WHY I AM SUPPORTING JOHN KERRY. Risk Management (Sullivan)

The New Republic ^ | October 26, 2004 | Andrew Sullivan

[Paperdoll]

Where is Everett Dirksen when we need him? Oh. Well then, where is someone like Everett Dirksen when we need him?

In reality, Arcadia. GWB comes legions closer than J (Jackass) F(Foney)Kerry (Kommie) in filling that bill.

[Dr.Deth]

Bush has had some notable achievements. He was right to cut taxes as the economy headed toward recession; he was right to push for strong federal standards for education; he was right to respond to September 11 by deposing the Taliban; he was right to alert the world to the unknown dangers, in the age of Al Qaeda, of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He is still right that democratization is the only ultimate security in an age of Jihadist terror.

Equally, his presidency can and should be judged on its most fateful decision: to go to war against Iraq without final U.N. approval

So let me get this straight: For everything Bush has done right, you'll damn him because he didn't ask permission from the U.N. to swat a menace to the civilized world. Ho-kay. I can see you're very credible. </sarcasm>

And as for you ARCADIA, do you work for Reuters? 1) Insurgents don't come from Syria and Saudi. Those are terrorists. 2) Name a single war that went "exactly as expected". 3) Your backhanded insinuation that we're better off with Saddam in power and no definitive word on WMD's, than we are with no Saddam and no WMD's, is ludicrous on it's face. 4) I think this ten-times-longer-than-it-needed-to-me diatribe by Sullivan, is just his ego flailing wildly to try to convince himself that it's ok to vote for the wrong guy.

If you're agreeing with that, if you have a hard time getting past that... that is a miserable failure, by your conscience.

[Paperdoll]

Where is Everett Dirksen when we need him? Oh. Well then, where is someone like Everett Dirksen when we need him?

In reality, Arcadia. GWB comes legions closer than J (Jackass) F(Foney)Kerry (Kommie) in filling that bill.

[rj45mis]

"Hey, I'm a Butt Pirate, too"

Shit ahoy, mate!

[xzins]

Sullivan was a plant from the beginning.

Any conservative who didn't know that is naive.

Sullivan doesn't care about america. He cares about the next guy his HIV+ super-ego can screw.

[rj45mis]

Well said, comrade!

[cricket]

"The absence of WMDs is just a miserable failure, pure and simple."

Well, now Kerry is saying the absence of the 'explosives' is a viable threat to everyone! You/he/they cannot have it both ways.

With the UN Security team on Saddam's dole - France/Germany and probably Russia and no doubt a few others. . .what WOULD we have found; and when?

What/when would the UN'inspectors' have found that they did not find in twelve years - no doubt, very lucrative years of 'hunting' for WMD's. . .(right!).

The truth of the matter is; we know Saddam had connections to Osamma; we know (almost for certain; if not for certain) that one covert UN function was the funneling of money to terrorist groups - most likely AlQueda. . .as we were 'waiting'. . .then hunting. . .waiting for Iraq to comply with what. . .UN sanctions (?) - another joke!

And finally, monies going to them as we are at war with them. So who/where is the enemy? We know where it was happening and who was making it all possible.

The ferment/ the money/the availability was sourced in Iraq; by Saddam and the UN and other companies now 'food for oil' program. (One of which belonged to Mark Rich. . .how big was that deposit made by Mark, in a Swiss bank for THAT pardon?) Well, I digress. . .

The ONLY thing to do; was to dismantle this entire bogus UN circus and Saddams tortuous regime and take out some terrorist as well; and take the lid off the whole ugly pot.

IMHO. . .

As to the question:Who better to take on a Marxist regime? NOT A MARXIST for sure!

What do people think Kerry IS; in his real life?

[weegee]

Same sex marriage no doubt.

That or he likes to watch fireworks.

[cricket]

"Hokum. We all know why Sullivan is backing Kerry. Its too bad that he has lost so much focus."

Yes, to even ask the question. . .'who to take on our totalitarian/marxist enemies'. . .

Surely a MARXIST NOT, Andrew!

[Zeppo]

Right on target.

Sullivan could have saved a lot of (digital) ink by shortening it to "Blah blah blah blah blah. Bush is against gay marriage. Kerry is probably not. Therefore it's less risky to go with Kerry."

[sam_whiskey]

"The absence of WMDs is just a miserable failure, pure and simple.

Not anticipating the strength of the insurgency - also a major mistake "

Could those results really have been avoided?? Only if we sit on our hands and take no action---not a viable option. "Miserable failure"?? Miserable failure=Saddam Hussein still in power and attempting to develop WMDs.

Why are you using Kerry-speak??

