After not discussing the issue for some time, my great uncle's right wing email forwards finally got to me, and I sent him some feedback about it. I mentioned how nothing he could say about Kerry could dissuade me from voting for him, as I regard Bush as the worst president in my lifetime, and possibly in the history of the republic. Where you feel Bush is the worst president in your lifetime, I feel he is thth (sic) best in my lifetime, with Harry Truman being the best, Ronald Reagan next best, John F. Kennedy 3rd best then Bush. We approach our likes and dislikes from different perspectives. There really is no discussing the subject with him.
At least he's not so radical to put Reagan at number one and Kennedy at number forty-nine (number fifty is eternally reserved for Clinton). The tendency in the Republican mindset is one that seems to ignore facts and see only emotions and image. For example, Reagan was a superhero of a president because he made America feel great again. Never mind that his administration was scandal-ridden and financially inept. America felt like gods again, and that's all that matters. On the flip side, Carter was a terrible president because *gasp*! America didn't feel a billion feet tall! And now, Bush is a great president because regardless of his inept diplomacy and economics, he makes America feel so strong in the face of the French wussies at Paris and those two indefatigable armies of the Taliban and post-Gulf War Iraq.
Well since no other Republicans seem willing to pick up the ball, here goes. On point's one and two. The intellegence services of the entire world believed Sadamn had WMD's. Obviously there was some "proof". Whether the intellegence was wrong or Sadamn shipped the WMD's off into hiding, who knows. If he had no WMD's, why didn't he just let the inspectors do their job, certify him in compliance with the cease fire agreement, and get the sanctions lifted? It doesn't make sense. Even if he had none, he certainly would have had them again once the heat was off. He'd been jerking us around for twelve years and figured we'd eventually get tired of the whole mess and he'd be free to restart his weapons programs. As far as ties to Al Qaeda go, we're constantly hearing about terrorist attacks and beheadings by groups with al Qaeda connections in Iraq (yes, I know you'll say that's after the invasion but they sure showed up pretty quick, almost seemed like they were already there). Then there's the meeting between Mohamad Atta and an agent of Sadamn's government before 9/11. And there's also the old arab saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". It just stands to reason they'd hook up eventually, even if they hadn't already. Ultimately, what it comes down to is this. Islamist extremists attacked the US on own ground. Conservatives believe that when you get hit, you hit back. They fucked with us on our home turf, we're gonna hit back on theirs. Afganistan was the obvious first target since they were harboring Osama. But Sadamn had been a pain in our ass for a long time, hated the US, and would serve as an example that the US was serious this time. Were there WMD's in Iraq at the time of the invasion? Apparently not. But this doesn't change the fact that we must finish what we started and Bush is the man to do it. I believe that once he's re-elected things will settle down in Iraq. Electing Kerry would be admitting defeat and would turn Iraq into the quagmire the left says it is now.
By the way, not only am I a Republican, but I was a Chair Holder and Assistant to the President of a large Republican Group. I do NOT (and MANY Republicans agree with me) consider Bush a Republican. Anyway, on with the fun... Actually, no. A great deal of world governments AND the UN were not behind attacking Iraq partially because of the lack of direct evidence. That's really beside the point, anyway. The point was that people, even now after the Bush administration admitted the truth, people STILL think there was and is WMD in Iraq and that's what they are basing their approval of the attack on. OK, so the justification is that we had a hunch that he might have wanted to do this in the future? If you are right, and the sanctions worked and kept him from making them while the "heat was on" then attacking Iraq was the worst possible thing we could have done. With the sanctions and inspections in place, Sadam did not have a functioning WMD program, so was not a threat. By attacking Iraq, killing many civilians, creating more hatred for America in the region AND coming up empty-handed we not only gave al Qaeda more pissed off people to join, but destroyed our credibility in the world. We also lost over $200 Bn, and the lives of soldiers. Where's the gain in that? You are absolutely right. They WERE already there. Just as they were already in NYC, Miami, Chicago... They were already in most of the countries in Europe. They still are in these places. If we bombed another country in the same slip-shod fashion we bombed Iraq, they would start coming out there too. Exactly! And we facilitated exactly that by making enemies with a great deal of Iraqis that did not view us as an enemy before and added fuel to teh al Qaeda fire. That's effective somehow? IRAQ DID NOT CAUSE, FUND, PERFORM, CONDONE OR FACILITATE 9/11 IN ANY WAY How does that not get through? A rag head is a rag head? We were fully justified in going into Afganistan. We had NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER to attack Iraq. Our attack on Iraq was a Terrorist action, NOT retaliation. Osama Bin Laden ahs NOTHING to do with Sada Hussein, except: a.) They are both Middle Eastern. b.) We supplied both of them with weapons. Since GWB is a Christian Fundamentalist, does his attacking Iraq justify Iraqi's blowing up churches and attacking the Vatican? No. Why not? Becasue they have nothing yto do with each other. So it is OK that since we dropped the ball in Afganistan (the actual justified target) we should just go and blow someone else up for no other reason than flex our muscles and "show we are serious this time"? Try putting it in another context. If Canada attacked say Iran, and Iran tried retaliating, but failed, then said, "OK we will jusy attack US instead because they are Nortm Americans too and we have never liked them anyway." would that be justified? Then why is is justified for US? Most of this is really beside the point and I don;t want to derail this too far. The point is: These things that the Bush adminitration have actually admitted to be false, Bush supportes STILL think are true, and trying to find out why that is.
