link.

One selects the interpretation that, in one’s best judgement, clarifies or explicates the question at hand.Well, in my experience it is far better to go to original sources to see if the interpretation of the reporter or commentator is accurate. I am willing to be proven wrong, but I have yet to find a single one with whome I agree completely. They all almost always misinterpret the original quote in some way to make thier point. (I am not given to using terms like all or always. As I said, I'm willing to be proven wrong.)

Naturally one can call that judgement into question. Merely asserting that other possible interpretations exist, however, is not the equivalent of a forceful argument in favor of a competing interpretation. Rather, it more akin to “playing Devil’s advocate;”[...]I agree entirely. I did not mean to suggest that my counter interpretation was more likely than his. Well, alright I did mean to suggest that it was more likely in my opinion. But I did not mean it as a refutation or "forceful argument" against his interpretation. Such a thing would require a link to the original remarks. I really was only trying to make a point about the preponderance of evidence that is trotted out concerning the administration's supposed lies regarding 9-11 and Iraqs involvement. Just because the two things are used in the same speech, paragraph, or sentence, does not mean that the writer is trying to imply that Saddam caused 9-11.

and it is difficult to get anywhere in the discussion if one’s debating opponent meets one’s arguments by simply asserting, for example, “Well, it’s possible that we could interpret X this way instead, as well.”I did not mean to make things difficult. ;)

I mention this because it seems to me that you sometimes get lost in this world of competing interpretations. That’s just a casual impression, of course, so I freely admit I could be wrong. But I think as well it tends to lead to very confusing debates. I seem to notice that your debating opponents get a bit confused by you at times, and can’t really tell what you’re on about.I agree that this happens sometimes. I am not as accomplished at this as others. Misinterpreting the meaning or context of a news event is a pet peeve of mine. Because of this, I tend to react more strongly to presentations of a pundit's opinions as facts or cites more strongly than I should. When those opinions coincide with the opinions of a debating opponents they tend to take my suggestions (clumsily put I admit) that the opinion is not a fact personally. Also, I find that most people (myself definately included) encounter difficulty identifying interpretations that they have accepted as interpretations rather than as facts. That is, it is often difficult to recognize when I have accepted an interpretation as a fact.

If I may address the quotes from the War College, I'd just like to say this.

The administration has thus postulated a broad, international terrorist threat to U.S. national security interests that encompasses (1) three geographic levels of terrorist organizations--national, regional, and global, as well as (2) rogue states--specifically Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Also on the threat list are (3) any individuals or entities that proliferate WMD to terrorist organizations or rogue states, and (4) failed states, like the Taliban’s Afghanistan, that may not sponsor terrorism overseas but that willingly or unwillingly provide safe haven and assistance to organizations that do.

Discrimination, however, is not the first word that comes to mind in examining the administration’s language on terrorism. Administration rhetoric is not clear, for example, on the matter of whether there are strategically and operationally consequential differences between terrorist organizations and rogue states….
This seems to me to be a fairly honest apraisal of the situation. The administration has linked Iraq to the war on terror in very vague ways. This is not the same as claiming that the administration claimed or is claiming a causal link between Iraq and 9-11. Suggestions otherwise seem to be conspiracy theories.

For instance:

Does this mean that we can no longer make reasonable distinctions between the two?Of course not. And I do not think that the administration is making no reasonable distinctions between the two. Does this mean that we cannot mention their similarities either?

I don’t “take this thing for granted,” That was a poor choice of words on my part. Especially using the pronoun "you" preceding it. I meant only that the question in the OP seemed to take this sort of thing for granted. <I had an english teacher work very hard to discourage my use of the generic "you" and yet a couple months here and I am right back in the habbit. ;(>

Again, this question seems to reflect back upon your basic relativism, I think.No, not at all. Just the opposite. It is my paranoia, so to speak, of relativism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you saying that there is no Al-Quaeada fighters there now? Are you asserting that the philosophy of AQ is irrelevent to the current situation? With regard to first question: no. I don’t know if there are or aren’t. Do you? With regard to the second question: yes.
So you are saying that there is a possibility that AQ fighters (or perhaps only those who may have trained with AQ) may be in Iraq fighting American troops but that the tactics that AQ uses are not relevant to the current situation in Iraq? I'm sure that is not how you meant those answers.

I also mean that the difficulties faced by coalition forces in Iraq today are only tangentially related to al-Qaida and it “philosophy,” whatever that might be.Agreed, conditionally. And unless I am mistaken, the quote you provided from Schlesinger before congress only mentioned AQ "tangentially".

Now, perhaps he did so in oreder to create the false impression in people's minds that AQ and Saddam worked closely together to commit the 9-11 attacks. But that is entirely the opinion of the commentator. Not the facts. That really was the only point I was trying to make.

Thanks again, for the considered response.

[elucidator]

By golly, Shodan, you've outdone yourself! All your previous efforts are as nothing next to this stunning display, this does for "disingenuous" what Stonehenge does for rocks.

First cite: looks like the real McCoy, being scientific, and all. But all it states, and all that it purports to prove, was that Saddam had, at some point in the past, chemical nasty. Which we knew. Your problem is this: the Bushiviks claimed to be going to war to disarm Saddam, to rid him of things he was currently in possession of, not things he had at one time. I don't mean to be insulting by pointing out the blazingly obvious, but the point appears to have eluded you. Again. It makes about as much sense as declaring war on South Carolina to free the slaves, by offering evidence of slave sales circa 1850.

Proceeding downhill at a blistering pace:

Cite the second: the dug up centrifuge. One centrifuge, count 'em, one. Do you have any idea how many such centrifuges, spinning furiously, and for how long, it would take to produce enough fissionable material for one clumsy bomb? Go find out, and get back to us. Hint: oodles of 'em. Further hint: burial in dirt is not considered to be efficacious.

Cite the third: already well dealt with.

Cite the fourth: Scuds, schmuds. The Scud is a piece of crap, a low-tech, essentially balistic missile with a guidance system that would embarrass a 4-H Science Fair. The missiles Iraq was dismantling in the days preceding this scheisssturm were superior to the Scud, and they were taking them apart under UN supervision. Which is to say, complying. Did you miss that part?

The "aluminum tube" nonsense has not been proven "beyond doubt"? Well, here is a cite for you.

http://www.iht.com/articles/83026.html

titled: "Atomic agency challenges Bush's key claim against Iraq". I suppose, if one were desperate enough, or possessed of the faith that surpasseth all understanding, one might cling to the notion of proving "beyond doubt". But then one has to presuppose some expertise on your part that exceeds that of professional nuclear physicists. A leap of faith I am unwilling to make, barring a demonstration otherwise.

