A Former REPUBLICAN Senator for Kerry!

[Mr. Harley]

Oerdin (see his earlier post for analysis on Kerry = less spending)

Small breasts - tend to more sensitive, when the lady is on top .... oops, wandering into banning territory here. (oh, which is Barbara - both are cute).

[Berzerker]

Wiglaf, I'm not a Kerry or Bush supporter, but I'll give your proposition a go:

You have this entire thread dedicated to trashing Bush.

Perceived incompetence can do that to people. Is it wrong to criticise the incompetent when they wreak havoc?

But no one here can stand up and say, John Kerry would be better, he has a better vision.

How could his vision be worse? The only correct vision (I got it straight from God) is to get Iraqis in control asap and leave the region entirely and focus on Afghanistan.

He voted for the war and then backs down when Dean leads in the primaries.

That's the GOP's characterisation, and we all know how credible they are. But he didn't vote for war, he authorised the President to use force if need be as leverage against Saddam. I know, I know, he should have known the Bushies were intent on war for other reasons than WMD, but what angers me is how Congress has effectively given up it's power to declare war and I believe the GOP was in charge for that authorisation.

His running mate makes out with Christopher Reeve's widow.

Huh? Is Sean Hannity claiming that now?

And he certainly has no grand vision of what the hell do to with America's foreign policy.

I disagree, had Bush followed Kerry's criterion for using force, Saddam would still be in power with inspectors running around proving he didn't have WMD and we'd be off in full force to Afghanistan to chase the people responsible for 9/11.

Assemble a coalition (Gulf War I, which he voted against)

There's a difference between assembling a coalition to invade Iraq and assembling a coalition to try and fix the mess another President created... And we could only hope the first gulf war never took place, that's what led to 9/11. Bush I bungled that, Clinton took over and kept US troops on Muslim lands even though attacks accelerated, and then Bush II inherits the situation and does next to nothing too.

abide by the UN (Oil-For-Food, Gulf War I), track down Osama bin Ladin (apparently he is global terrorism), and maintain Bush's plan for Iraq. What a candidate.

The world would have been better off with Saddam staying in power, sanctions weren't needed, and we could focus on OBL.

What you want to do is punish Bush for something virtually everyone - including Kerry - thought was a reasonable thing to do.

Kerry wanted Bush to invade the way he did? No...

You want to punish him and send a message to terrorist and rogue nations - sanctions and resolutions can be broken

There was no UN resolution to go to war and he had been dis-armed. He was a shell of his former self and no threat. Hell, most of the people who died in Iraq in the last 24 years died in the war with Iran which we supported and Saddam's clamp down on the rebellion when Bush I told the Iraqi people to rebel and then turned his back as they got slaughtered. Oh yeah, then there's all the Iraqis we've killed.

you can just forget about telling us where they are, you can be a radical fundamentalist nation state with murderous feelings for America. In fact, Saddam said the US government deserved what happened on 9/11.

Saddam's regime was not a radical fundie state, why do you think we backed him in the war with Iran's religious fundies? Trying to link Saddam with 9/11 is a weapon of mass distraction...

A vote for Kerry would be an effeminate way to express your hindsight and pseudo-intellect, when in fact all your hindsight has shown is that Saddam violated international law after international law in losing weapons he so clearly possessed when he slaughtered his fellow Iraqis.

Not worth killing thousands of people... The US military exists to defend this country, not Kuwait and certainly not the Iraqi people from their own government. If you go out in the world to slay dragons, don't be surprised when one of them follows you home...

All your hindsight shows is that, even in the post 9/11 world, we give the terrorists the benefit of the doubt.

We knocked Saddam out of Kuwait, but instead of leaving, we started plopping bases down in Saudi Arabia. He learned his lesson, he wasn't going to do anything after that - it would be his head if he messed with us again and he knew that. Why don't you think he used WMD in the first war? He knew, or was told by someone we would remove him from power if he used them on us.

