I don’t know when I have energy to do that again. Here, I’m simply trying to delineate that threshold where 'doing ‘not enough’ suddenly becomes ‘doing too much’. So far, it looks like when it comes to one’s political opponent, there is always either ‘too much’ or ‘not enough’, with no middle ground whatsoever. Blamed if do, blamed if don’t. Well, duh…
Well, New Iskander, your brilliant arguments have convinced me…George W Bush shouldn’t have to take this abuse. So, come November 2nd, I am going to vote to make sure he doesn’t have to take this shit anymore and make that guy Kerry have to put up with it for a while!
First, let me thank you fro taking the time to respond to my query.
I didn’t mean in your opinion, but rather in the opinions of those you are talking about.
Why do you think that these people who you are talking about would think that the deposing Hussein was the only acceptable enough?
I’m afraid I don’t understand the question.
NI,
You said, " If Bush didn’t remove Saddam he would pay a heavy political fine for it," for the same reasons that he’s being given grief over NK and Iran. The implicit assumption is that those who are giving the PotUSA grief would not be satisfied if Team Bush “didn’t remove Saddam.” I’m asking why have you suposed that the removal of Hussein was the only course of action that would be acceptable to those who’re grieving the PotUSA?
Why wouldn’t they have been satisfied with smarter sanctions, Radio Free Iraq and a major USAID & Nonviolent Conflict support for Iraqis willing to engage the corrupt regime?
Whence the assumption that the invasion of Iraq is the only acceptable course of action in the eyes of those who’re giving grief to the Prez?
OK, I think I digested it.
The reasons being an opportunity to throw all possible charges at Bush, to see what sticks, what dents, what bounces…
Yes.
Breach of logic. Obviously, they hold removal Saddam by invasion as completely unacceptable, so I never supposed such a thing. I was looking for the middle ground between doing ‘too much’ and ‘not enough’.
Is that the middle ground as you see it? If so, you are the first one I know to substantiate it. Sen. Kerry, for one, didn’t.
There is no such assumption on my part.
I was only looking for consistency. I took criticism of Iraq invasion as a given. But then, Bush restrain toward Iranians and North Koreans should be given credit. If Sen. Kerry would say, “Mr. President, you stayed on the right course with Iranians and North Koreans, but you totally blew it on Iraq”, I wouldn’t start this thread. But if Sen. Kerry criticizes Bush for Saddam removal, and then turns around and criticizes Bush again for not ‘doing enough’ to Iran and N. Korea, without specifying what was to be done, how seriously should I take Sen. Kerry’s words? I see no substance, but sheer opportunism. If I can’t take charges about Iran and N. Korea seriously, why should I take charges about Iraq seriously? And believe me, I want to take Iraq question seriously, because it is a very serious business. I support Saddam removal, but I constantly seek opposite views to correct my misgivings. However, Sen. Kerry is not a serious source on that subject.
Just think, if Bush didn’t remove Saddam, Kerry would call him a "Do Nothing President’.