And finally, I object to your representation of friend Demo as "full of shit". You have demonstrated neither the right nor the capacity to make such a judgement. Shame on you.

[ElvisL1ves]

practically nobody had any doubt of the danger from Iraq's WMD when Clinton lobbed missiles at them - not Clinton, not Hilary, not Kerry, not Gore, not etc.Those Republicans who stoutly insisted that he was "wagging the dog" to distract them from the blowjob story seemed to have had some doubt.

The notion that it was obvious that Iraq never had WMD only arose after the invasion. Before that, and when it was a Democrat in the White House, nary a peep of doubt as to Saddam and his WMD.Excluded middle, or, in short, bullshit. You do recall, don't you, the UN inspections, the much-maligned Blix team whose job was to go find out the facts first, so that a war didn't have to depend on guesswork? Remember that? All of us who certainly entertained the possibilities either way, but saw no reason not to make sure first? Why, in your opinion now, could Bush not have waited the extra 2 damn weeks for that? It did happen that way, and any further attempt to deny it casts a serious doubt of good faith on anything else you say here - as if that weren't already a problem based on your efforts to equate lying about a consensual sex act with lying about a war.

The topic there, as I'm sure you must realize but are conflating anyway, isn't Bush's being a liar, or Clinton's, but about what they lied about. Since you ask what lies Bush told, we've been there many times before. Saying you know something that you don't really know is lying, m'kay? Refusing to go find out first before you act on it is something beyond that. The reasons for doing so are murky, but some of those that have been offered are things we hanged people for at Nuremberg and Tokyo. But to you that's the equivalent of a blowjob? What happened to all the sermons about character and the evils of moral relativism that used to be in vogue from the hard right?

I am saying that both sides are unable to see that the other side has a different view on the same facts.

And are confused by it. No. There is disagreement as to what the facts are here, not how they are seen. When someone is constantly shown to be cherrypicking facts, and believing things that have already been shown false, and refuses to acknowledge such corrections, then they no longer can be credited with a "different view of the facts". "Confusion" is too kind an interpretation to put on that thought process.

[pervert]

Well, in my experience it is far better to go to original sources to see if the interpretation of the reporter or commentator is accurate.

Since I finally found The Statement by James Schlesinger before the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate 20 April 2004 <PDF Warning> (http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2004/SchlesingerTestimony040420.pdf) Lets compare them to the impression Mr. Svinlesha quoted from The Juan Cole's Blog* 5 days later. (http://www.juancole.com/2004_04_01_juancole_archive.html) (Note you have to scroll down a ways to see the essay which mentions Schlesinger's remarks)

As Mr. Svinlesha correctly pointed out, Mr Cole suggested:
saw how the mythical opinions are generated at the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations where I testified last Tuesday. Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger testified, and began his testimony with a long quote from Usama Bin Laden about how the US was timid and had easily been chased out of Lebanon and Aden with a few bombs. It was an odd way to begin a hearing on what has gone wrong in Iraq.

[...]

So it seems clear to me that Schlesinger was trying to shape his Senate testimony so as to hint around that the Iraq War was somehow connected to al-Qaeda, even though we all know that it wasn't. The only one who challenged Schlesinger on this was Rhode Island Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee:


and yet he included the question asked and answered.

SEN. CHAFEE: I know these gentlemen have good opinions, but they don't speak for the administration. Those are the people we're going to get the answers from ultimately. But nonetheless, Secretary Schlesinger, in your opening comments, you quoted some very chilling testimony from Osama bin Laden. Why use that testimony at a hearing on Iraq?

MR. SCHLESINGER: The mention of that is to discuss why it is that the United States is engaged in the Middle East, because we were attacked, because of a declaration of war against Americans.
The question of Iraq, which is what you point to, it may or may not have been, as some stated, central at the time we went in. It may have been secondary or peripheral at the time we went in. But the administration is quite right that it is now the central front in the war against terrorism, because much of what we see in Fallujah today are terrorists who have come from the outside world. They are the ones primarily who have been setting the car bombs and have been doing the training.

There's definately more in the blog, but go see it for yourself. It seems pretty clear to me that Mr. Schlesinger was trying to make the point that OBL's words were meant to address the question of withdrawing from Iraq to the larger question of dealing with the War on Terrorism. He was in no way asserting that there was a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam's regime. In fact, he said in regards to a clarifying question:

I think you've had testimony, or a letter, at least, from George Tenet talking about the contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam going back at least a decade. But that is -- we are there. We are where we are. And the consequences of not winning, of not being successful, would be disastrous not only for the United States -- <I am assuming that this is the full answer. It appears in the Blog that the Senator cut him off>

And from his initial remarks:
Usama himself has opined that, “when the people see a strong horse and a weak horse—they naturally gravitate toward the strong horse.” Consequently, this country must conclusively demonstrate that we are NOT the weak horse. Withdrawal before we have successfully stabilized Iraq is, therefore, not an option. It would be dramatically more visible throughout the Middle East and elsewhere than were those earlier retreats cited by Usama. I recognize that inevitably debate will continue regarding at least the timing of our move into Iraq. Nonetheless, we must not allow the political contentions of an election year to create any impression that we are anything but united in our determination to persevere and to prevail in Iraq. Success is the only acceptable course of action.
The quotes he included from OBL were intended to link his position, that we cannot withdraw from Iraq until it is stable, to the larger question of the war on terror. Certainly a reasonable position, and reasonable way to illustrate it.

Once again, however, this is so far from an attempt to link Saddam's regime with the attacks on 9-11, that I am surprised it is even mentioned this way by Mr. Cole.

Mr. Svinlesha Perhaps you have history with this person which inclines you to take him at his word. Perhaps he has some evidence that Mr. Schlesinger's remarks were intended other than Mr. Schlesinger suggested. However, he did not include any (with the exception of an impression of British official Lord Cromer in 1970 on some other remarks by Mr. Schlesinger not excerpted here).

Absent such evidence, his impression seems to be nothing more than supposition. And heavily biased supposition at that. Have I missed something?

I understand the proposition that the American public is not totally cognizant of these issues. I even understand the proposition that some of the confusion comes from the rhetoric used by the Administration. But the proposition that the administration has actually claimed, or that it seeks to blur the truth about Iraq's involvement in 9-11 is just silly. It implies either a blatant lie on the one hand or a sinister conspiracy on the other.

[blowero]

Didn't notice this before, from pervert:

As I was listening to various news programs this evening, another thought struck me. It could also be that Kerry could take the other tack. He could say that the war was a mistake, but were in it now so we have to make doubly sure we will win it. He could then support serious increases in troop strength. I'm not sure that would please his peacnik supporters, but it might be the sort of significant policy shift I was talking about in the last couple posts.

