Bill,
I’ve tried so hard not to comment about all the anti-Bush stuff, but what exactly is it you HATE so much about him? I know politics tend to be a touchy subject, but ABB (Anybody But Bush) seems excessive. It reeks to me of the same rhetoric that the “Left” accuses the “Right” of (especially when it comes to President Clinton).
I’m sure that neither one of us will change regarding our choice for president, but an honest debate of all the pro’s and con’s of each candidate should be expected from all of us.
Corey
Bill
Corey,
Please feel free to say whatever you want. As much as this is my personal blog and soapbox the comment area is for anyone.
My intention is not to demonize a whole party because in fact without a left and a right there is no democracy and that’s not what the country was founded on. In fact I listen to both sides and in the middle try to glean what I feel is the truth. Although I can only handle so much Rush L. I agree with you that one should debate both sides and come to a decision. And, I applaud the fact that you are interested enough to care and will vote. Of course I would like people to vote for the candidate I like, so would you. I’m under no illusions that I’ll ever change anyones mind. I really don’t believe that is even possible.
That said my personal feeling is that this President has done a horrible job representing this country and I will vote for someone else.
If you remove him from his policies which prop up big business with major tax breaks while the middle and lower classes struggle, his ploicy to keep cheaper drugs that seniors (on a fixed income) get from Canada from entering the country, his environmental policys which defy my description, his contiunally tying church and state (or God, his God maybe not mine or my neighbors) so close that it is scary (“God told me to attack Iraq”), the freedoms that most Americans don’t realize that they have given up under the Patriot Act just because maybe it hasn’t directly affected them yet, his over-simplification of the Isreali Palistinian conflict that should be solved so easliy with “The Roadmap”, his lying about WMD’s to scare us, and finally for the deaths of my brothers and sisters serving in the Armed Forces in Iraq for a reason that continues to change subtly with each speech, remove him from those things and possibly I don’t “hate” him.
There is no justification for what has been done in Iraq. It hasn’t made the world a safer place, in fact we will most likely feel the repurcussions for decades. For our policies years ago in Afghanistan were most likely a factor in the atrocities commited against us on 911. Â The book (link) below, gives, what I feel, is a balnced account of the effect of American foreign policy on the world, good and bad. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805075593/qid=1089296091/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7669315-8878552?v=glance&s=books
By the by, yes the ABB thing is over the top and maybe excessive. But my point is that I care where this country is headed, and at the moment, I really don’t like it.
Keith
I am on the fence still, I don’t agree with or like everthing Bush has done. However I have reservations about Kerry and don’t know if he could do any better. I also am worried that Kerry will try to hard to kiss the Internation communities rear end (especially the French)
Bill
This thing about the French kills me. We decided to go to war independent of what the United Nations (which we are a part of) said. The French also decided, along with many nations, not to participate. Why do we have to demonize an entire country and culture because the won’t act like bobble heads when the US says JUMP!
The answer is we don’t. In my opinion that type of feeling is what creates problems between cultures. We ARE an international community and not it’s leader. That’s why all of the flags in the UN are in a circle.
Does anyone remember that it was the French who helped us settle this country and make it great?
Keith
Ok Bill, we have more than paid them back for their assistance for their help against the British (World War 1 and 2, and the Cold War). What really angers me over the French is something that was stated during Bush’s visit to Turkey were all Bush stated was that he believes Turkey is ready to be a active member in the European, to which the French replied we need mind our own bussness… He wan not issueing any kind of decree that this should happen.
Does anyone remember the 2 wold wars we were dragged into because we attempted to mind our own busness…
Brian
I’m going to have to side with Bill over the France/French issue. They’re being called or portrayed as evil because they said no to us. With regard to Turkey, Turkey said “yes daddy, we’ll do what we’re told” and so daddy backed them. I would’ve told us to shut up to.
