Keith writes:

1

As someone pointed out in one of the Sunday shows, Kerry keeps pressing this made up coalition issue; yet during the first Gulf War when we had just the coalition he would now want he voted against the war.

So, he votes against the war when we have the coalition he would want, and he votes for the war when we do not have the coalition he would want.

Makes perfect sense...
if you are an anti-war socialist liberal running for president.

posted on 10.05.2004 12:00 AM

MariesTwoCents writes:

2

http://mariestwocents.blogspot.com/

posted on 10.05.2004 12:58 AM

Rob Smith writes:

3

Who in our military would really want troops from these countries in Iraq? They would be a drain on our logistics, since most do not have the ability to support large numbers of troops out side of their own country; even France and Germany have problems in this area. None of the nations mentioned are likely to be able to provide their own air support, and since they would be unlikely to be able to communicate with our troops you would see an increase in "friendly fire (blue on blue)" incidents. We saw that in Afghanistan, when two AF F-16's engaged a company of Canadians engaging in "live fire" exercises. Also, no other nation has our ability to engage in nighttime operations, so no help there. In short, all these nations would do would be to provide more targets for the terrorists, while contributing very little to our ability to fight the war.

posted on 10.05.2004 6:15 AM

~DS~ writes:

4

Iraq ... what a pickle Bush has gotten us into...how to best attempt to fix it?

We're in a real mess alright. If we cut and run it will be portrayed by Militant Islam as The Great Satan being crushed by the Righteous Power of Allah's Holy Jihad. If we stay, we keep taking casualties and spending billions of dollars a month while fueling anti-American sentiment among Muslims all over the world and accomplish nothing as far as seeking out those who attacked us on 9-11. (Donald Rumsfield yesterday under oath “I haven’t seen any hard evidence that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were working together…”). So if we leave we help the terrorists. And if stay we help terrorists. This is the classic no-win scenario.

The consensus I’ve seen among military commentators is that more, many more, troops are needed in Iraq to stabilize the nation and be able to thwart any future threats to that stability. But here again we run smack into a catch-22; more Americans troops will engender more insurgent support while eroding popular support for the war back here.
And let’s face it. This war has been such an unmitigated disaster, from the initial false premises to the tactics used, that from the Iraqi perspective, Bush is despised. We will not win many hearts and minds as long as Bush is still in charge. So the ideal course would be to have multilateral forces in Iraq. At first look one would have to wonder why anyone would even think about sending their countries troops into that cauldron, but remember; Iraq is not a total economic basket case. They have oil.

Bottom line: To really have a shot at bringing in significant multilateral forces we have to release George Bush from the White House. Sadly our President, who may have simply made an honest mistake (or ten) in invading Iraq and conducting the occupation, is not despised just by the Iraqi’s; he’s managed to alienate much of the world along the way and continues to do so.

posted on 10.05.2004 7:15 AM

Joe Carter writes:

5

DS,

Bottom line: To really have a shot at bringing in significant multilateral forces we have to release George Bush from the White House.

But you never answered the question of what countries you are talking about. Which countries are going to provide troops? None of them are. It doesn't matter who is in the White House.

We need to face the facts. Our "allies" like France and Germany are more concerned about us than they are al Queda. They may not wish us evil but they certainly aren't going to take a bullet for us. Unlike us they could give a damn about establishing democracy. As long as no one is bothering them the rest of world can keep spinning out of control.

Say what you will about Bush, he at least understands that this is the reality we face. Kerry, on the other hand, is completely clueless. Even if I agreed with him on everything else I could not vote for a man who is so totally behind the times when it comes to foreign policy.

posted on 10.05.2004 7:43 AM

~DS~ writes:

6

But you never answered the question of what countries you are talking about. Which countries are going to provide troops? None of them are. It doesn't matter who is in the White House.

I apologize. let me address that; If you wish to speculate about what will or will not happen in the future, that's fine with me. But neither of us knows how Bush's replacement will be perceived or what diplomatic success he will meet.