Apparently you aren't aware that Kerry in fact DOES support an increase in troops in Iraq. It's in fact a central part of his platform. The position you describe is in fact Kerry's exact position. What's interesting is that a right-winger in another thread criticized Kerry for this, claiming it's not possible.

Also, a little bit on the hijack of your debating style: I have to agree with Mr. Svinlesha. I have found myself repeatedly "swatting at flies" in trying to understand your position in this debate. I feel like a lot of times you are, either deliberately or not, dangling carrots for us to chase after, then pulling them away, in effect, by saying "That wasn't my point."

[Voyager]

But doesn't this presume some sort of true devotion?

Did Saddam have true devotion? Not that I could see. I think Bush is far more religious than Saddam ever was.

Or perhaps rhetorically or actually fight islamic countires because they are not enough or of the right kind of islamist?

Again, did Saddam ever do this? The attack on Kuwait was not driven by religion, nor was the war with Iran. I'm sure they all sang God on My Side at some point, but Kuwait was about oil, expansion to a place with some history of being an Iraqi province, and what was perceived as a green light from a US diplomat.


I'm not sure. He does seem to support Islamist organizations in Lebbenon I think. But maybe that was his father?

Terrorist organizations that are somewhat Islamist sure. But I don't think they get much opportunity to operate within Syria.




I'd make the distinction between a Islamic militant and Islamic activist this way. A militant is someone who uses the Islamic rhetoric, quotes from the quran, Islamic practices or other aspects of muslim culture to aquire power over others specifically in an attempt to commit violence against those who cannot be controled. An activist is somone who supports or promotes that culture or those practices because he honestly believes they are a better way to live (or at least that they are God's will for how people should live). Specifically, a militant does not necessarily follow any of the rules he sets for his people. Remember the technology found in the homes of the Taliban leaders which was forbidden to Afghanistan's citizens? They were militants. Some aspects of each may overlap making it hard to distinguish.

Well, Islamic militants may or may not be hypocrites - Christians too. Ignoring this, I think you are saying that an activist is a peaceful militant. I can buy that. I can also buy that an Islamic militant is militant specifically to spread Islam, which may or may not be done to gain control. It might be done out of sincere religious conviction, which doesn't excuse it. Saddam, however, exerted control long before there was an Islamic revival. Calling him a militant instead of a run-of-the-mill despot seems odd. Calling him an Islamic militant seems to be not supported by evidence. Bush is a Christian using violence to extend his control, but I wouldn't call him a Christian militant, since there is no evidence that the war on Iraq was religiously motivated.


I think your definition cannot be used to distinguish between Islamic charities, for instance, and terrorist organizations.

Well, it appears that there is scant distinction in some cases. However, some Islamic charities are actually helping. And how are those dedictated to spreading Islam different from Christian missionary work, which even I wouldn't call militant.

[Voyager]

I'd suggest that this "notion" is entirely inside you own head. Who said it was "obvious that Iraq never had WMD"? You did. The rest of us wanted proof. Bush and co lied about the proof, in the same way that you are now lying about the way the debate was conducted.

Yes, they lied that they had proof, but that is not the greatest of their sins. I am totally fed up with the position that since everyone thought there were WMDs in 2002, the invasion was justified. Before the invasion, thanks to the maligned inspections, it was becoming very evident that the suspicion that Iraq had WMDs was not justified. Hans Blix said, on his Fresh Air interview, that he stopped thinking Iraq had them when the inspections of the sites pointed to by US intelligence revealed no WMDs. So, even if Bush & co. were honestly convinced that there were WMDs in 2002, they should have begun to doubt this conviction before the war began. But they didn't. They had made up their minds to invade well before, and no inconvenient facts were going to stop them. This maintaining a position despite all evidence to the contrary is repeated again and again in this Administration. That's what makes them dangerous. Lots of administrations lie, but only the Bushies are so unwilling to change course, no matter what.

[pervert]

Also, a little bit on the hijack of your debating style: [...]I have found myself repeatedly "swatting at flies" in trying to understand your positionIf I may, this is because you refuse to understand.


Apparently you aren't aware that Kerry in fact DOES support an increase in troops in Iraq. It's in fact a central part of his platform. The position you describe is in fact Kerry's exact position.No it is not. The position I described is Kerry's position if he wants to continue the current administration's policy.

From his website:To succeed, we are going to need more forces on a temporary basis. Our commanders on the ground have requested it. We should provide it. Except that they have not requested more troops now. I am aware that there is contention on how many should have gone in. I am aware that some have said that this is proof that the pentagon really wants more troops. But do you have any evidence that the commanders currently in charge of the operation are asking for more troops and not getting them?

Furthermore, (and more to the point about not understanding), I mad the mistake of using the word "significant" without bolding it. If Rumslfed says that "They will decide what they need, and they will get what they need," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "At the present time, they've announced no change in their plans. But they could make such a request at any time." and Kerry says that we should give the commanders what they want, where is the "significant" difference?

What I was trying to say was that if Kerry really thinks that Iraq is a huge debacle, as his rhetoric suggests, then his solution should read differently from the proposals of the current administration. You see, no calls for large amounts of detail, no calls for information he does not have a simple point you have consistently (some might say intentionally) refused to understand.

On another point, blowero I missed your earlier responses due to the page change. FTR, I do not think that the Iraq war has been on balance a mistake. I did not answer the question when you first posed it because it was not rellevant to the discussion about the way the OP phrased his question. You see, no dodging, just an attempt to discuss a particular point which you kept not understanding.

I'm sure that the misunderstandings were my fault. I hope I have cleared a couple of them up. If not, Eh. ;)

[pervert]

Voyager We may be talking past each other. I'm not really sure I have a good definition for Islamic militant. I do like your idea that maybe "an activist is a peaceful militant".

Let me try again.

If an organization uses or supports Islamic practices, policies or "goals" (whatever Islamic goals are), then that organization can be said in some vague way to be Islamic. If that organization uses violence to achieve its goals then it is militant.

Such a definition surely allows for shades of grey. Certainly Saddam is more an Islamic militant than Jimmy Carter was. Whether he is enough of one to have the label applied I'm willing to concede could be argued.

Again, did Saddam ever do this?There is a lot of rhetoric in the second quote I included in which Saddam trumpeted his victory over Iran and how they are not true followers of Muhammad. He was certainly trying to make the point that, as you said, "God was on his side".

The attack on Kuwait was not driven by religion, nor was the war with Iran. I'm sure they all sang God on My Side at some point, but Kuwait was about oil, expansion to a place with some history of being an Iraqi province, and what was perceived as a green light from a US diplomat.Ok. But how do you distinguish between the actual motivations of such actions and the motivations of AQ in 9-11.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terrorist organizations that are somewhat Islamist sure. But I don't think they get much opportunity to operate within Syria.I'm not sure I understand this at all. If he suports Islamic terrorists he is still not a Islamic militant unless he allows them to opperate in his own country?