But our continued presence was the catalyst for all those attacks we suffered over the past 13 years. Yes, call it "hindsight" but when you see people launching attacks on your assets overseas with an attempt to blow up the WTC here at home and these people are doing it because of those bases, it takes some serious incompetence to let that situation brew for a decade. Unfortunately, I don't think Kerry would have done anything differently. He sure wasn't a vocal advocate of withdrawing our troops from S Arabia during the 90's...

And while we're on the subject of fear, Kerry boy, I think I need to make a comment on the liberal pseudo-intellect here. You are terrified that we are losing troops in Iraq, that we are there. The beheadings, the rocket attacks, and the IED's going off daily do not strike you as the products of a fundamentalist cult of hatred but instead as the result of a somehow rational Iraqi reaction to the removal of one of the most vile dictators in the world.

People are involved, motives run the gamut. Now, history shows that people greet true liberators with flowers, etc... It also shows that people greet occupiers with resistance... Doesn't matter what we think, only what they think... And the longer we're there, the larger the resistance will grow.

You and John Kerry believe that, without a smoking gun, we have no reason to suspect nations composed of such individuals. You say we have no reason to depose, in a post-9/11 environment, a nation that toys with international law, bribes international institutions, attempts to assassinate presidents, gasses its own people and, when threatened with certain destruction, cannot explain where the weapons to create those gasses went.

Haven't you heard, Bush and Cheney deny ever saying Saddam was behind 9/11. But we don't give a sh!t about international law when it doesn't suit our purposes. And if you don't think we've been bribing and coercing other countries into supporting us, you don't understand politics. Bribery and coercion are standard operating procedure in Washington and just about every other capital.

Let the system work its way up until the next 9/11, or until Libya supplies terrorists with biological weapons. That's something to be afraid of.

That's one apparent plus of the invasion of Iraq, but now we have more and more people wanting to sneak into the US with such a weapon.

The mistake we made was winning the Cold War and not understanding it was time to bring the soldiers home. Instead, we looked for new enemies... and found them...

[Urban Ranger]

Wiggie, stop calling other Polytoners "idiots," 'k?

[Agathon]

Excellent post Berz.

[Mr. Harley]

Berzerker, it's nice to see someone argue from hard facts. We may at times disagree on the premises with which to interpret them, but you've nailed the core data perfectly.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
President George W. Bush repeated again on Friday that, had he known then what he knows now about Iraq, he would *not* have changed a single thing in regards to his actions. So that means:

1. There *still* wouldn't have been any post-war planning.

2. We *still* would have relied on Ahmad Chalabi and his exile cronies to bring peace and stability.

3. We *still* would have gone in with far *fewer* combat troops than needed — 150,000 or so vs. the minimum of 250,000 or so that members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had recommended.

4. The State Department would *still* have been waylaid and sidelined by civilians in the Pentagon (read: Feith, Rumsfeld, et al.) for well over a year before finally getting to pick up the pieces afterward.

5. Bush would've *still* landed on that aircraft carrier, all gussied up in his flight suit, and declared an end to major combat (with an escape clause, of course, for "mopping up" action).

6. We *still* would've left Iraq's borders porous and virtually undefended.

7. We *still* would've used a system of persuasion that led to the abuse incidents at the Abu Ghraib prison complex.

8. There would still be *no* weapons of mass destruction.

9. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari of al-Qaida fame would *still* be free, since our armies would *still* be tied up in Iraq.

10. One *good* "still," however, is the fact that there'd *still* be one less dictator in the world. But, frankly, I don't give a damn when other nations — Iran and North Korea come to mind here, along with Russia's increasing turn to authoritarian rule — pose a greater risk to the world than a beaten down (but defiant) Iraq ever did.

Do you know what, Mr. President? There *is* a difference between being a steadfast, unflappable leader and being a stubborn mule about things.

Gatekeeper

A lot of your little criticisms are linked to mean very little. 1,2,3, and 9 all fault Bush for the insurgency, something that has nothing to do with the decision to invade. And if you accept that we should have invaded Iraq, John Kerry wouldn't have done a better job.

And you even mention the prison scandal to justify not invading the country in your outrageous #7 claim. Bush said he would have still invaded the country knowing everything he knows now. He never said he would abuse prisoners all over again, especially since he never abused prisoners in the ****ing first place.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wiglaf, I'm not a Kerry or Bush supporter, but I'll give your proposition a go:

You realize it won't matter with Wiggy?