I’m not on the fence. I don’t think anyone can paint any rosy picture of this country under the present leadership. Things have gone bad in a hurry. You know we only can look at how our own life is affected and during the previous adminstration, though putting us through a media nightmare, the coutry WAS a better place to live. There’s been talk about what happened when this one was in command and that one and I heard this or I read that. For the average person, they will look and say- “when was my life better or worse”. Oil prices, our protectors dieing in a far off world, unemployment, healthcare — all have become horrible.
I have tremendous confidence in John Kerry. He has the backgroud and experience, leadership, and brains to right the ship. And when we’re ready to debate the person, let’s look at what we think he can do for us. We already know what Bush can.
4 more years of the last 4- no thanks.
Corey
Bill,
I don’t declare myself an expert on the nuances of all the issues. I also don’t believe that President Bush is perfect (far from it), but I absolutely believe he is the better of the choices we’re now given. I’ll try to respond to the points you made:
-Catering to the “rich”, I bet all of us got a tax cut this year thanks to President Bush. A tax break that Kerry said he would take away. Now as far as cutting taxes of business’, etc. It depends on what kind of economical model you subscribe to, I believe that money is better spent and more efficient in our hands rather than the government.
-I’m not aware of President Bush’s policy on prescription medicine. But, I do know that he signed a law into effect that gave seniors on medicare prescription coverage.
-What environmental policies, in particular?
-As far as some conspiracy to force his religious views on us I don’t see it. Sure he is religious, I’ve seen nothing to show he is trying to force “his” religion on anybody. As far as the “God told me to do it” quote, the prime minister of Palestine told a paper he said that. As far as I know that was never validated.
-I haven’t looked to deeply into how deeply the “Patriot Act” cuts into our liberties (shame on me). I will say that I’ve heard some things that if true are pretty scary.
– The roadmap to peace was drawn up by the US, UN, EU, and Russia. That isn’t Bush’s baby.
– Iraq, there are just to many facets to this to get into. We could go around in circles about whether we should/shouldn’t have, why/why not, WMD/liberation, etc. I will concede that President Bush giving several different reasons for going to war, gives plenty of fuel for the left to attack him and the war. But I will say that it had to be done, in my opinion the reason that 9/11 happened was in part due to President Clinton not responding to any of the attacks during his presidency. I feel that this emboldened the terrorists. Notice that there hasn’t been another attack since. I’m positive that they will try again, but I feel that they have been knocked back. I also believe a show of force in the middle east was needed, and that Iraq was the best target.
Brian,
Where are you getting that Turkey was just doing what it was told?
I totally disagree that things have gone bad in a hurry. Things were going bad before Bush, continued getting worse into Bush’s presidency, and now at the end of his first term the economy is in better shape than when he took office. If you really look at it, the economy has always been cyclical, a 1-2 year down cycle after the boom of the 90’s is pretty incredible.
Oil prices are higher due in large part to countries including China going through an industrial revolution, and as such there is a larger demand allowing for OPEC and the like to charge more.
As far as unemployment goes take a look at this (quoted from The Miami Herald):
Since August, the surging U.S. economy has created more than a million jobs through the end of May. The increase in payroll employment in March and April of 625,000 jobs was the largest two-month job increase in four years. April unemployment was down to 5.6 percent from its peak of 6.3 percent last June and below the 6.25 percent average rate since 1970, and far below the 8 percent average unemployment rate for Europe.
Thank John Edwards and other trial lawyers like him for your rising healthcare costs.
Lastly, what exactly is it that John Kerry has in the way of background, experience, and leadership. Traditionally Senators (legislators) are not looked at as having the proper experience, most often a governor (executive branch) is chosen. As far as his experience in the senate he is absent at a substantial number of votes, which is what we pay him to do. As far as his leadership, where is it? the big joke with him is that he flip-flops on every issue.
Bill
been away for a while but thought I’d respond anyway…
I have some responses to your counter points but then something occurred to me. While all of the issues may be important the one issue that means the most to me is Iraq. I can’t put issue discussion ahead of the unnecessary loss of life there. Thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens. We should get into all facets of this issue because it is THE issue.