Saddam, however, exerted control long before there was an Islamic revival. Calling him a militant instead of a run-of-the-mill despot seems odd.I'm not sure I see the distinction. I understand how a despot could or could not be Islamic, but if he is Islamic, how does that make him not a run of the mill despot?

Calling him an Islamic militant seems to be not supported by evidence.Well, again, that depends on the definition of Islamic Militant. Surely he uses Islamic rhetoric. Surely he portrays himself as a follower of Islam.

Perhaps he is more an Arab Militant?

Bush is a Christian using violence to extend his control, but I wouldn't call him a Christian militant, since there is no evidence that the war on Iraq was religiously motivated. But he does not pepper his speeches or policies with as much Christian rhetoric as Saddam did Islamic rhetoric.

BTW in regards to my debating style, I need to point out that the last 5 paragraphs are really questions. I am not trying to make a point ot trick anyone with them. When you questioned whether or not Saddam was an Islamic Militant, I realized that I do not have an acceptable definition. The questions below the line are really intended to probe for such a thing rather than to make any point.

[Squink]

By golly, Shodan, you've outdone yourself!

Cite the second: the dug up centrifuge. One centrifuge, count 'em, one. Do you have any idea how many such centrifuges, spinning furiously, and for how long, it would take to produce enough fissionable material for one clumsy bomb? Go find out, and get back to us. Hint: oodles of 'em. Further hint: burial in dirt is not considered to be efficacious. You give the centrifuge meme too much credibility here. The centrifuge bearings uncovered bear the same relationship to a centrifuge as does a crankshaft bearing to an automobile.
Specifically:
•It takes more than a shaft bearing to craft a functional automobile.
•No one in their right mind would actually use a crankshaft bearing that had been buried under the rose bushes for a decade.

[Rashak Mani]

Christ this thread is going faster than I can follow... come on Bushies.

- Hans Blix and half the world didn't beleive there were significant WMDs... much less 45 min deployable or nuclear.
- Powell gave Zero proof.
- Inspectors didn't find anything where Bush said there were WMD.
- Rummy and Bush were in such a great hurry why ? Why not let inspectors try to find something ?

Things don't add up with Iraq... even if Saddam did deserve to be toppled and Iraq "liberated". Why didn't Bush just say that they needed to take the troops out of Saudi and needed to defuse Saddam ? Why humiliate the UN and former allies ? Why use the coalition of the "willing" instead of a real one ? The US doesn't need to fumble around to demonstrate military power.

[Rashak Mani]

... continued...

Have you guys ever read about Chalabi, the INC and the money they are getting from US intelligence ? These guys have been feeding false info... including those Mobile WMD chemical trucks... to Rummy and Bush for a long time.

Bush is doing what is good for Saudis, Oil companies, Chalabis and Afghani warlords... not US interests.

[Voyager]

Voyager We may be talking past each other. I'm not really sure I have a good definition for Islamic militant. I do like your idea that maybe "an activist is a peaceful militant".

Let me try again.

If an organization uses or supports Islamic practices, policies or "goals" (whatever Islamic goals are), then that organization can be said in some vague way to be Islamic. If that organization uses violence to achieve its goals then it is militant.

Okay, that is much clearer, and I can buy this as a reasonable definition.


Such a definition surely allows for shades of grey. Certainly Saddam is more an Islamic militant than Jimmy Carter was. Whether he is enough of one to have the label applied I'm willing to concede could be argued.

Ok. But how do you distinguish between the actual motivations of such actions and the motivations of AQ in 9-11.


Well, we won't know the direct motivation of 9/11 until we catch bin Laden, but revenge seems some of it. However, AQ are clearly Islamic militants by your definition, since setting up Islamic states is part of their charter. Saddam didn't when he had the chance, and seemed to be unfriendly to those who wanted to, not the least being the Iranians. Yes, when cornered he tried to make himself seem like an Islamist (and more for external consumption than internal - didn't he talk of a jihad?) but no one bought it, and I don't hear any of the true Islamists in Iraq wanting him back. So, he's a militant, in a sense, who is Islamic, but not an Islamic militant.


I'm not sure I understand this at all. If he suports Islamic terrorists he is still not a Islamic militant unless he allows them to opperate in his own country?

I'm not sure I see the distinction. I understand how a despot could or could not be Islamic, but if he is Islamic, how does that make him not a run of the mill despot?

Well, again, that depends on the definition of Islamic Militant. Surely he uses Islamic rhetoric. Surely he portrays himself as a follower of Islam.

Perhaps he is more an Arab Militant?



The problem seems to be the distinction betweem a militant who is a follower of Islam and an Islamic militant. The distinction is the desire to set up a state under Islamic law, which Iraq was never an example of. For the Assad case, say we had a beef with Canada and supported Quebec separatists. I suspect any such organization would get squashed fast if they wandered down to Louisiana and stirred up Cajun separatists. But actually, is Hamas really an Islamist organization? I don't think a Palestinian state would operate under Islamic law, I've never heard any Palestinian leader call for this, but I could be wrong.

And Saddam was a run of the mill despot, who happened to be Isamic.


But he does not pepper his speeches or policies with as much Christian rhetoric as Saddam did Islamic rhetoric.

BTW in regards to my debating style, I need to point out that the last 5 paragraphs are really questions. I am not trying to make a point ot trick anyone with them. When you questioned whether or not Saddam was an Islamic Militant, I realized that I do not have an acceptable definition. The questions below the line are really intended to probe for such a thing rather than to make any point.

Did Saddam in the past? In any case, even Bush's conviction that God is telling him what to do doesn't make him a Christian militant, even though his statement is probably more heartfelt than Saddam's.

I think we were converging to a good definition, and I didn't see the questions as a trick. The danger is this. If we all agree that bin Laden is an Islamic militant, and if you produce a specialized definition that makes Saddam one, then one would try to equate bin Laden with Saddam, though the rest of us don't agree that Saddam falls into the stronger definition we think bin Laden falls into. If it is duck season, and I convince you of a special definition of duck that includes pheasants, that doesn't mean that I'm suddenly allowed to shoot pheasants!

[pervert]

Just to satisfy Rashak Mani's need for a Bushie, I will put my Bushie hat on for a post or two. ;)

Christ this thread is going faster than I can follow... come on Bushies.

- Hans Blix and half the world didn't beleive there were significant WMDs... much less 45 min deployable or nuclear.Well, he seems to think there might have been things to look for. (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm) He certainly was not of the opinion that there were no significant WMDs.

