Posted on 10/11/2004 12:31:57 AM PDT by Utah Girl
Much of what Sen. John Kerry says about Iraq is consistent and reasonable. He voted for the war because, like just about everybody else, he believed that Saddam Hussein was dangerous. He criticizes it now because Hussein turns out not to have had weapons of mass destruction after all, and because the Bush administration's handling of reconstruction has been incompetent. Had everybody known two years ago that Hussein's weapons program had fallen apart, there would have been no convincing argument for war. By insisting in Friday's debate that Hussein presented a "unique threat," President Bush made himself appear blind to reality.
But the question that matters in this election is: What next? Should we fight on in Iraq? Or should we leave as soon as possible -- on the theory that all this nation-building stuff is bound to fail and that winning hearts and minds among allies will boost our security more than battling Iraq's insurgents? And beyond Iraq, what is the role for preemptive war and nation-building in the next phase of the war on terrorism?
On this crucial issue, neither candidate's position is completely clear. My colleague Robert D. Novak insists that a second Bush administration would cut its losses in Iraq, despite everything the president says to the contrary. Meanwhile, Kerry, whose criticism of the Iraq war often suggests that he sees no hope of victory there, nonetheless declares that he's intent on "winning." Even so, the candidates' statements and the mood among advisers on both sides suggest that the electorate faces a stark choice -- such an important choice, indeed, that the election should perhaps depend on it.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Wasn't Sebastian the butler in the Courtship of Eddie's Father?
Wow dude!! You're old as dirt.
Hey I resemble that remark!
He needs to read the report that clearly states that Saddam was using the oil for food scam so he could rearm and that the decision to stop him before he could was the right one! (I am sure he already did read it.) Beyond that, he most likely also knows that things are going well in Iraq as reported by those actually there and with no political agenda, as in the troops.
I agree with this assessment. I don't think we have the ability to change the tribal, medieval ways of the Arabs. Based upon recent comments by Rummy, my sense is that the administration agrees.
I thought it was "Family Affair".
"By insisting in Friday's debate that Hussein presented a "unique threat," President Bush made himself appear blind to reality."
Abu Nidal (or Abu Abas) who murdered Leon Klinghoffer was living in Bahgdad when he died. Saddam was harboring terrorists.
Klinghoffer was a US citizen, and his murder was terrorism.
There were MANY reasons Bush gave, from the outset, to justify regime change in Iraq (not just WMD).
Hindsight is always easy. We made mistakes landing at Normandy, costing many lives.
Do we fault Eisenhower and FDR, for what went wrong, in prosecuting war towards a just end? Of course not.
Islamic terrorism is a big, big picture challenge. We cannot afford to lay off, and let any place be a sanctuary for islamic terrorists (not just al Qaeda).
Finally, Kerry hasn't in his life found a war, or a military expense or intelligence expense that he was in favor of.
He voted against Bulf War I. He was probably against this one from the start, but dishonestly did what he believed was politically best for his personal advancement.
If elected, Kerry will botch it up worse, and find a way to duck out on unfinished business.
Good post, as usual.
Just last month they were telling us the terrorists were pouring over the Iraq borders by the thousands. If this is so, we are not going to pull out. Iraq is the frontline in the war against terror. We stay and we kill all the terrorists we possibly can until they stop coming in.
We are in the right war, at the right place, at the right time.
Besides, we still have Syria and Iran to deal with. We stay put.
Sebastian Cabot played Mr. French on Family Affair
Nope, that was Family Affair w/ Brain Keith, Buffy & Jody.
I read somewhere that actually they did find WMD's in Iraq and he's sitting in jail over there right now, he killed 1.3 million of his own people. I rest my case.
By insisting in Friday's debate that Hussein presented a "unique threat," President Bush made himself appear blind to reality.
In Friday's debate President Bush also said that Hussein had been gaming the oil-for-food program.
"So I tried diplomacy, I went to the United Nations. But as we learned in the same report I quoted, Saddam Hussein was gaming the oil-for-food program to get rid of sanctions. He was trying to get rid of sanctions for a reason: He wanted to restart his weapons programs."
That is explained in detail in the Duelfur report. Sebastian, if you would report on how Hussein gamed the systemt your claim that Bush appeared "blind to reality" would end your ignorance. And, if you've already read the Duelfur report then you'd be exposing your fraud.
We are so impatient. That country's been in the total crapper for decades, and we've been there for about a minute.
Iraq might not turn out to be a shining jewel in the dessert, but it could get close enough. New generations will grow up in a less threatening society, and that makes things better right there. But...takes time to grow a free country. Cut and run? Nuh-uh.
Your right, thanks, I remembered something, I hell to get hold and forget stuff..
;>)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.