I can also certainly understand why a supporter of Bush would feel uneasy at the thought of a plan to extricate us from what we all now mostly agree was a mistake which eliminates the President as a plausible architect of hat plan.
I can understand why someone who supports Bush might explore anything they can to discredit that idea. So I think this is a perfectly reasonable tactic for you and others to undertake. Bush's alleged strength has been revealed to many as quite the opposite, and clearly that needs to be shored up to maintain the illusion of competency and hope in our White House.

I suppose it’s possible Bush might flip-flop and change course abruptly, embracing international co-operation and take his place in the community of nations to such a degree that over a few years he regains some of the good will he pissed away. But based on how Bush is perceived in the world right now and his past performance, it's a fair bet that no one is going to take a risk and lend a hand in Iraq to help him out anytime soon. Not without enormous bribery anyway. I agree with you in that regard. But I don’t agree with you that this will extend to other occupants of the Oval Office for all time.

Thus, assuming we're serious about bringing in multilateral help as a potential change of tactics to help the Iraqi’s , the first logical step would be to let Bush retire to the pleasant solitude of Crawford Texas.

posted on 10.05.2004 8:16 AM

tommythecat writes:

7

'Say what you will about Bush, he at least understands that this is the reality we face. '

how, in any way, has bush shown that he knows reality?

btw: crawford's newspaper is endorsing kerry

posted on 10.05.2004 8:31 AM

Rob Smith writes:

8

The consensus I’ve seen among military commentators is that more, many more, troops are needed

Consensus from who, old "has-beens" like Admiral Crowe, and "never was's" like the retired Majors and Light Colonels who populate CNN. A lot of the people you are talking about are still mired in the old "Soviets through the Fulda Gap" mentality. This isn't that kind of war; this is a Special Forces war, where our focus is on eliminating specific targets and, more importantly training the Iraqis to police their own country. What about General Tommy Franks, he was the Commander of all the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and he is one of Bush's biggest supporters? Apparently he was at least satisfied with the support he was getting from Bush and Rumsfeld.

This war has been such an unmitigated disaster, from the initial false premises to the tactics used, that from the Iraqi perspective, Bush is despised.

Really? Nothing has gone right? No WMD's have been found? Iraq was the only country in the world were Al Queda wasn't? The Iraqi people were better off under Saddam? Spouting off this kind of stuff makes you look like a hack, or worse, a kook.

You still haven't answered the post, what would Kerry do to make it better? What countries would Kerry bring in and how would they make it better?

posted on 10.05.2004 8:36 AM

tom harrison writes:

9

I suppose statistically there are some people who sincerely accept Senator Kerry's claim about being able to attract allies; but I'd assumed this was one of those things that people just pretended to believe. It seems to be used mostly as rhetorical filler, and as a launching pad for criticism of President Bush's leadership.

posted on 10.05.2004 8:37 AM

David writes:

10

tommythecat,

And the Lowell Sun of Lowell, Massachusetts endorsed President Bush, so what's your point?

posted on 10.05.2004 8:40 AM

Rob Smith writes:

11

I can also certainly understand why a supporter of Bush would feel uneasy at the thought of a plan to extricate us from what we all now mostly agree was a mistake

Since all the polls show either a tie or a Bush lead, I doubt that "all now mostly agree (that the Iraq War) was a mistake."

posted on 10.05.2004 8:47 AM

Mark O writes:

12

~DS~
Interesting debating tactic. On you second reply, you indicate you *will* list some possible countries which Kerry might bring in to the alliance. But do not. Can you help us guess what countries (on earth and not inhabited by cute fluffy aliens with green skins) he might be thinking of?

Also, while Kerry has called allies in Iraq the "bribed and coerced", he has also indicated in order to bring in more allies, we should have increased the bribes..... go figure.

