I think I finally see the point that you are getting at. Sure he would. It is called “politics”. Each side attacks the other side’s positions if they believe there is popular support to be gained by doing so.
In the end, though, the question is how well that issue plays with the American voting public. Would that criticism stick? Would Bush have a good defense against the attacks? And I put forth that, yes, he would.
Take a look at some domestic arguments. Bush claims that Kerry is the most liberal Senator in the Senate. But this comes from the most fiscally liberal President since FDR! It comes from a President that has never vetoed a spending bill!
Or back to foriegn policy, Bush hammers Kerry as a “flip-flopper”. This is opposed to the stubbornly consistent Bush who refuses to acknowledge even making errors. He is the typical male, when driving around lost, refuses to reference a map or stop and ask for directions. “Trust me, I know what I’m doing [I’m on a mission from God].”
So, sure, he would be susceptible to being criticised on every single point of his four year record. But that isn’t even an interesting question. How well that issue sticks with the American public is the interesting question.
Well, thanks a bunch. I raise the issue, I initiate the debate, I make people think, and then I’m dismissed, “Your question is not interesting, it’s what follows up from your question that’s really interesting.”
You hurt my feelings.
(sob)
I mean, not you s.o.b., I sob… My feelings are hurt, so I sob… No, not s.o.b., the acronym, but sob, one word… Oh, never mind.
If you know what’s good for your party, you must stop sending me to Sen. Kerry debate statements.
Btw, the only reason inspectors were making progress was that there was US Army build-up on Iraq borders.
Please, oh please, not the ‘yellow cake stuff’ again, oh please, please…
Which reactor?
What brought Russia on? It’s been only days since Putin threatened to nuke something on a moment’s notice, because of Beslan. You wanna talk to Putin about disarmament now? Anyway, careful now, Sen.
Loose nuclear material in the former Soviet Union? In four years? Statements like this have teeth and keep coming back to bite Presidents on their asses every four years, Sen.
If I have hurt your feelings, let me suggest that you are spending your time on the wrong message board, or at least in the wrong forum.
I pointed out the silliness of your OP in the eighth post of this thread. I asked you for a cite to establish the premise of the OP, and I have yet to receive it. But you persist.
As for your last post, I don’t have the patience to deal with all of it, and since Squink has already addressed one point, I will limit myself to one as well.
Was it the US Army, or was it coalition forces? Ah, that’s a nit, it was mostly US forces, so I will grant you that one. But whose political will? Simply the US? Or did the US, at the time, successfully garner the political support of the ENTIRE UNSC, with a unanimous vote on UNSC 1441? But forget all that. Let say it was only due to US forces and US political will. How does that refute the assertion that Kerry made to which you were responding? For example, how many troops had the US deployed at the time Saddam accepted the inspectors in late 2002, versus those that have since been deployed? Connect the dots for me.
I see nothing in any of Kerry’s quotes that implies criticism of Bush for not invading Iran or North Korea by the way. Although, when you are selectively quoting from something, it would be helpful to provide a link to the source.
[QUOTE=Squink18-24 May 1999
A fifteen-member US team, consisting of nuclear scientists and members of the US state and defense departments inspect Kumchang-ri. North Korea cooperates fully with the US inspection team. The team is allowed to measure the dimensions of all underground areas at the main complex, and videotape and photograph agreed above-ground facilities. They are also allowed to take soil and water samples to be analyzed for radioactive substances. [/QUOTE]
So inspections are working. Then what is Sen. Kerry talking about?
Squink was answering your question as to which reactor was referenced. The article linked is dated 1999 (your quote included the date) so doesn’t really impact on what any politician may say the situation is today.
Well, that may be true. But, let me see, who is it who authorized the President to use force because he thought it was necessary to authorize this in order to pressure Iraq, but who then wanted to actually carry the inspections through? Could it be, perhaps, someone named John Kerry?
I’ve lost your point here. At that point in time, N. Korea was still cooperating with inspections. Now, they are not unfortunately which means we have a more serious problem on our hands…which we need to try to solve by seriously engaging the N. Koreans in negotiations. Admittedly, Bush has tried to do this but he has not been very successful so far. Is that his fault? It might be or it might not be. But, it is natural that the person running against him will point this out as a failure. (And, what clearly is Bush’s fault was his complete unwillingness to talk to the N. Koreans until they said, “Hey, guys, surprise, we’ve got nukes!”
Not true. In the case of N. Korea, for example, we have them telling us that they have nuclear weapons. Now, you have raised an interesting point (by accident as near as I can tell) which is whether we should believe them…And, it is not clear that we should (although obviously we have to accept that it might be true):
But, for whatever reasons, people on both sides of the aisle in the Congress, Senate, and White House do seem to believe the N. Koreans are telling the truth. And, who knows, maybe they have correct intelligence this time that coroborates it.
AFAICT, Bush isn’t catching too much flak for not having deposed the leadership of NK and Iran. He’s being criticized for focusing on a lesser problem rather than on the more grave threats.
The threats from NK and Iran have been and are qualitatively different than the threat from pre-invasion Iraq.
If you have the time, would you be so kind as to make the case that removing Hussein was the only acceptable instance of “doing enough”? I think if you were to do this, it may help your case somewhat.
So, both you and I have posted things about what the inspectors felt at the time. And, the two articles, while not in direct contradiction, certainly give a different spin on things. One might wonder how one is to resolve which is more accurate? Well, I have a simple proposition: Why don’t we use the benefit of hindsight to see which article is more in line with the facts as we know them now. My CBS piece about how the U.S. intelligence was garbage has indeed been completely 100% verified as true. Your piece, on the other hand, has some problems. For example, one of the examples that the inspectors give of a time when the Iraqis were being less cooperative is:
Now, the thing is that we now know that this was likely correct…Or at least that the gist of it, that those grenades no longer existed, is correct. So, what those inspectors interviewed viewed as non-cooperation likely wasn’t really non-cooperation at all.
Mind you, I am not denying that the military pressure was important on getting the Iraqis to be fully open. But, let’s face it, the main problem in the end is that we believed they were withholding simply because we were cock-sure the Iraqis had things that they didn’t. The reason that the “inspections failed” is not primarily because the Iraqis were unforthcoming but because the U.S. wanted them to produce stuff that they didn’t have…Or produce compelling documentation of that stuff’s destruction, which we have no evidence that they had either.
jshore:But, let me see, who is it who authorized the President to use force because he thought it was necessary to authorize this in order to pressure Iraq, but who then wanted to actually carry the inspections through? Could it be, perhaps, someone named John Kerry?
Well, I heard there were a few other congresscritters involved too.
For whatever reasons they believed the same about Iraq, until Bush provided the means to learn otherwise. And I agree, who knows what kind of intelligence they are going on this time.
Well, I tell you, if Bush had got the inspectors in, let the inspections goes through, and then said, “You know…the evidence seems to suggest that our intelligence was wrong. We will not invade Iraq (although we will continue the sanctions and watch Saddam very closely)” then I think one would have to give him credit. Somehow, I don’t give him much credit for getting the inspectors in and then rushing to war when they weren’t turning up what he wanted them to turn up but instead were turning up the fact that the U.S. intelligence was garbage.