It’s not just the presidents giving several reasons for the war, it’s changing the reason when THE reason didn’t pan out. There were no weapons found, so there was no “imminent threat”. There were weapons there at one time though. We gave them to Saddam to use against Iran, and he did. He used them against his own people too, and we did nothing.
The buy in for war required from the American people is that we are threatened and therefore need to defend ourselves. We were told that he had deployable weapons that could be used against us. We were given a useless new tool called a “terror alert” to reinforce our need to fear Iraq (and terror in general) but not told what in the hell we are supposed to do other than be afraid. That is pitiful poor leadership.
The president was so successful in pulling off this tactic that people have forgotten (so I’ll type in all caps) THAT SADDAM DID NOT ATTACK US ON 911 OSAMA BIN LADEN DID. He remains at large. Give this more than cursory thought for it is critically important and many people have died for this lack of understanding.
Your quote, “I also believe a show of force in the middle east was needed, and that Iraq was the best target.”
So it’s ok to attack anywhere? War does not end conflict it breeds it. Should another attack happen on our soil shall we choose at random who gets to die? Syria, Iran or Korea?
I also think that the president has a basic misunderstanding of the “war on terror”. Terror is not a state so it cannot be attacked in our conventional sense of war. How can you declare war against a concept and win? I believe that this is where the administration is leaning on our ignorance. It’s easier for the public to digest the fact that government is doing something that they can see rather than the covert tactics it might require to stop another 911. I feel they are trying kill a nest of bees by sticking a finger into the hive.
When they bombed the WTC 130 days into Clintons presidency he had the perpetrators, caught, tried and convicted. That is more than we can say for Mr. Bush. You will need to look much farther back than Clinton if you want to asses blame for 911. Regans presidency had more acts of terrorism than any other and his actions in Afghanistan of supporting and deserting the Mujahadin against the Soviets did have a direct impact on 911. For Bin Laden was there, he was the one receiving American arms and was then deserted by the US when the Soviets came back to crush his people (quite similar to what happened to the Kurds in Iraq during Gulf War Part 1, check GW seniors involvement there yourself).
First off, I wouldn’t say that because no weapons have been found, that they aren’t/weren’t there. You are right they did have them and use them in the past. They also, under the terms of the cease fire from the 1st Gulf War, were supposed to show proof of their destruction. Something like 12 UN resolutions later, they still hadn’t provided that proof. Intelligence gathered in the 90’s to today showed they were actually pursuing further weapons programs. Intelligence that Kerry while on the Senate Intelligence committee had and agreed with, Intelligence that Clinton agreed with (look back at many of his speeches on the subject) and finally evidence that Edwards who is currently on the Intelligence Committee agreed with. Both of whom (Kerry and Edwards) voted for the use of force in Iraq.
Obviously, I am saddened to see innocent civilians and our servicemen lose their lives, but the war in Iraq has been a tremendous success. Just look at the fact that Libya has already turned over it’s weapons programs and we have inspectors in Iran and N. Korea. The Iraqi people, contrary to what is constistently shown on the news, are much better off and thankful. Most of the attacks you see on our troops are coming from insurgents from other countries such as Syria and Iran. Why do you think this is? These countries are terrified of what a free country in that part of the world would do to their power and control over their people.It’s funny that you use the phrase “unneccessary loss of life there”, what exactly would you call what Saddam was doing to his people?
As far as Saddam not attacking the US but Osama, of course that’s right. But Saddam also isn’t some innocent victim. The links between Iraq an d Al Qaeda are becoming more and more apparent. Iraq wasn’t simply chosen at random, you may be right that “war doesn’t end conflict” but neither does sitting idly by hoping the everyone will like us. Like you stated in your post Reagan’s presidency had many terrorist attack as well as Clinton’s, neither in my opinion handled them appropriately and the attacks kept happening.
As an aside, the Soviet Afghan war was considered Russia’s Vietnam. Both sides took heavy casualties, but the US had no need to take direct action. The Russians were eventually driven out.
As for the Kurds in the 1st Gulf war you are absolutely correct, Bush should have followed through. However, he was under UN mandate to stop short of Baghdad and leave Saddam in power. It is the fault of the UN the Kurds were slaughtered.