- Powell gave Zero proof.I'm not sure he claimed that what he presented was "proof". The issue was wether of not Iraq posed a danger, not whether or not Iraq had, beyond the shadow of a doubt, certain classes of missles.

- Inspectors didn't find anything where Bush said there were WMD.Yep, the intelligence was wrong.

- Rummy and Bush were in such a great hurry why ? Why not let inspectors try to find something ?For how long? Another couple decades perhaps?

even if Saddam did deserve to be toppled and Iraq "liberated". Why didn't Bush just say that they needed to take the troops out of Saudi and needed to defuse Saddam ?I have no idea what you are talking about interms of moving troops out of Saudi. Was that one of Bush's goals?

Why humiliate the UN and former allies ?Well, Bush did, in fact, ask them to join him. They chose not to. I'm not sure how this qualifies as humiliation.

Why use the coalition of the "willing" instead of a real one ?I have no idea what this means. You mean willing partners are not real partners? Would coerced partners be more real?

The US doesn't need to fumble around to demonstrate military power.I'm not sure what the point of this is either. Are you simply saying that Iraq was a fumble, or are you saying that America is trying to demonstrate its military power. Perhaps this another of Bush's goals I am not aware of.


How's that. Satisfied?

[Mr. Svinlesha]

Shodan:

You know, I’m sitting here wondering why on God’s green earth you would waste your time, and mine, with that last reply. It must have taken you at least 30 minutes to fix all of those pretty little hyperlinks in between the quotes, maybe longer. You must also have known that your response was an open and obvious dodge, and would be immediately perceived as such by literally everyone involved in this debate, regardless of their position on the issues.

You know quite well that prior to the war, Bush asserted every single one of those claims as fact, current fact, and that after the invasion we failed to unearth even the slightest evidence for any of them. We failed to find the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons he claimed were there. We failed to find the nuclear weapons facilities or programs. We failed to find evidence of an alliance between Hussein’s regime and al-Qaida. Etc. I’m not going to waste anymore time listing them.

You must have noticed in my last response that I invited you to open, straightforward debate on these issues. You responded with a transparent dodge. How can you sit there with a straight face and accuse the anti-war left of being disingenuous? Of “denying reality”?

I also asked you a straightforward question: “Doesn’t this make you scratch your wooly (or not-so-wooly) pate and wonder, just a little bit – could I have been lied to?” I ask it again. Does not the fact that absolutely none of the administration’s pre-war claims about Iraq’s weapons have proven true cause even a sliver of doubt, or curiosity, to arise somewhere back in the dark recesses of your brainstem? Is your honest response to that question a reiteration of irrelevant links? In short, what could possibly get you to doubt Bush’s sincerity? Anything at all? I think we are hitting on the same issue as before. We look at the same set of facts, and draw very different conclusions.Not at all. I’m referring to known, irrefutable facts, and you are willfully trying to ignore them and cloud the discussion in an obviously purposeful and misleading manner.


pervert:

Well, for what it’s worth, I understand your argument much more clearly now. Its only when you put a quote from an editorial and imply that it is evidence of a particular minds set or intention on that part of those quoted that I have a problem. I only questioned your point because I have heard so many people cite an example where the administration mentioned Iraq and AQ in the same speech, paragraph, or sentence and claimed this as proof that they were trying to claim Saddam was involved in 9-11. Meanwhile, a careful (or even honest) reading of all of this evidence (that I've seen anyway) doesn't even come close to claiming such a link.Okay, now here is the point: obviously, if the administration were to explicitly claim the existence of a link between, let us say, Saddam and 9/11, it would be found out as a lie. At least as far as we know, there is no serious evidence of the existence of such a link.

Yet, on a regular basis, administration spokesmen consistently refer to al-Qaida, 9/11, Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and “WMDs” in the same breath, paragraph, or sentence. It is a kind of talking point. In my last post, I quoted Record’s presentation of a few examples of this tendency; in another thread, recently, I spent some time analyzing the narrative structure of Bush’s rhetoric in detail, taking as an example a response he gave to reporter who posed a question to him during his press conference in Poland.

There is a significant difference between making an explicit claim, on the one hand, and implying a connection by means of rhetorical association, on the other. You are correct; anyone who argues that the administration has officially, explicitly claimed the existence of a connection between Hussein and 9/11 would be either lying or mistaken. That’s not my claim. I argue that the administration is willfully conflating the two by insinuation. It is playing a rhetorical trick. It’s so tricky, in fact, that Simon X invented the term “not-lie” to try to capture its essence. The statements aren’t lies, exactly, if you read them carefully; they just aren’t very clear, careful statements of the whole truth. They are not-lies.

So yes, you are completely correct; a careful reading of statements made by the administration would reveal that it has never made such a claim; but the constant juxtaposition of these elements does seem to imply a vague, hidden connection of sorts, one that is often difficult to articulate when subjected to critical scrutiny.

I would like to suggest that Marshall’s thought experiment, which I cited above, would help to clarify this point. We know that there is no real connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11; we also know that despite this, many Americans mistakenly believe the opposite. Now, this matter could be cleared up very easily; Bush could simply stand up at his next public appearance and state, flatly, that no such connection exists, in clear, plain language. Tenet has said as much, publicly. I challenge you to produce 2 more public statements in which Bush, or other significant administration officials, unambiguously reject this connection. Because, believe me, I can fill several pages with quotes in which they are obviously conflated in the administration’s rhetoric.

perv, I have to close for now; but this is to me a very interesting debate, and I hope to get back to with a more extensive answer to your objections as soon as I can.

[blowero]

If I may, this is because you refuse to understand.

All I can say is that at least two of us have noticed the same thing about you. So perhaps it is not our refusal to understand, but rather your inability to present a consistent position.

No it is not. The position I described is Kerry's position if he wants to continue the current administration's policy.

From his website: Except that they have not requested more troops now. I am aware that there is contention on how many should have gone in. I am aware that some have said that this is proof that the pentagon really wants more troops. But do you have any evidence that the commanders currently in charge of the operation are asking for more troops and not getting them?

Furthermore, (and more to the point about not understanding), I mad the mistake of using the word "significant" without bolding it. If Rumslfed says that "They will decide what they need, and they will get what they need," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "At the present time, they've announced no change in their plans. But they could make such a request at any time." and Kerry says that we should give the commanders what they want, where is the "significant" difference?

I applaud the artifice of your argument. For you to take Kerry's unambigous statement that "we are going to need more forces on a temporary basis", and claim it means that he would keep the same number of troops as Bush currently has is the ultimate in sophistry. And it only took you 3 paragraphs to get there. Your surreptitiousness is so is so complete that you almost succeed in masking the fact that your argument is nonsense.