[Wiglaf]

I disagree, had Bush followed Kerry's criterion for using force, Saddam would still be in power with inspectors running around proving he didn't have WMD and we'd be off in full force to Afghanistan to chase the people responsible for 9/11.

It's a shame you think Saddam should still be in power simply because we haven't found a WMD pointed right at us.

Saddam murdered his own people with weapons in the past, he toys with and delays inspectors. He never tells anyone where his weapons are. He is a cruel dictator of one of the most dangerous radical Islamic states in the world. And, wake up, it's radical Islamists that we're fighting in this post 9/11 world.

The reason you are upset is that Bush promised a smoking gun. But he had good reason to. The evidence was there. And even in hindsight, in this day and age, that's enough to depose one of the biggest, most dangerous bastards in the world. He said we deserved 9/11, he tries to kill an American president, he gasses his own people, he violates UN law, he bribes the UN, and there's evidence brewing he's going to try something worse.

That ought to be enough.

And, sorry, but when you claimed Iraq was not a radical state you threw me off and made me want to eat. Look at the insurgency. Beheadings, mutilations in Fallujah. Those people aren't just unhappy at the occupation, they're unhappy at the occupation spearheaded by their religious enemies. And then there's the whole Saddam thing.

Trying to link Saddam with 9/11 is a weapon of mass distraction...

Is that what Combs is saying on his show now? 9/11 wasn't the direct result of Saddam as far as we know. But the best way to prevent another 9/11 is not to simply trace down OBL, who might as well be dead by now for all anyone knows or cares. International terrorism needs to be sent a message, and Saddam was an international terrorist who ****ed with America for the last time.

[DarkCloud]

Ted Striker predicted months ago that the phenomenon of "Reagan Democrats" is going to occur here with "Kerry Republicans.:

so true... we can only hope- for all of our futures.

[DarkCloud]

I am convinced that the real conservatives who care about small government, fiscal responsability, and traditional American freedoms should oppose Bush. That is if they really think about their values and who is and is not up holding those values.

So true- bush is not a republican- he's a religious neo-con fundamentalist.

Now that I can finally vote in America, I would consider myself a "Clintonian Republican" someone who doesn't vote the party line and who seeks pragmatic solutions to the nations problems- believing in the economy and freedom over 'morals' and imposed nazi-like 'family values'

[Imran Siddiqui]

I probably wouldn't consider Bush a neo-con. Who knows his real reasons for going to war in Iraq. But I think it may be for more interest based reasons rather than spreading democracy, which has by default become the reason because all the others failed.

[DarkCloud]

My main issue with iraq was that it was a bad idea to go in IF saddam had weapons of mass destruction and it was an even worse idea to go in without a plan to win the peace.

Bush's cabinet showed great incompetence in the implementation of that travesty.

Iraq honestly is the biggest issue I dislike Bush for. I don't blame him for the economy, I wouldn't even vote against him because of the Patriot Act- but his foreign policy and treatment of other nations is atrocious... The United States, in its own interest, needs friends oversees- Bush instead of maintaining old alliances, collapses them- he's insulted NATO, and the entire world.

And while I strongly dislike the UN and think it's useless- Bush approached them with demands rather than requests... he uses a practical confrontational approach rather than a diplomatic approach...

and while practical makes more sense in real life- it DOESNT make sense in politics-

diplomacy is necessary to have people believe in a theory and to respect other nations.

Bush simply insulted too many people for me to trust him with four more years... and possibly two more wars against N. Korea and Iran.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
A lot of your little criticisms are linked to mean very little. 1,2,3, and 9 all fault Bush for the insurgency, something that has nothing to do with the decision to invade.

The insurgency as it stands now is a direct result of Bush's decision to invade and, subsequently, fail to introduce the post-invasion elements needed to nip the insurgency in the bud. Whether you like it or not, the insurgency is tied to Bush's decision to go in with far too few troops and little to no post-war planning.

I'm not necessarily saying that, had Bush done everything properly, the insurgency would never have materialized. It might have. But it also would've been quashed before it ever had a chance to metastasize like the cancer it is.