BTW. I've just started my "own" blog. Not much yet, but I hope to "grow".

posted on 10.05.2004 8:53 AM

Joe Carter writes:

13

DS: I apologize. let me address that; If you wish to speculate about what will or will not happen in the future, that's fine with me. But neither of us knows how Bush's replacement will be perceived or what diplomatic success he will meet.

Of course we don’t. But when has that ever stopped us from expressing our opinion. ; )

I can also certainly understand why a supporter of Bush would feel uneasy at the thought of a plan to extricate us from what we all now mostly agree was a mistake which eliminates the President as a plausible architect of hat plan.

What? Who mentioned anything about “extricating” us from Iraq? Kerry is the one who keeps hinting that he will pull out the troops. I think we are making progress in Iraq.

I can understand why someone who supports Bush might explore anything they can to discredit that idea.

Discredit what idea? Brining in Nigerian troops?

I suppose it’s possible Bush might flip-flop and change course abruptly, embracing international co-operation and take his place in the community of nations to such a degree that over a few years he regains some of the good will he pissed away.

I don’t think you understand our point. Most of us don’t really care what the “international community” thinks. Our friends (Great Britain, Poland, Japan, Australia, South Korea, etc.) are the only ones that we should be concerned about. Seriously, what has France and Germany done in the past hundred years beside lead us into two World Wars?

But based on how Bush is perceived in the world right now and his past performance, it's a fair bet that no one is going to take a risk and lend a hand in Iraq to help him out anytime soon.

You have still avoided the question. Who, in your opinion, would join Kerry and send troops to Iraq?

Thus, assuming we're serious about bringing in multilateral help as a potential change of tactics to help the Iraqi’s , the first logical step would be to let Bush retire to the pleasant solitude of Crawford Texas.

Listen, we all understand that you and the other libs want to stand by Kerry. That’s fine. But why keep feeding us the line that he is going to chance our standing in the world community? Even Democrats have to admit that the only thing a Kerry Administration would lead to is photo ops with irrelevant European leaders.

Tommy btw: crawford's newspaper is endorsing kerry

You're a few days late. I already blogged about the non-story that the Democratic mayor and publisher of the Crawford paper was supporting Kerry. By the way, why do you consider it worthy of pointing out that a Democratic politician is endorsing a Democratic politician?

posted on 10.05.2004 8:57 AM

Kevin W writes:

14

I believe that France and Germany will be "back on the team" during a Kerry Presidency.

1. The US will pull its troops out of Iraq, probably within one year.
2. France and Germany will hail this as an "enlightened move" on the part of the United States, and a "bold attempt to restore America's image abroad."
3. Photo ops all around with the grinning Kerry, and the grinning and gloating Schroeder and Chirac.
4. Iraq descends into civil war, with France and Germany both helping the most militant, most Islamist, and brutal factions who have promised them a return to the heydays of "oil for food".
5. The world's terror networks, emboldened by the surrender of the United States, press their attacks around the world against Americans, Jews, Russians, Indians, Filipinos, Christians, and, ironically, French.
6. John Kerry, though he loses re-election in a Carter-style landslide, is heralded as a great man of peace and later claims the Nobel Peace Prize.

posted on 10.05.2004 9:14 AM

~DS~ writes:

15

Rob the premise I got wasn't 'what would Kerry do to make it better". It was "Nothing anyone can do in international diplomacy will make it better" with the implication that since it can’t be fixed with international help, we shouldn’t even try, and we should keep the same clown who produced this mess.

That is 1) a defeatist attitude and 2) simply beyond the power of anyone on this forum to predict and 3) Seems to predicated on the odd counsel that re-electing the architect of the greatest foreign policy failure in the last 40 years is mandated because no one else can fix the mess-most especially the guy who you want re-elected..

As Stephen Hawking points out however, we remember the past, but not the future. The future remains an unknown we can only guess at. And, if Bush is re-elected, there is a possibility that he could flip-flop 180 degrees and nurture those international relationships he has spurned. Perhaps, after several years, he could repair the damage to those relationships to the point that we might get some help with Iraq. There is currently no sign this will happen, but it’s possible.