one_raven; Let's harken back to your original post: And they could possibly rub you the right way? Why the illusion I would even bother just because you presume to command such a thing? Why is your clan's inadequacies suddenly my responsibility to define and defend? You folks are too funny.
Some interesting news today regarding ties between Iraq and al Qaeda: and this: as to the secular Iraq and the "religious" al-Qaeda being mortal enemies:
mad, "On point's one and two. The intellegence services of the entire world believed Sadamn had WMD's. " People STILL believe this. Do you think they are justified in still believing this? Or do you think they are misinformed? Your posts indicate you that you still think all these beliefs are justifiable. "They fucked with us on our home turf, we're gonna hit back on theirs. " 15 of the 19 hijakers were Saudi. None were Iraqi. Yet you still think we took the right action? Don't you mean "They fucked with us, we're gonna hit back sorta close to them."
FC. The attack on Iraq was not for retribution. Isn't it obvious? Do you honestly think the people in the administration are that stupid? You have to be kidding. What kind of arrogance does it take to believe that they are stupid enough to think that hitting Iraq was "to get back for 9/11" when it's well known that the ties between Al-Queda and Iraq weren't collaborative (though they were 'friendly'). Certainly certain asshats would have you believe this, but that's because they're asshats. Hitting Iraq is about prevention, and there are a thousand reasons that point to them as a valid and obvious target. The idea is prevention. It's retarded to assert we should have attacked a country because of the actions of its rogue citizens, but it's not retarded to assert that we should attack a country based on the danger it apparently poses to world stability. It's right to attack a country that is a very dangerous enemy (who also facilitates the ilk of rogues citizens mentioned above). The attack on Iraq was because it was perceived to be too dangerous to allow them to continue with their WMD programs (which it turns out he'd fooled everyone about, though he was still actively seeking a way to get back on board through bribing the UN), and that they were already in a position that politically justifying an attack (ala 12 years of violations, suspicion of WMDs, cash for Hamas, kicking out inspectors, gassing kurds, etc.). Attacking Iraq is/was an excellent move toward long term stability in the middle east. Lacking the political will or proper planning to eradicate remnants of the prior government gone gorilla - that's not an excellent move. The problem becomes though that having that political will would probably cost the support of most of the country, because most people want to pretend war is a plot by conservatives to fatten haliburton. It's more like "they fucked with us on our home turf, time to get pre-emptive". It turns out Sadam DID have WMDs on a scale FAR BEYOND what we could have known without having toppled him. Instead buying of nerve gas though - he bought the biggest potential WMD of all - the UN. It's a goddamn lucky thing we found out about it, and a pretty sad thing that the news media in this country is so bias towards the pussy charlitan that is Kerry. Rightfully, the UN scandal should be the biggest story in the world right now - but instead, lies generated from the UN (IAEC) are propogated because they prop up their puppet. The was was never about killing Iraqis. It's about the opportunity of freeing them from a man who was a huge danger to them and the world, and the hope that doing so will make the world safer and more free for future generations.
wes, I agree iraq was not a counter attack for 911. I was countering was mad had implied. Apparently you agree. As for prevention, how can you argue that iraq was a danger to us? Sure the UN scandal is important, though not at all surprising. I have seen a good deal of coverage on it, mostly I admit on PBS. But saddam paying of the UN does not equate to an immediate threat to the US. Now, we probably have a fundamental difference here where you feel the preventative action is justified as it MAY have made the world safer for us. But I feel that attacking a country should be a last option and only when you KNOW your country's populace is threatened. We can say saddam had fooled the world and everyone thought he had WMDs. But I remember listening to this administration talk about the WMDs and thinking either a. they have proof positive evidence they are not willing to share with us or b. their confidence and bullishness is exaggerated and unfounded. Option b turned out to be true. Fact is that the reasons we went to iraq have changed and been turned to suit the facts. Saddam was not a danger to the world, despite the fact that he had money to bribe UN officials. Are we to attack every country with a corrupt government? It isn't good enough in my eyes. We have made the situation worse worldwide. Someone has to be held responsible. Now, more to the subject. Do you feel that Bush supporters are less informed than Kerry supporters as suggested? If not, why? If someone still believes saddam had all the WMDs promised by bush, are they not misinformed?