As for the “War on Terror”, what else would you call it? We are taking the battle to those who would have us killed (terrorists). I’m not sure how by putting a name to it is “leaning on our ignorance”. As a matter of fact, the president would be critized by the media for doing nothing if simply relied on “covert tactics”.
In the end, what would Kerry/Edwards do differently? Both voted for the war. Kerry has publicly stated that he would be willing to launch a pre-emptive strike against terrorists.
Edwards is a first term senator with no other political experience (who some say probably wouldn’t be re-elected to a second term). Most importantly, what are they going to do to keep this country safe?
John
Corey, Thank you for your comments. I heard enough negative ads. about Sen. John Kerry a flip-flopper. Should we proud what President Bush and Vice Pre. has done to our country lately? I belive you should open your eyes and think.
Keith
John, As far as I can see Corey has his Eyes wide open enough to give more details than what you have posted. While I do not agree with all Corey has said in his posts, I do respect that they are well thought out.
Keith
Oh and by the way here are some other isuues with the French,
This was in Aljazeera back in April of this year,
If anybody wondered why the sainted United Nations, France, Russia and Syria joined forces in trying to block the United States from ousting Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime in Iraq, the answer is now becoming clear; they feared exposure of the corruption into which they had dragged the now-infamous Oil for Food program.
This was in The Washingon Times in March of this year,
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry complains that President Bush pursued a unilateralist foreign policy that gave short shrift to the concerns of the United Nations and our allies when it came to taking military action against Saddam Hussein. But the mounting evidence of scandal that has been uncovered in the U.N. Oil For Food program suggests that there was never a serious possibility of getting Security Council support for military action because influential people in Russia and France were getting paid off by Saddam. After the fall of Baghdad last spring, France and Russia tried to delay the lifting of sanctions against Iraq and continue the Oil for Food program. That’s because France and Russia profited from it: The Times of London calculated that French and Russian companies received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996 and 2003.
The was posted by The Heritage Foundation in April of this year,
What is required is a Security Council-appointed investigation mandated by a U.N. resolution, with powers of criminal prosecution. In addition, the Bush Administration should launch its own investigation of the Oil-for-Food program and link it to a sustained U.S.-led campaign to reform the United Nations.
Specifically:
The Security Council should appoint an independent investigation into Oil-for-Food, completely separate from the U.N. bureaucracy and staffed by non-U.N. personnel. Kofi Annan’s handpicked commission of inquiry, while led by distinguished figures, lacks real power and credibility. The U.N. Secretary General should not be in a position to select members of a commission investigating allegations against his own organization.
The United States and Great Britain should take the lead by putting forward a U.N. resolution calling for a Security Council-appointed investigation. France and Russia may initially try to block such a resolution, since French and Russian politicians and businessmen have been heavily implicated in the Oil-for-Food scandal. However, the U.S. is likely to gain majority support in the Security Council: France and Russia will find it politically difficult to exercise their veto power.
A leading international accounting firm with no previous ties to the U.N. should be hired to help conduct the investigation, alongside top criminal investigators. Investigators should be drawn from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Interpol, Scotland Yard, and other leading criminal investigative units.
If the Security Council investigation recommends that criminal charges be brought against U.N. employees, those identified should be suspended pending resolution of the charges and have their diplomatic immunity waived to permit trial. U.N. officials and individuals implicated with criminal activity in the Oil-for-Food fraud should then be extradited to face trial in Iraq. Since the Iraqi people were the victims of the Oil-for-Food scam, it is appropriate that the Iraqi legal system try to sentence those responsible. If convicted, their U.N. employment should be terminated.
The Bush Administration, backed by Congress, should launch its own separate investigation into the United Nations’ handling of the Oil-for-Food program. The United States should call for fundamental reform of the U.N. system, an annual external audit of the world body, and a Security Council-imposed code of conduct for all U.N. employees. Long-term U.S. funding of the United Nations should be made dependent upon widespread and satisfactory reform within the U.N.
