I was watching Fox news a while ago and the discussion tonight was about a John Kerry’s statement that Iraq was not a haven for terrorism prior to the war and that Iraq was a better place before the US went in.
Does this guy have his eyes open? I guess Saddam was just running some new kind of Holiday camp over there.
PILE ON: What’s this? Kennedy to the rescue. “George W has botched every aspect of the rebuilding of Iraq”.
I realize it’s election time and we will never agree on diddly. But, I am amazed that these guys can vote against financial support for the troops and then criticize the job that is being done and still be considered American. Just glad to see all the support from our Nations Leaders for the Troops who are laying it on the line to make the world a better place, keep this country what it is “Strong”, and protect these guy’s personal fortunes. News Flash-If this was pre War Iraq here they most likely would not have seen the sun set. But all is good right?
“What the heck why not raise the Social Security tax Limit” I really don’t work for the money anyway. I am most sure that it wont affect Kerry or Kennedy much!
Way to Support America Guys…Let your Vote talk.
“GoW”
Bush made a very interesting comment in the interview with O’Reilly that aired yesterday. When asked about security problems and the upcoming election, Bush noted that those security problems are exactly the circumstances in which you need elections. This point was made at length by Brooks in the NY Times today. These are great points that I hadn’t heard in the Iraq context before.
Did you skip your long run again? You sound really pessimistic.
"Just so you know, the UN does not grant the authority for countries to go to war. "
Just so you know, the UN does indeed grant authority for the use of force by its member states. The fact that countries don’t always wait for that authority or always use the authority when it’s given doesn’t mean that’s not what the UN does.
I will only argue with one item. I predict that the elections will go forward on schedule. They will not be pretty. To quote Allawi (sp?), they will not be the best elections that Iraq will ever hold. Democracy is like a weed though, once it takes hold, it is tough to wipe out.
Casey, for you today, 9 X 1 mile, 6:45 pace, except 6:30 for the last, 3 minutes rest between intervals. Then 20 minutes of stretching and smiling.
I am actually not pessimistic at all (okay maybe just a bit:) just realistic.
I fully understand your point, Casey…it’s still better to be realistic than to live on calculated optimism. Unfortunately calculated optimism is easier to handle for most people than to see what reality says.
If you disagree with the governments policy in America and dissent in what is a “democracy” you are Un-american or should not be able to consider yourself an American. That is what you’re saying correct?
But, I am amazed that these guys can vote against financial support for the troops and then criticize the job that is being done and still be considered American.
The amazing thing about living in a free country is that you can Disagree with the leaders and still be patriot.
Agreeing or disagreeing with the policy of a sitting government has nothing to do with being a loyal citizen.
Come on Casey, he did. It was in all the papers. Do you remember 12 years of resolutions, no fly zones, and our pilots getting shot at every day? How many years would have been enough?
The sanctions were collapsing. He was on his way out of the box. But for 9/11, the US would never have had the political will to take action, and Hussein would have been on his way back.
I think its sad how some hard line Republicans can speak so passionately about people in Iraq being better off now because of us (as a justification for this war), yet their domestic policies make it obvious that they could care less about the struggling or dying people in this country.
do you really believe that the handover of political power was done early because they were ahead of schedule? or rather, in order to throw off any possible terrorist/insurgent plots that were likely targeted for that date? i could maybe, possibly buy the “we got it done ahead of schedule” if it was weeks early and if there was some type of accompanying fan fare. but it was done, what, 3 days early and in pretty much complete secret. sounds like they were a bit scared to me…
i do like rumsfeld’s attitude–only 90% of the country can vote? not too shabby. only 80%? well, nobody’s perfect. 70%–hey, it’s still a majority. and it’s better than nothing.
and you are damn right i have little faith. i have absolutely zero faith in this administration in any facet of policy making. it really baffles me how anyone other than social conservatives and hawks can vote for bush. i can’t see how any dems or any small gov’t/fiscal conservatives can vote for him…
it really baffles me how anyone other than social conservatives and hawks can vote for bush. i can’t see how any dems or any small gov’t/fiscal conservatives can vote for him…
Fear.
I refer you to the New York Times editorial listed in a different subject line in this forum.
FYI: the page on which Brooks’ column (note: column) appears is opposite the editorial page, hence the name Op-Ed. It’s his opinion, not that of the NYTimes.
That’s funny. Congress and the rest of the world had the same intelligence we had going into the war and they overwhelmingly supported the action and voted to give the President authorization to take action. You or I cannot control what the American public thinks…we were presented the same information. Conclusions drawn are up to each individual. Including elected members of the government who represent the people. What’s the issue?
The issue is that Bush (and Cheney) carefully chose their words to give the impression that Iraq, Hussein, al Qaeda, and 9/11 were linked together, without actually saying as much. It was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public (not Congress) into thinking that Iraq and 9/11 were somehow related. Judging by the polls, the public was successfully duped.
The turn over of sovereignty was a joke. I can claim to turn over sovereignty of RI to my grocer and hold a ceremony and then claim success. That doesn’t actually mean my grocer has sovereign control over the state anymore than Iraqis have sovereign control over Iraq. Meeting some arbitrary deadline doesn’t mean any success was achieved. I don’t think it’s spin to say it wasn’t actually safe to turn over sovereignty when the first few new Iraqi officials were assasinated, and when now, many months later, we’re still occupying the country losing lives and the SecDef is telling us that maybe 80% or so election participation is good enough.
and anyone with a reasonable amount of intellect would understand that a secret turn over of power two days before the deadline was done to avoid attacks and not because things were going swimmingly…
and trust me–if they turned over sovereignty a minute earlier than the established deadline based on the fact they were ahead of schedule, they would have trumpeted it for any and all to hear.
the fact that they haven’t said anything of the sort is because they understand that the vast majority of the general public would find it laughable to think the early turnover occurred for anything other than security reasons.
you might be the only person i have heard or read who is promoting this concept…
If you think that sovereignty was handed over in the summer of 2004, you are mistaken. Just saying so doesn’t make it true. And if there is some voting in January, 2005 in Iraq, according to some arbitrary schedule, that does not make it an election. If it occurs in a situation where every Iraqi does not feel safe to cast his/her vote, it ain’t an election, it’s a political stunt.
Many people disagree with you. Including the British Prime Minister and British Intelligence.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. There was no link between 9/11 and Iraq. There was a deliberate effort by the Bush administration to use carefully crafted speeches to create the impression that there was.
Do you think there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq?
You are referencing a prime minister that has tantamount to zero support for the action taken in Iraq, a prime minister whom no one has any faith or belief in, a prime minister who allowed a senior civil servant to be outed who ended up taking his own life (I cant hold the PM responsible for someone killing themselves, the person was obviously imbalanced, what I can hold him to account for is a complete lack of morals and ethics in allowing his department to out the person in question) and a PM that admitted today that he went to war on incorrect info but that it was the right thing to do just the same…
I dont think you should use the British PM as a good example of anything, everyone here knows that should he win the next election it is not because people want him to win, its because the competition is even scarier than he is.
i just don’t see how the handing over of sovereignty could have been anything other than nominal/symbolic. there is a large number of u.s. troops stationed over there still. without said troops, there would be absolute and utter chaos–in other words, such forces are needed to maintain control. the iraqis don’t have control over said forces(maybe some input, but certainly no control).
i don’t see that as being really and truly sovereign–for all practical purposes, they are under u.s. control…