You said "Don't you mean "They fucked with us, we're gonna hit back sorta close to them." which I took to mean that you though the whole notion of attacking them was actually just blind stupidity on the part of the administration, more of bug to the light rather than a directed effort to achieve something. How can you not see it? I've made the argument recently, but don't have time to find the post. It's pretty blatant. Basically the danger was at the time a real fear of WMD handoff. It turns out that was his long term goal, but things weren't at all as they seemed. So now in reality it turns out perhaps the biggest danger is who they were in bed with. It's been established that his goal was to re-establish all WMD programs and it was just a matter of time before France greased the wheels of the security council to lift the sanctions. Given who was in bed with whom, there is no telling where WMDs were going to end up being produced and handed off to the enemies of the world. Iraq was a danger because they were in the center of that entire mess, all of it geared towards Sadaam getting his hands on the weapons he itched for. Given that he harbored Zarkowi, would you think it wasn't dangerous? You don't think Zarkowi (or related) wouldn't him Sadaam up for WMDs as soon as he got them? The risk of that happening (regardless of whether or not he had weapons at the time) was too great. Further, given his reluctance to comply with the existing sanctions over a long period of time coupled with his human rights violations, he was a very very dangerous man. When there's a leader with the power of WMDs who won't play ball, dead center of the middle east with an existing grudge against America - and a jihad kickin it on the east side (i just wanted to say east side), the risk of all of that coming together is too great to allow the possibility. Not surprising, but we wouldn't have been able to show it without removing him. I think it did - immediate in the sense that you don't know how soon it could happen anyway, and waiting longer would only make it worse. I definately would have thought so if for instance, I were the president of the united states and charged with the security of our nation. I don't think ANY kerry supporters really give that much thought. What would you do if you had to make a decision like that? Hmm.. look what happened on 9/11 - huge economic crash, thousands dead... next time will probably be much much worse and possibly put us into depression for who knows how long. This guy has WMDs and won't play ball with the UN (who it turns out he owns), or the US. He's in the heart of Muslim terrorist wannabe central and he's got all them damned weapons. Okay so I'll give him an ultimatum through the security council; " cooperate or get your ass kicked". He fails to cooperate and the UN says "sorry, no ass kicking - just kidding". You're a dad, you know you can't do that shit. So bush now has to face "hmm, huge political risk that could end my career because americans are going to die in battle, or risk Sadaam's crazy ass throwing us into depression and inflicting possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths on Americ". It's so EASY to sit around saying "wrong war wrong time blah blah blah", but that whining tripe does't remotely address the president's mandate or scenario. There is no doubt in my mind that Sadaam presented a great threat to the security of this nation. Is that enough? There was obviously no doubt in Bush's mind. I have to say I agree with his actions wholeheartedly until after the war, in which I think much more force should have been exerted to discourage further insurgents. How many secrets do you think are still out there? I bet we don't know half the story. I give the president the benefit of the doubt because of the charge of his duty. He has an incredibly difficult mandate to protect this country and as far as I can tell he's doing a good job of it, considering the circumstances. I disagree. The fact was: Too dangerous to risk it. That is still the correct assessment of the scenario at that time. Election soundbites are another matter alltogether. I think that's very naive, but then again maybe I'm paranoid. It's not that he had the money, it's what was likely going to happen because of it. He was starving/killing his people. He was hell bent on developing more WMDs. He had a grudge against the US. He harbored terrorists. He was in the hub of "terrorist central" (the middle east). He attacked a neighbor. He gassed the kurds. He slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people. He deliberately lied to the UN for 12 years. He paid Hamas folks 25,000 if a relative martyred themselves. He attempted the assisination of a US president. If that's not dangerous, what is? What? Why would we do that? Just being corrupt is bad, but it doesn't make you a threat to the world, nor does it immediately put them in a position where attacking them is necessary. Attacking IS however necessary when the UN says "disarm or face serious consequences" and gets the finger. You don't smell a setup? I think old Sadam planned this shit fairly well. Further, I think that the end goal was to get Bush kicked out and some pussy in... then the real fun starts. For Sadaam, it's sweet to watch the great nation eat itself. Meh. Like for instance, the UN and Sadaam? What about France and Russia? GW did the RIGHT THING according the the information he had. If he hadn't acted on that information and we would have been attacked later, he would have been impeached. Charge the man as commander in chief and then get pissed of when he does his job? The situation in the world is not Bush's fault. Public opinion is a sign of the power of the media and the general inability of people to read beyond the face value. I don't think poorly of them for that, it's not their fault or anyting, it's just the way it is. However, blaming Bush for it is a crock. Sadaam created this situation, Bush just had the balls to deal with it like it should have been dealt with. Of course the decision is unpopular, especially with everyone in the world playing monday morning quarterback and not really understanding the dynamic of what happened. I think if this crap hadn't been exposed, the US may have payed much more dearly than we will down our current path. If I were to hypothesize I'd say that Kerry supporters would be slightly less informed on average since more "new voters" will be voting for him based on their hate of Bush. I don't know though for sure. I'm also tempted to say neither, as people are people blah blah. I don't think Bush supporters in general would be less informed. Sure... but that is no comparison, that is picking on one side.