Bill,
I’ve tried so hard not to comment about all the anti-Bush stuff, but what exactly is it you HATE so much about him? I know politics tend to be a touchy subject, but ABB (Anybody But Bush) seems excessive. It reeks to me of the same rhetoric that the “Left” accuses the “Right” of (especially when it comes to President Clinton).
I’m sure that neither one of us will change regarding our choice for president, but an honest debate of all the pro’s and con’s of each candidate should be expected from all of us.
Corey
Corey,
Please feel free to say whatever you want. As much as this is my personal blog and soapbox the comment area is for anyone.
My intention is not to demonize a whole party because in fact without a left and a right there is no democracy and that’s not what the country was founded on. In fact I listen to both sides and in the middle try to glean what I feel is the truth. Although I can only handle so much Rush L. I agree with you that one should debate both sides and come to a decision. And, I applaud the fact that you are interested enough to care and will vote. Of course I would like people to vote for the candidate I like, so would you. I’m under no illusions that I’ll ever change anyones mind. I really don’t believe that is even possible.
That said my personal feeling is that this President has done a horrible job representing this country and I will vote for someone else.
If you remove him from his policies which prop up big business with major tax breaks while the middle and lower classes struggle, his ploicy to keep cheaper drugs that seniors (on a fixed income) get from Canada from entering the country, his environmental policys which defy my description, his contiunally tying church and state (or God, his God maybe not mine or my neighbors) so close that it is scary (“God told me to attack Iraq”), the freedoms that most Americans don’t realize that they have given up under the Patriot Act just because maybe it hasn’t directly affected them yet, his over-simplification of the Isreali Palistinian conflict that should be solved so easliy with “The Roadmap”, his lying about WMD’s to scare us, and finally for the deaths of my brothers and sisters serving in the Armed Forces in Iraq for a reason that continues to change subtly with each speech, remove him from those things and possibly I don’t “hate” him.
There is no justification for what has been done in Iraq. It hasn’t made the world a safer place, in fact we will most likely feel the repurcussions for decades. For our policies years ago in Afghanistan were most likely a factor in the atrocities commited against us on 911. Â The book (link) below, gives, what I feel, is a balnced account of the effect of American foreign policy on the world, good and bad. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805075593/qid=1089296091/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7669315-8878552?v=glance&s=books
By the by, yes the ABB thing is over the top and maybe excessive. But my point is that I care where this country is headed, and at the moment, I really don’t like it.
I am on the fence still, I don’t agree with or like everthing Bush has done. However I have reservations about Kerry and don’t know if he could do any better. I also am worried that Kerry will try to hard to kiss the Internation communities rear end (especially the French)
This thing about the French kills me. We decided to go to war independent of what the United Nations (which we are a part of) said. The French also decided, along with many nations, not to participate. Why do we have to demonize an entire country and culture because the won’t act like bobble heads when the US says JUMP!
The answer is we don’t. In my opinion that type of feeling is what creates problems between cultures. We ARE an international community and not it’s leader. That’s why all of the flags in the UN are in a circle.
Does anyone remember that it was the French who helped us settle this country and make it great?
Ok Bill, we have more than paid them back for their assistance for their help against the British (World War 1 and 2, and the Cold War). What really angers me over the French is something that was stated during Bush’s visit to Turkey were all Bush stated was that he believes Turkey is ready to be a active member in the European, to which the French replied we need mind our own bussness… He wan not issueing any kind of decree that this should happen.
Does anyone remember the 2 wold wars we were dragged into because we attempted to mind our own busness…
I’m going to have to side with Bill over the France/French issue. They’re being called or portrayed as evil because they said no to us. With regard to Turkey, Turkey said “yes daddy, we’ll do what we’re told” and so daddy backed them. I would’ve told us to shut up to.
I’m not on the fence. I don’t think anyone can paint any rosy picture of this country under the present leadership. Things have gone bad in a hurry. You know we only can look at how our own life is affected and during the previous adminstration, though putting us through a media nightmare, the coutry WAS a better place to live. There’s been talk about what happened when this one was in command and that one and I heard this or I read that. For the average person, they will look and say- “when was my life better or worse”. Oil prices, our protectors dieing in a far off world, unemployment, healthcare — all have become horrible.