[geedee]

The absence of WMDs is just a miserable failure, pure and simple.
Not anticipating the strength of the insurgency - also a major mistake
I have a hard time getting past these two issues as well

There are ONLY two things one can say with absolute certainty when one goes to war . . .
1. Soldiers will die.
2. Your intel will be wrong.

To expect anything much less everything to go as planned is simply naive.

Did GW think Iraq had WMD's? Absolutely. As did Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China, the UN, and anyone else with a measurable IQ. So-Dumb Hussein said he had WMD's. EVERY intelligence service in the world agreed with him. After all, seeing the hell-storm he was about to face, wouldn't a "sane" man do everything in his power to prove to the world he didn't have WMD's if, in fact, he didn't have WMD's?

So-Dumb Hussein turned out to be an insane mass murderer instead of just a mass murderer but doubting ourselves now, after we've saved thousands, hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions of Iraqis from being murdered in the future plays right into the hands of the panty-waist tree-huggers.

So-Dumb flaunted every UN Resolution passed to hold him accountable. Blame him for the WMD fiasco. Or blame the various intelligence services. Or blame the UN Inspection Teams. But GW isn't personally responsible for there not being any WMD's in Iraq. He can only deal with the facts as they're presented to him.

We'd had eight years of shadow-boxing as our enemies murdered American civilians, soldiers, and innocents with impunity under Pee Wee Clinton before GW came on the scene. Would you rather see us return to THAT?

If so, you reveal your true colors.

Has GW made some mistakes? Absolutely. But I'd much rather have a President who makes mistakes while he's attacking our enemies than a President who makes mistakes while he's hiding under the UN's skirt as our enemies pick us off at will.

We need a President who's willing to make the tough decisions, then act on them, then have enough cojones to follow through on them until our enemies are either killed, captured, or made to realize that Americans will not be used as target practice.

By the way . . . how many more attacks has there been on American soil since 9-11?

[scory]

Mr. Sullivan is a homosexual activist and a slave to his obsession. He would endorse whichever candidate he sees as most likely to advance the homosexual agenda. All else is secondary no matter what he says.

[crazyhorse691]

The lack of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq remains one of the biggest blows to America's international credibility in a generation. The failure to anticipate an insurgency against the coalition remains one of the biggest military miscalculations since Vietnam.
_______________________________________________________________

First point; Every intelligence agency in the world at the time said Iraq had WMDs. Intense stringency by 3 members of the Security Council was suspicious at the time and later shown to be motivated by economic concerns, not intelligence matters. I maintain that credibility gap was there all along and the Iraq war became a convenient talking point on which to hang the credibility gap.
Point two; 20/20 hindsight and armchair quarterbacking are not valid criticisms until the crystal ball is perfected. And, the US Military is responding to the insurgency with new tactics and armaments. It takes time to rebuild the US Military after the Clinton years.
Thats all of the article I will comment on.

[ArrogantBustard]

Obviously, Kerry's stand against a constitutional amendment to target gay citizens is also a critical factor for me, as a gay man.

The bottom line is buggery ...

[stands2reason]

:-)

[jwalsh07]

I have nothing nice to say about Andrew Sullivan so I will refrain from saying what I really think.

[Tribune7]

Those are not the reasons he's backing Kerry.

[xzins]

1. WMD's, plans, and just-in-time recipes have been found.

2. The insurgency is bogus -- it is what Bush says. Originated and funded by terrorists and frightened terrorist regimes. The proof....they waited until after the hot season to begin the insurgency. Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda, etc. all had June, July, August, September to regroup. The danger to Americans began in Oct/Nov of 2003.

There was no "plan for an insurgency." We are fighting international terrorisms REGROUPED plans in Iraq. Good for us! Fight terrorism over there instead of over here. Draw them into a killing zone. EXCELLENT STRATEGY!

Finally, count the number of incidents in a day and what the incident is.

They are LOW IN NUMBER, propaganda intensive, militarily insignificant attacks directed primarily at their own people.

They are afraid to take on American forces because every time they have we have turned them into bloody, messy puddles of DNA!

We ARE winning!

Don't count on the media to let you know this.

You will see the truth of our continuing progress once President Bush is re-elected and the terrorist's hopes go out the window.

They enemy is going to become very, very discouraged.

[x]

Other neocon warbloggers are also backing Kerry (Oxblog, etc.). With Sullivan, gay marriage is the main reason, but with the others, it looks like a gamble that Kerry will secure what they want and Bush will put it at risk. It's akin to a Johnson Democrat backing Nixon in 1968 betting that Nixon would follow through on Vietnam better than Humphrey. Part of the gamble today is that Kerry will be a weak President domestically and feel compelled to hold the line on Iraq, yet prove competent both at home and abroad. Whether Kerry will satisfy them is hard to say, but it is quite a risk and involves plenty of assumptions that could blow up in their faces.