And if you accept that we should have invaded Iraq, John Kerry wouldn't have done a better job.

I assume you got this assumption from an oracle? At any rate, I fully believe the invasion was a mistake (I had only partial reservations from the get-go ... I made the mistake of believing Colin Powell alone of all the administration figures ... and look what it got me). The sanctions regime should have been maintained, and any corruption within exposed and rooted out (i.e. the oil-for-food program).

And you even mention the prison scandal to justify not invading the country in your outrageous #7 claim. Bush said he would have still invaded the country knowing everything he knows now. He never said he would abuse prisoners all over again, especially since he never abused prisoners in the ****ing first place.

Eat a twig, Wig. (Sorry, couldn't resist. It rhymes, for God's sake!)

Heh. Oh, I'm sure Bush himself would never have abused prisoners. But the man said it himself — he wouldn't change a damn thing WRT his decision to invade Iraq knowing what he knows now, but didn't then. IOW, the circumstances leading up to the prison abuse would still have fallen into place (i.e. too few military police, muddled chain of command that some of those same soldiers have alleged, and so on).

I'm going to be frank. I bet Bush will win by the skin of his teeth on Nov. 2. He doesn't deserve it, IMO, but at least I shall be able to sleep at night, knowing *I* didn't vote the man back into office. (Or, for that matter, in 2000 as well ... not after what he did to John McCain in the GOP primaries.)

Gatekeeper

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
My main issue with iraq was that it was a bad idea to go in IF saddam had weapons of mass destruction and it was an even worse idea to go in without a plan to win the peace.

Bush's cabinet showed great incompetence in the implementation of that travesty.

Iraq honestly is the biggest issue I dislike Bush for. I don't blame him for the economy, I wouldn't even vote against him because of the Patriot Act- but his foreign policy and treatment of other nations is atrocious... The United States, in its own interest, needs friends oversees- Bush instead of maintaining old alliances, collapses them- he's insulted NATO, and the entire world.

And while I strongly dislike the UN and think it's useless- Bush approached them with demands rather than requests... he uses a practical confrontational approach rather than a diplomatic approach...

and while practical makes more sense in real life- it DOESNT make sense in politics-

diplomacy is necessary to have people believe in a theory and to respect other nations.

Bush simply insulted too many people for me to trust him with four more years... and possibly two more wars against N. Korea and Iran.

[Wiglaf]

The insurgency as it stands now is a direct result of Bush's decision to invade and,

Well...yes in one sense, no in another. Obviously people would not be dying if we were not there. At the same time, obviously the beheaders and mutilators are radical Islamists who HATE HATE HATE (x3) us for our religion and our culture. If we were to attack Cuba this would not be the case, in fact it would be the opposite.

subsequently, fail to introduce the post-invasion elements needed to nip the insurgency in the bud. Whether you like it or not, the insurgency is tied to Bush's decision to go in with far too few troops and little to no post-war planning.

So it seems to me you have a plan you want to share? Just overload Iraq with troops and suddenly they'll like us? It would give them more targets if anything. The fundamental issue isn't the practical planning, the issue is the decision to go to war, and that's where Kerry falls flat.

The sanctions regime should have been maintained, and any corruption within exposed and rooted out (i.e. the oil-for-food program).

Saddam's government fostered hate for America, gassed the Kurds among others, apparently houses quite a few capable terrorists, and fails to document where its biological WMDs are. In addition there is a ton of evidence they still have or want WMDs, and there is still the possibility they shipped them to Syria.

In your world, and John Kerry's world, we sanction them. And in John Kerry's world, Libya would continue to seek WMDs. And ALSO in John Kerry's world, America would be seen as weak and soft on terror/deception that so obviously exists and can exist in Iraq.

IOW, the circumstances leading up to the prison abuse would still have fallen into place (i.e. too few military police, muddled chain of command that some of those same soldiers have alleged, and so on).

Too few MPs lead to prison abuse and naked pictures of them? I don't follow, and I sure as hell cannot follow any connection to Bush.

Wiglaf 25
Gatekeeper -2