I have tremendous confidence in John Kerry. He has the backgroud and experience, leadership, and brains to right the ship. And when we’re ready to debate the person, let’s look at what we think he can do for us. We already know what Bush can.
4 more years of the last 4- no thanks.
Bill,
I don’t declare myself an expert on the nuances of all the issues. I also don’t believe that President Bush is perfect (far from it), but I absolutely believe he is the better of the choices we’re now given. I’ll try to respond to the points you made:
-Catering to the “rich”, I bet all of us got a tax cut this year thanks to President Bush. A tax break that Kerry said he would take away. Now as far as cutting taxes of business’, etc. It depends on what kind of economical model you subscribe to, I believe that money is better spent and more efficient in our hands rather than the government.
-I’m not aware of President Bush’s policy on prescription medicine. But, I do know that he signed a law into effect that gave seniors on medicare prescription coverage.
-What environmental policies, in particular?
-As far as some conspiracy to force his religious views on us I don’t see it. Sure he is religious, I’ve seen nothing to show he is trying to force “his” religion on anybody. As far as the “God told me to do it” quote, the prime minister of Palestine told a paper he said that. As far as I know that was never validated.
-I haven’t looked to deeply into how deeply the “Patriot Act” cuts into our liberties (shame on me). I will say that I’ve heard some things that if true are pretty scary.
– The roadmap to peace was drawn up by the US, UN, EU, and Russia. That isn’t Bush’s baby.
– Iraq, there are just to many facets to this to get into. We could go around in circles about whether we should/shouldn’t have, why/why not, WMD/liberation, etc. I will concede that President Bush giving several different reasons for going to war, gives plenty of fuel for the left to attack him and the war. But I will say that it had to be done, in my opinion the reason that 9/11 happened was in part due to President Clinton not responding to any of the attacks during his presidency. I feel that this emboldened the terrorists. Notice that there hasn’t been another attack since. I’m positive that they will try again, but I feel that they have been knocked back. I also believe a show of force in the middle east was needed, and that Iraq was the best target.
Brian,
Where are you getting that Turkey was just doing what it was told?
I totally disagree that things have gone bad in a hurry. Things were going bad before Bush, continued getting worse into Bush’s presidency, and now at the end of his first term the economy is in better shape than when he took office. If you really look at it, the economy has always been cyclical, a 1-2 year down cycle after the boom of the 90’s is pretty incredible.
Oil prices are higher due in large part to countries including China going through an industrial revolution, and as such there is a larger demand allowing for OPEC and the like to charge more.
As far as unemployment goes take a look at this (quoted from The Miami Herald):
Since August, the surging U.S. economy has created more than a million jobs through the end of May. The increase in payroll employment in March and April of 625,000 jobs was the largest two-month job increase in four years. April unemployment was down to 5.6 percent from its peak of 6.3 percent last June and below the 6.25 percent average rate since 1970, and far below the 8 percent average unemployment rate for Europe.
Thank John Edwards and other trial lawyers like him for your rising healthcare costs.
Lastly, what exactly is it that John Kerry has in the way of background, experience, and leadership. Traditionally Senators (legislators) are not looked at as having the proper experience, most often a governor (executive branch) is chosen. As far as his experience in the senate he is absent at a substantial number of votes, which is what we pay him to do. As far as his leadership, where is it? the big joke with him is that he flip-flops on every issue.
been away for a while but thought I’d respond anyway…
I have some responses to your counter points but then something occurred to me. While all of the issues may be important the one issue that means the most to me is Iraq. I can’t put issue discussion ahead of the unnecessary loss of life there. Thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens. We should get into all facets of this issue because it is THE issue.
It’s not just the presidents giving several reasons for the war, it’s changing the reason when THE reason didn’t pan out. There were no weapons found, so there was no “imminent threat”. There were weapons there at one time though. We gave them to Saddam to use against Iran, and he did. He used them against his own people too, and we did nothing.