What I was trying to say was that if Kerry really thinks that Iraq is a huge debacle, as his rhetoric suggests, then his solution should read differently from the proposals of the current administration. You see, no calls for large amounts of detail, no calls for information he does not have a simple point you have consistently (some might say intentionally) refused to understand.

His solution DOES read differently. And as I explained, it is perfectly consistent to criticize Bush's performance even if it might not be possible to UNDO EVERYTHING that Bush has done. You seem to insist that one is not allowed to criticize Bush unless one can somehow magically wipe the slate clean of everything Bush has done. I will repeat my point: Bush made a mess, and whoever his successor is has to clean up the mess. They will have to play the cards that BUSH has dealt. But you want to criticize Kerry in advance for not going back in time and having his OWN deck of cards. It's too late for that; the damage is done.

On another point, blowero I missed your earlier responses due to the page change. FTR, I do not think that the Iraq war has been on balance a mistake. I did not answer the question when you first posed it because it was not rellevant to the discussion about the way the OP phrased his question. You see, no dodging, just an attempt to discuss a particular point which you kept not understanding.

Why do you keep claiming that YOUR inability to explain your position is due to MY misunderstanding? You quite obviously did not want to reveal the information because you wanted to straddle both sides of the fence, in order to present disingenous arguments that you could later snatch away from us when we refuted them. Don't try to pass off your bait & switch tactics on US.
[
I'm sure that the misunderstandings were my fault. I hope I have cleared a couple of them up.
Yes, you did, and I appreciate it.

[Voyager]

Christ this thread is going faster than I can follow... come on Bushies.

Not a Bushwhacker, not hardly, but the answers to these are easy:

- Hans Blix and half the world didn't beleive there were significant WMDs... much less 45 min deployable or nuclear.

He believed there were some WMDs, at least, at the time they started the inspections, but not by the time the war started.

- Powell gave Zero proof.

Because everything he said was wrong. I wondered at the time how it was that if we knew exactly where the WMDs were, we didn't tell the UN inspectors so that they could produce the proof. Now we know.

- Inspectors didn't find anything where Bush said there were WMD.
- Rummy and Bush were in such a great hurry why ? Why not let inspectors try to find something ?

Precisely because it was becoming clearer and clearer that there was nothing to find. However, the WMDs were always a cover story, they were going to invade no matter what, and the summer was coming on. That's probably the real reason.


Things don't add up with Iraq... even if Saddam did deserve to be toppled and Iraq "liberated". Why didn't Bush just say that they needed to take the troops out of Saudi and needed to defuse Saddam ? Why humiliate the UN and former allies ? Why use the coalition of the "willing" instead of a real one ? The US doesn't need to fumble around to demonstrate military power.

Don't quite see how the troops in Saudi Arabia had anything to do with it. The honest thing to do would have been to say that they wanted to invade to remove a tyrant. But popular opinion in the US was against that, and the only way Bush could get support for the war was to say that there was an immediate threat, to conflate Saddam with AQ, and to say that unless we did something right now there could be another 9/11.

Too bad he wasn't as eager before the real 9/11.

[Rashak Mani]

AQ complained about infidels (US troops) in Saudi Arabia. So by invading Iraq you would take out those troops in Saudi Arabia to Iraq. Taking away one of the main complaints of extremists.

I actually think that is a good thing to do... take 'em out of Saudi Arabia... unless your sending them elsewhere in the same region without a UN stamp of approval.

[blowero]

Don't quite see how the troops in Saudi Arabia had anything to do with it. The honest thing to do would have been to say that they wanted to invade to remove a tyrant. But popular opinion in the US was against that, and the only way Bush could get support for the war was to say that there was an immediate threat, to conflate Saddam with AQ, and to say that unless we did something right now there could be another 9/11.

And it goes beyond simply guaging popular opinion in the US. You really can't just up and invade a country because it's run by a meanie. Unilateral invasions are against international law. The only kind of unilateral invasion that's permitted is one that's in response to a real threat, in other words, self-defense. I realize we will now get the standard thread hijack from all the right-wingers who will make the specious claim that it's not illegal if you don't get prosecuted, but that's really neither here nor there. The fact is that the proper way to deal with a tyrant is to work with the international community, not just start firing missiles unilaterally. Doing it any other way is going to have repercussions. The repercussions may not take the form of a war-crimes court, but they will happen.

[Voyager]

AQ complained about infidels (US troops) in Saudi Arabia. So by invading Iraq you would take out those troops in Saudi Arabia to Iraq. Taking away one of the main complaints of extremists.

I actually think that is a good thing to do... take 'em out of Saudi Arabia... unless your sending them elsewhere in the same region without a UN stamp of approval.

Oh. We invaded Iraq in order to move the soldiers to comply with the wishes of AQ?

The terrrorists have already won! :)

[pervert]

And Saddam was a run of the mill despot, who happened to be Isamic.That's fair enough.

I can agree that if we were to proscute the war on terror in strictly law enforcement terms, then we probably would not have invaded Iraq. I can also see the argument that even without keeping the war on terror a strictly law enforcement program, invading Iraq had little to do with the war on terror.

However, I'm afraid the Democrats are trying to take it too far the other way. Can we really say that the situation in and around Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with international terror? Perhaps not in the sense that Saddam was himself involved in or sponsering specific acts of terror (the law enforcement view). But surely in the sense that he represented an intransigent enemy to the United States, willing to use force, with the motivation and connections necessary to support a terrorist attack on the United States.

Now, before you get too excited, I am not claiming that Saddam was a clear and present danger. But before the war, the case that he might be a threat was not so ridiculous as it is being made out to be now.

Let me put the situation another way. Was Saddam an Islamic Militant who was being intransigent about his WMD capabilities or programs? Or was he a Militant Despot who happened to be Islamic who was being intransigent about his WMD capabilities or programs? Is there really a third choice? Is there really a material difference?

He [Blix] believed there were some WMDs, at least, at the time they started the inspections, but not by the time the war started. Would you mind showing me a cite for this? I found his report dated January 2003 in which he laid out the possible WMD programs Saddam might be hiding. But I did not find anything from the next couple months where he decided that there were none. Thanks in advance.

[pervert]

For you to take Kerry's unambigous statement that "we are going to need more forces on a temporary basis", and claim it means that he would keep the same number of troops as Bush currently has is the ultimate in sophistry.
[...]
His solution DOES read differently. Well, then perhaps you should read the rest of Kerry's position. He said "To succeed, we are going to need more forces on a temporary basis. Our commanders on the ground have requested it. We should provide it. " Is it really sophistry to point out that providing what our commanders want is exactly what Bush is promising? Can you explain to me how this position and the administration's are significantly different?