Yes Rob, cannot remember the future, but we do remember the past. So we know what this administration has not done well even though we cannot predict with absolute accuracy what they will do well in the future…
Because we can remember the past, we know that Bush disregarded the consensus of the world and many in his own Intel service, and we can remember that many in the world slid from sympathy for us in the wake of 9-11, to viewing Bush with more alarm than they view Al Qaeda as it became clear that Bush was wrong on so many things. I happen to disagree with that view, I think Al Qaeda is more dangerous-at least to us-but in discussing international sentiment my opinion doesn’t really matter.

I could go on ad nauseum with other matters of alleged ‘fact’ we can remember being presented by the Bush crew which turned out to be false. But let’s look at only one for now: The alleged ‘tubes’ which Saddam was going to use as rotors to enrich nuclear fuel.

We can use Hawking’s rejoinder to recall Condeleeza Rice’s assurances to the nation of the nature of the nuclear threat Iraq posed on 9/8/02 in which she said,
RICE (videotape): We do know that there have been shipments going into Iran, for instance—into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to—high-quality aluminum tubes that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.” Emphasis added.

We now know that the CIA and Energy Department had folks who considered those specific tubes so poorly suited to being rotors in centrifuges while Rice was claiming otherwise on National Television, that one expert said something to the effect “If they’re [Iraq] going to try and use these tubes to enrich nuclear fuel to weapons grade, then the best thing we could do would be let them have those tubes”.

And when confronted with that NYT report, she said last Sunday:
RICE (continuing directly): Well, at that time, when I came on your show, I knew there was some debate out there. But I tell you, I did not know the nature of the debate. We learned later, as we were going through the NIE, the Department of Energy's objections.”

This is but one example of the reason the credibility of this specific White House is so poor both here and abroad. Our National Security Advisor got it ass-backwards on national TV and when called on it two years later, excused herself from responsibility because she did not know the details of the debate over the evidence in question. Sheesh! She is either lying for Bush's errors, or she is incompetent.

Thus our allies are understandably concerned over anything this WH tries to tell them based on past experience. And a fresh start with a new face would be a logical first step in trying to regain that credibility. Yes, I can understand that watching Bush’s alleged strength fade into a huge disadvantage would produce panic among his supporters and they would lash out at any alternative ideas on how to proceed. And I don’t claim to know for a fact that multilateral forces and increased non-American troop strengths would solve this clusterF that Bush got us into. But assuming we do agree that increased international presence would be helpful, I don’t see that as a very good reason to re-elect the architect of said clusterF. How could anyone?

posted on 10.05.2004 9:25 AM

~DS~ writes:

16

I agree Joe. Nothing wrong with expressing our opinions. :) You haver an interesting question here and I think it's a good topic to explore.

posted on 10.05.2004 9:31 AM

Kevin W writes:

17

I think that whatever "coalition" Kerry is able to cobble together, he can forget about Poland. President Kwasniewski has just said that Kerry's performance during the debate was reprehensible and unfitting a Senator of 20 years. If this is diplomacy, Kerry-style, maybe he doesn't know as much as he thinks.

But hey, who needs friends like Poland, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Italy, when those bastions of freedom, France and Germany, are standing with you?

posted on 10.05.2004 9:38 AM

Kevin W writes:

18

I think that whatever "coalition" Kerry is able to cobble together, he can forget about Poland. President Kwasniewski has just said that Kerry's performance during the debate was reprehensible and unfitting a Senator of 20 years. If this is diplomacy, Kerry-style, maybe he doesn't know as much as he thinks.