The buy in for war required from the American people is that we are threatened and therefore need to defend ourselves. We were told that he had deployable weapons that could be used against us. We were given a useless new tool called a “terror alert” to reinforce our need to fear Iraq (and terror in general) but not told what in the hell we are supposed to do other than be afraid. That is pitiful poor leadership.
The president was so successful in pulling off this tactic that people have forgotten (so I’ll type in all caps) THAT SADDAM DID NOT ATTACK US ON 911 OSAMA BIN LADEN DID. He remains at large. Give this more than cursory thought for it is critically important and many people have died for this lack of understanding.
Your quote, “I also believe a show of force in the middle east was needed, and that Iraq was the best target.”
So it’s ok to attack anywhere? War does not end conflict it breeds it. Should another attack happen on our soil shall we choose at random who gets to die? Syria, Iran or Korea?
I also think that the president has a basic misunderstanding of the “war on terror”. Terror is not a state so it cannot be attacked in our conventional sense of war. How can you declare war against a concept and win? I believe that this is where the administration is leaning on our ignorance. It’s easier for the public to digest the fact that government is doing something that they can see rather than the covert tactics it might require to stop another 911. I feel they are trying kill a nest of bees by sticking a finger into the hive.
When they bombed the WTC 130 days into Clintons presidency he had the perpetrators, caught, tried and convicted. That is more than we can say for Mr. Bush. You will need to look much farther back than Clinton if you want to asses blame for 911. Regans presidency had more acts of terrorism than any other and his actions in Afghanistan of supporting and deserting the Mujahadin against the Soviets did have a direct impact on 911. For Bin Laden was there, he was the one receiving American arms and was then deserted by the US when the Soviets came back to crush his people (quite similar to what happened to the Kurds in Iraq during Gulf War Part 1, check GW seniors involvement there yourself).
One more thing that I’ll touch on here. I’m sorry but the flip-flop rhetoric is pure partisan politics from the right. And it is indeed a joke. Mr. Bush is as guilty of it as anyone http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263
First off, I wouldn’t say that because no weapons have been found, that they aren’t/weren’t there. You are right they did have them and use them in the past. They also, under the terms of the cease fire from the 1st Gulf War, were supposed to show proof of their destruction. Something like 12 UN resolutions later, they still hadn’t provided that proof. Intelligence gathered in the 90’s to today showed they were actually pursuing further weapons programs. Intelligence that Kerry while on the Senate Intelligence committee had and agreed with, Intelligence that Clinton agreed with (look back at many of his speeches on the subject) and finally evidence that Edwards who is currently on the Intelligence Committee agreed with. Both of whom (Kerry and Edwards) voted for the use of force in Iraq.
Obviously, I am saddened to see innocent civilians and our servicemen lose their lives, but the war in Iraq has been a tremendous success. Just look at the fact that Libya has already turned over it’s weapons programs and we have inspectors in Iran and N. Korea. The Iraqi people, contrary to what is constistently shown on the news, are much better off and thankful. Most of the attacks you see on our troops are coming from insurgents from other countries such as Syria and Iran. Why do you think this is? These countries are terrified of what a free country in that part of the world would do to their power and control over their people.It’s funny that you use the phrase “unneccessary loss of life there”, what exactly would you call what Saddam was doing to his people?
As far as Saddam not attacking the US but Osama, of course that’s right. But Saddam also isn’t some innocent victim. The links between Iraq an d Al Qaeda are becoming more and more apparent. Iraq wasn’t simply chosen at random, you may be right that “war doesn’t end conflict” but neither does sitting idly by hoping the everyone will like us. Like you stated in your post Reagan’s presidency had many terrorist attack as well as Clinton’s, neither in my opinion handled them appropriately and the attacks kept happening.
As an aside, the Soviet Afghan war was considered Russia’s Vietnam. Both sides took heavy casualties, but the US had no need to take direct action. The Russians were eventually driven out.
As for the Kurds in the 1st Gulf war you are absolutely correct, Bush should have followed through. However, he was under UN mandate to stop short of Baghdad and leave Saddam in power. It is the fault of the UN the Kurds were slaughtered.