And as I explained, it is perfectly consistent to criticize Bush's performance even if it might not be possible to UNDO EVERYTHING that Bush has done.Of course.

You seem to insist that one is not allowed to criticize Bush unless one can somehow magically wipe the slate clean of everything Bush has done.Can you point out where I did this? I don't recall using language which even suggested this. As I recall, I suggested two courses of action that Kerry could take (rhetorically) that would make me believe his current rhetoric was sincere concerning the war. They are polar opposites.

I will repeat my point: Bush made a mess, and whoever his successor is has to clean up the mess. They will have to play the cards that BUSH has dealt. But you want to criticize Kerry in advance for not going back in time and having his OWN deck of cards.No, I, don't. Never have never will. Haven't called for cards, magical powers, or time machines.

[pervert]

While searching around, I found this from CBS News. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/09/politics/main611227.shtml) It is not the same argument I was making, but it is similar. He makes the point that a major policy speech on Iraq is needed from Kerry to highlight the differences between his position and Bush's.

"John Kerry has a dilemma. The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee must find a way to offer an alternative to the current U.S. policy in Iraq without appearing opportunistic or unpatriotic. He must walk a fine line. He must not appear to be trying to capitalize politically while Americans die daily. "

Let me try this another way. I had serious reservations at the time of the invasion. I had similar reservations about Afghanistan. My problem centered on what (to me) is an important aspect of international law. Namely that nations should not engage in sneak attacks. Specifically, that they should declare war before begining hostile actions against one another. I believe the principle is enshrined in the UN (although I agree that charter goes farther) and the United States Constitution. I think we failed to live up to this idea in both theaters.

However, I do not think that the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq was on balance a mistake, crime, nor that either one was so thououghly bungled that America needs drastic action or significant help to succeed.

Having said that, perhaps I can come at the argument in another direction. I like some of the things that Kerry is saying about Iraq. In his speeches (which are not all quoted in thier entirety on his web site, odd) he makes some good points. I especially like the one about increasing the number of Arab speaking personel on the ground. Improving our relations with other nations sounds good on its face as well.

After perusing his site for a while, I find I have to withdraw a little of what I said earlier. It seems that Senetor Kerry's penchant for hyperbole has been somewhat overblown. I've fallen for the same trap I accused you of, Mr. Svinlesha. I've drawn conclusions from sound bites and pundit opinions. I will try to do better. When he comes out with a more detailed policy statement on Iraq, perhaps I will participate in the inevitable thread about it. I should have directed my remarks about hyperbolic rhetoric towards other elements in the Democratic party.

[jshore]

The topic there, as I'm sure you must realize but are conflating anyway, isn't Bush's being a liar, or Clinton's, but about what they lied about. Since you ask what lies Bush told, we've been there many times before. Saying you know something that you don't really know is lying, m'kay? Refusing to go find out first before you act on it is something beyond that. The reasons for doing so are murky, but some of those that have been offered are things we hanged people for at Nuremberg and Tokyo. But to you that's the equivalent of a blowjob? What happened to all the sermons about character and the evils of moral relativism that used to be in vogue from the hard right?

Actually, I think one of the unfortunate things about the whole Iraq debacle is that it has grabbed the headlines to the point that the argument about Bush's being a liar and deceiver is almost always discussed exclusively in terms of Iraq. The fact is that the Bush Administration has lied and deceived many times before the start of the Iraq war and has done so many times after.

In fact, some of us here on the SDMB were arguing shortly before the Iraq war that Bush could not be trusted and were challenged with the question "So, do you believe the word of a homicidal tyrant over the word of our President?" My personal response was that unfortunately the facts show that neither one has demonstrated the credibility to earn even a little of my trust and thus the only thing I can believe is the evidence, e.g., as being gained from inspections. My personal guess at the time is that the truth might lie roughly halfway in between Saddam's claims of not having any WMDs or WMD programs and Bush's claim that he had significant programs and stockpiles and that they constituted a real threat to the U.S. Alas, all that history has shown is that I would have been guessing closer to the truth if I had simply believed the homicidal tyrant rather than splitting the difference between him and the President! Personally, I find this rather sad and to what extent it is because of outright lies and deception by the President and to what extent it is because of lots of self-deception and cherry-picking of evidence is an interesting question but ultimately not that vital in deciding whether I want this man to be President of my country.

For some accounting of all the lies of the Bush Administration, you can check out these two cites:

http://www.bushlies.com/
http://www.misleader.org/

I'll admit that the second one can stretch things a bit in what they consider to be lies sometimes. But, you gotta cut them a little slack given that they come up with a new lie/deception 5 days a week (plus special reports). And, it is not clear that the Administration is capable of coming up with new and original lies and deceptions on quite that fast a time scale. Although in line with Bush's corporate CEO philosophy, they do seem to have done a remarkable job in reducing their "cycle time." ;)

[threemae]

Aha, skipping over some 250 odd responses, the response for moi:

I am a died in the wool fiscal conservate, social liberal that would typically be more than happy to vote for Reagan, Bush 1, hell even Nixon (he just fucked things up for himself rather than a nation), but there is no way that I will be voting for Bush come November.

Would Kerry make an absolute disaster if he had the same influence and power as Bush? Maybe. Who cares? I don't. He's a Democrat that the Republican congress can love to hate; they can get caught in pointless trivial bickering and generally avoid actually doing something which might screw anything up, notably start a pointless, expensive war as a prime result of insular group think, deception, arroance, and generally being a moron.

Conclusion: I will vote Kerry.

[Voyager]

That's fair enough.


However, I'm afraid the Democrats are trying to take it too far the other way. Can we really say that the situation in and around Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with international terror? Perhaps not in the sense that Saddam was himself involved in or sponsering specific acts of terror (the law enforcement view). But surely in the sense that he represented an intransigent enemy to the United States, willing to use force, with the motivation and connections necessary to support a terrorist attack on the United States.

Now, before you get too excited, I am not claiming that Saddam was a clear and present danger. But before the war, the case that he might be a threat was not so ridiculous as it is being made out to be now.

Well, that is true, because before the war most of us believed that what the White House was saying had a smidgin of truth. If Saddam had stonewalled on letting the inspectors in, I suspect there would have been a lot more support for the war than there was. But at the time of the war there were inspectors running around unconstrained throughout Iraq. The chances of him preparing any kind of a threat were slim to none.

If Bush had waited, two things could have happened. First, he'd throw the inspectors out, and make the case for war much easier to make. Second, he might have been deposed for losing control of his country to the UN. Either would have been a better result than what happened. Even if the inspectors had stayed for a long time, he would have been prevented from some of his worst sins, So, the factors that could neutralize him were already in place.