Wes, The crux of your argument seems to be that Bush made the right decision at the time to attack Iraq when he did. Reasons being our national security. Do you realize it is entirely plausible we would have still attacked Iraq with Kerry? Kerry's position is that we should have done more in gathering a coalition of forces while letting the inspections run their course. What would have been the negative impact of such a strategy? The problem is this: either Bush thought there was an immediate threat or he lied. I will assume he did not lie to the country and he believed Iraq to be an immediate threat. Now, I have stated before I did not share the administrations convictions on WMD when seeing the evidence they had. You think there are secrets and more of the story to be told. If so, I want to hear it. At this point, I have not heard a valid reason from the president on why he was wrong or so deceived that he thought an immediate strike on Iraq the only choice. Bad judgement at its most crucial time of importance is the one thing we must not have in the white house. You agree that the post attack war planning was not good. Would waiting a bit have helped this cause? "Sure... but that is no comparison, that is picking on one side. " Ok, fair enough. The article cited in this thread listed a number of issues in which Bush supporters apparently are not as informed as the Kerry supporters. These are main points some Bush supporters use in his defense, but they do not know the facts (at least not as well as Kerry supporters according to the article). Do you have anything to show the opposite? For instance, maybe Kerry supporters are not as informed as Bush supporters on health care or something. Obviously, there are exceptions to these large groupings...but it is interesting to note don't you think?
That's part of what I was saying, yes... but he's faulted for it when it was not a mistake. I disagree. His record indicates to me that there NO WAY he would have done so unless perhaps they attacked us first, and even then I doubt it. LOL. Well you see now that he was dead wrong to have such a position, as the inspections would not have worked. Twelve years of inspections is WAY more than enough to know you're being fucked wouldn't you think? His position is anything that makes Bush look bad at the moment. Emboldening Sadaam's sorry ass, never finding out about the oil for food thing, still thinking he had WMD's out the wazoo, still having confidence in our intelligence services, more death by murder in Iraq and who knows what else via Zarkowi's ilk. More terrorist training, etc. The fact is that when you tell your kid their in trouble if they screw up and you mean, you'd better damned mean it. It's my understanding that according to the uhmm.. I can't remember the name of the report from week or few ago, but according to that huge assed report Sadaam had been intentionally trying to make it seem that he had WMDs in order to retain power in the region. Unfortunately, everyone bit. He was so wrong because of what I said above. It was intentional misleading in order to retain power in the region. I wonder if he eventually realized how that ruse could be used against us and played us like a pimp. Oh I just remembered, I think it was the "dulpher report" or something. LOL. I have the hardest time thinking you're going to find it with Kerry. As it stands now, that man disgusts me. It's his behavior. To me, he's nothing but blind ambition. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think if he's elected, you'll get a good fill on "bad judgement at crucial times". I hope I'm wrong. You agree that the post attack war planning was not good. Would waiting a bit have helped this cause? "Sure... but that is no comparison, that is picking on one side. " Well, my support isn't based on theirs, but if it's been established then you can say that the group polled was less informed on the issued they were polled on. Haven't seen anything. I was speculating. Maybe, I'll have to look at that article.
This is the danger of calling the truth hateful. In all honesty, I'd been looking for a reason to bring up this article. Thank you for the soapbox. ____________________ Notes: Dionne, E. J. "The Intensity Gap". Washington Post, October 26, 2004; page A25. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62794-2004Oct25.html