As for the “War on Terror”, what else would you call it? We are taking the battle to those who would have us killed (terrorists). I’m not sure how by putting a name to it is “leaning on our ignorance”. As a matter of fact, the president would be critized by the media for doing nothing if simply relied on “covert tactics”.
In the end, what would Kerry/Edwards do differently? Both voted for the war. Kerry has publicly stated that he would be willing to launch a pre-emptive strike against terrorists.
Edwards is a first term senator with no other political experience (who some say probably wouldn’t be re-elected to a second term). Most importantly, what are they going to do to keep this country safe?
Corey, Thank you for your comments. I heard enough negative ads. about Sen. John Kerry a flip-flopper. Should we proud what President Bush and Vice Pre. has done to our country lately? I belive you should open your eyes and think.
John, As far as I can see Corey has his Eyes wide open enough to give more details than what you have posted. While I do not agree with all Corey has said in his posts, I do respect that they are well thought out.
Oh and by the way here are some other isuues with the French,
This was in Aljazeera back in April of this year,
If anybody wondered why the sainted United Nations, France, Russia and Syria joined forces in trying to block the United States from ousting Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime in Iraq, the answer is now becoming clear; they feared exposure of the corruption into which they had dragged the now-infamous Oil for Food program.
This was in The Washingon Times in March of this year,
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry complains that President Bush pursued a unilateralist foreign policy that gave short shrift to the concerns of the United Nations and our allies when it came to taking military action against Saddam Hussein. But the mounting evidence of scandal that has been uncovered in the U.N. Oil For Food program suggests that there was never a serious possibility of getting Security Council support for military action because influential people in Russia and France were getting paid off by Saddam. After the fall of Baghdad last spring, France and Russia tried to delay the lifting of sanctions against Iraq and continue the Oil for Food program. That’s because France and Russia profited from it: The Times of London calculated that French and Russian companies received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996 and 2003.
The was posted by The Heritage Foundation in April of this year,
What is required is a Security Council-appointed investigation mandated by a U.N. resolution, with powers of criminal prosecution. In addition, the Bush Administration should launch its own investigation of the Oil-for-Food program and link it to a sustained U.S.-led campaign to reform the United Nations.
Specifically:
The Security Council should appoint an independent investigation into Oil-for-Food, completely separate from the U.N. bureaucracy and staffed by non-U.N. personnel. Kofi Annan’s handpicked commission of inquiry, while led by distinguished figures, lacks real power and credibility. The U.N. Secretary General should not be in a position to select members of a commission investigating allegations against his own organization.
The United States and Great Britain should take the lead by putting forward a U.N. resolution calling for a Security Council-appointed investigation. France and Russia may initially try to block such a resolution, since French and Russian politicians and businessmen have been heavily implicated in the Oil-for-Food scandal. However, the U.S. is likely to gain majority support in the Security Council: France and Russia will find it politically difficult to exercise their veto power.
A leading international accounting firm with no previous ties to the U.N. should be hired to help conduct the investigation, alongside top criminal investigators. Investigators should be drawn from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Interpol, Scotland Yard, and other leading criminal investigative units.
If the Security Council investigation recommends that criminal charges be brought against U.N. employees, those identified should be suspended pending resolution of the charges and have their diplomatic immunity waived to permit trial. U.N. officials and individuals implicated with criminal activity in the Oil-for-Food fraud should then be extradited to face trial in Iraq. Since the Iraqi people were the victims of the Oil-for-Food scam, it is appropriate that the Iraqi legal system try to sentence those responsible. If convicted, their U.N. employment should be terminated.
The Bush Administration, backed by Congress, should launch its own separate investigation into the United Nations’ handling of the Oil-for-Food program. The United States should call for fundamental reform of the U.N. system, an annual external audit of the world body, and a Security Council-imposed code of conduct for all U.N. employees. Long-term U.S. funding of the United Nations should be made dependent upon widespread and satisfactory reform within the U.N.