Let me put the situation another way. Was Saddam an Islamic Militant who was being intransigent about his WMD capabilities or programs? Or was he a Militant Despot who happened to be Islamic who was being intransigent about his WMD capabilities or programs? Is there really a third choice? Is there really a material difference?

Yes, there is a very significant difference. If we are in a War against terrorists, attacking the direct supporters of terrorists can be justified in terms of that war. Attacking the Taliban, which got wide national and international support, is an example of this. Very few of those opposed to the Iraqi War were opposed to the war in Afghanistan. (Yes, there were a few lunatic fringers.) But if Saddam was not involved with terrorism, attacking him is not justified on those grounds. It's like taking time out of the war on Japan to wipe out some tinpot South American dicatatorship. Sure he was evil, but there is no shortage of evil rulers in the world, many of whom seem to be our buddies. Why him? Because many in the new administration had been fixated on him for years, that is shown by the evidence. Claiming WMDs was an attempt to move the attack from just a plain old attack, not allowed by the UN Charter, even if the guy you're attacking is evil, to self-defense, which is allowed. The other member states didn't buy it, and they were right.

The thing that jshore points out, and it makes me real depressed, is that we asked who was lying, an evil dictator or the President of the United States. It turns out the dictator was telling the truth.


Would you mind showing me a cite for this? I found his report dated January 2003 in which he laid out the possible WMD programs Saddam might be hiding. But I did not find anything from the next couple months where he decided that there were none. Thanks in advance.
It was from his interview on Fresh Air, which I heard on the actual radio. I suspect he also says this in his book, but I haven't read it. His statement was perfectly consistent with him still thinking that WMDs were being hidden in January. He was opposed to the invasion, if you remember. I doubt that he would issue a statement at the time which might reveal which sites were fingered by US intelligence, since that might have put operatives at risk. The quote was about his state of mind - I do not know if he wrote this down at the time.

I don't know if Fresh Air transcripts are kept this long. However here (http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1767468.html) is a link to Morning Edition where he says basically the same thing.

[pervert]

If Saddam had stonewalled on letting the inspectors in, I suspect there would have been a lot more support for the war than there was. But at the time of the war there were inspectors running around unconstrained throughout Iraq. The chances of him preparing any kind of a threat were slim to none.

If Bush had waited, two things could have happened. First, he'd throw the inspectors out, and make the case for war much easier to make. Second, he might have been deposed for losing control of his country to the UN. Either would have been a better result than what happened. Even if the inspectors had stayed for a long time, he would have been prevented from some of his worst sins, So, the factors that could neutralize him were already in place.Well, I didn't have as much faith in the inspectors as that, so I might have characterized it with a little less certainty. For instance Saddam could also have cooperated for a while and slowly meandered back to the situation where the inspectors did not have unfettered access. Also, I'm not sure that the inspectors really had the ability to control Iraqs activity just with unfettered access to facilities. Surely that would have made any WMD program harder, but not impossible.

Now, I'm certainly not saying that we had to go when we did. But I am also disapointed with the argument (made by others, not Voyager that I am aware of) that Bush pushed the time table to prevent the absence of WMDs from being discovered.

It's like taking time out of the war on Japan to wipe out some tinpot South American dicatatorship.Well, that might be a little bit too far to stretch the analogy. If you imagine some tinpot dictator who supports the goals of Japan, perhaps on some pacific Island, then you might have a closer analogy. If you place the island somewhere in the pacific in close proximity to other tinpot dictators (and a few reluctant allies), then the analogy might be even closer. If you postulate that before the war, this dictator had attacke one of our allies, add in the fact that we had a bruised cease fire with them for the last 12 years (with the attendant shooting at American soldiers), then you might have a deal. ;)

Because many in the new administration had been fixated on him for years, that is shown by the evidence.Well, I hope I have suggested other reasons a little les conspiracy sounding by the analogy mangling above.

The other member states didn't buy it, and they were right.Some didn't buy it others did. Some of those who "didn't buy it" may have had other motives for disbelieving.

The thing that jshore points out, and it makes me real depressed, is that we asked who was lying, an evil dictator or the President of the United States. It turns out the dictator was telling the truth. Well, actually, it depends on who he was talking to. What he said to the world with a wink and a nod was one thing (it turned out to be right). What he said to his commanders was another (it turned out to be a lie). We heard his public declarations and did not believe him. We heard some of his private declarations and believed them. Certainly not an unreasonable position to take no?

It was from his interview on Fresh AirThank you very much.

[pervert]

Oh, I forgot to mention, that the policy of the United States had been that regime change was necessary in Iraq. So, even cooperation with the inspectors was not enough at some point. Saddam had to leave.

[Sevastopol]

Why is US policy mandatory as far as foreign countries are concerned?

[pervert]

I'm sorry, sevastopol was that for me?

[jayjay]

Why is US policy mandatory as far as foreign countries are concerned?

Apparently, because we're "the big dog," as certain posters were fond of writing not that long ago...

Several other posters noted that big dogs that run roughshod over everybody end up getting shot, but you know how that goes...

[Sevastopol]

Yes, pervert it was not that it is necessary to put my name in bold type.

Anyways just recalled: Did not Colin Powell make a public statement, that if SH were to disarm the US would have no problem with him continuing to govern. It's being mentioned and linked many times on this board, I believe.

[pervert]

Yes, pervert it was not that it is necessary to put my name in bold typeSorry, I consider it polite to identify user names that way to differenciate them for other words, especially since user names are not capitalized unless they are. You know, like the board does in quotes. No offence meant. ;)

Anyways just recalled: Did not Colin Powell make a public statement, that if SH were to disarm the US would have no problem with him continuing to govern. It's being mentioned and linked many times on this board, I believe.Can you give me some terms that I could search for to locate such a thing?

Why is US policy mandatory as far as foreign countries are concerned?In a vacuum it is not. In terms of resolving a conflict between the United States and another country, United States policy matters a great deal. As would the policies of that other country.

I was not trying to suggest that United States policy is some sort of world law. I was merely trying to add an addendum to the post directly above the one you responded to. Namely that in addition to the US's objections to Saddam's non cooperation with the inspectors, they also wanted him removed. I was only trying to add another reason why the access granted to inspectors in early 2003 might not been enough to avoid war.

[Tamerlane]

Yes, pervert it was not that it is necessary to put my name in bold type.

It is considered polite convention on this board to always bold poster names, as you'll note in virtually every post above. I'm sure pervert didn't intend any disrespect.

****

I wrote up a semi-lengthy post laying out just who does and who doesn't qualify as an Islamic militant and why ( IMHO obviously - teaser: SH, no - Hamas, yes ), but I lost it and now I don't feel like re-creating it. You'll just have to suffer along in your partisan catfight without the dubious benefit of my input ;).

- Tamerlane