# Bush Republicans...what does it take to give up on Bush ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488 "2004-04-22T19:26:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/81 "2004-04-24T02:50:37Z")
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… ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/82 "2004-04-24T03:05:47Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/83 "2004-04-24T03:05:59Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/84 "2004-04-24T03:13:49Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/85 "2004-04-24T03:45:58Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I said that atrocities were committed in Vietnam. And I _said_ it was _debatable_, as to the extent of said atrocities no? > [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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? > [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/86 "2004-04-24T03:49:17Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > 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. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/87 "2004-04-24T03:53:18Z")
Forgot this: > [@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??? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/88 "2004-04-24T03:57:23Z")
> [@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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/89 "2004-04-24T04:28:48Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/90 "2004-04-24T04:48:07Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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)… > [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/91 "2004-04-24T05:11:51Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > **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. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/92 "2004-04-24T05:19:54Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/93 "2004-04-24T06:32:22Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/94 "2004-04-24T07:18:28Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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? > [@](#): > > 1. 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”? > [@](#): > > 1. 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? ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/95 "2004-04-24T07:48:37Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > > [@Sam Stone](#): > > > > 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… ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/96 "2004-04-24T07:55:57Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/97 "2004-04-24T08:11:59Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/98 "2004-04-24T13:17:13Z")
Sam, reality doesn’t support anything you’re saying. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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?’ > [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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) > [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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) > [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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”. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/99 "2004-04-24T14:00:14Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2004, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488/100 "2004-04-24T14:52:37Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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: > [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-republicans-what-does-it-take-to-give-up-on-bush/241488.md?page=6)