But hey, who needs friends like Poland, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Italy, when those bastions of freedom, France and Germany, are standing with you?

posted on 10.05.2004 9:39 AM

Mr. Moderate writes:

19

In the spring Kerry said he had leaders from allied countries calling him telling him that they would support him internationally. The Republicans called such conversations treasonous. Today Kerry says that he will build a real coalition. Republicans want to proof of assurances from these foreign powers. Double standard? "If he talks to the foreign leaders he's a traitor." "If he doesn't talk to the foreign leaders then he really can't have a plan." Which one is it guys? Even if he does talk to the foreign leaders they won't provide him real assurances until he's president. They don't want to have to deal with Cowboy Bush on an even less amicable basis than they already have.

posted on 10.05.2004 9:39 AM

Joe Carter writes:

20

Moderate,

In the spring Kerry said he had leaders from allied countries calling him telling him that they would support him internationally.

Even if he does talk to the foreign leaders they won't provide him real assurances until he's president.

So which is it? Are you saying that Kerry was lying or are you implying that he was duped by these foreign leaders?

posted on 10.05.2004 9:46 AM

Mr. Moderate writes:

21

Kevin,

Poland is starting their pullout in the beginning of next year to be done by 2005. We don't have them on our side anymore as of right now! Here is what President Kwasniewski said as well, "They [Bush Administration] deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride."

Now your quotes I can only find in right wing blogs and message boards. Can we find a quote from a news source. I'll tell you why. The right wing version has lines like this:

"President Bush performed like a truly Texan gentleman..."

A native Polander talking about Texan-style gentlemen?

"Anti-terror coalition is larger than the USA..."

A foreign leader using language confusing the war on terror with the war in Iraq in the same way our WH does?

I'm not saying its impossible, I'm saying I want a more reputable source than "Free" Republic.

posted on 10.05.2004 9:47 AM

Kevin W writes:

22

Actually, Mr. "Moderate", the fact that Kerry is deep in the pockets of foreign leaders helps Bush. It doesn't hurt him.

Do you really believe it hurts the president when Americans read that over 80% of Muslims want Kerry elected? Or that the majority of the French do?

It's not treasonous to seek out support from foreign leaders, maybe. But it sure as hell is stupid. Most Americans can't name a governor of more than two states outside their own. So why the hell do you think we care who the Malaysians want to have win the presidency?

Talk about out of touch. This Kerry campaign has to be the absolutely worst ever. They run a filthy rich guy who married into money, then married into bigger money, who uses his Vietnam record which turned out to be mainly BS, who is so out of touch with the average voter that President Bush, despite horrible press, is going to win something like 39 states. Unreal. But Kerry can go to his grave knowing that, if the French and the Indonesians were allowed to vote, he would have won the White House.

posted on 10.05.2004 9:48 AM

Mr. Moderate writes:

23

So which is it? Are you saying that Kerry was lying or are you implying that he was duped by these foreign leaders?

I'm saying that he probably talked to foreign leaders, which is only traitorous in the warped minds of the neo-cons, but that they will not give guarantees to a presidential candidate--only a president. Clear that up for you Joe?

posted on 10.05.2004 9:48 AM

Mr. Moderate writes:

24

Kevin,

Boy you love banging on the French don't you. I did too through the summer of 2003--when I realized I had been bamboozled by the WH. Last I checked the 38 countries where those polls where taken and the overwhelming majority think that Bush should be voted out consisted of more than France, France, France, et cetera. In fact included in those countries was our biggest partner GB. Even in countries Bush performed better than Kerry he still had less support than in the U.S. Should foreigners decide our election, no? Should it mean something when all of our economic, political and military partner's populations think our president is misguided and heading the U.S. in the wrong direction, yes! It means it's something we should take into consideration when public sentiment against our country could turn so sour throughout the entire Western World within less than 4 years. This is especially true after the unprecedentally high levels that we had after 9/11.

posted on 10.05.2004 9:55 AM

~DS~ writes:

25

Kevin,

I'm sure the Iraqi's don't want Bush re-elected. I can imagine that Arab-American's don't want Bush re-elected. Most of the world does not want Bush re-elected.
However, Al Qaeada may or may not want Bush re-elected. The only statement we have on that from AQ was released after the attack in Spain in which the spokesperson said they want Bush in power because he's foolish or something like that. I don't recall the details.

Back to the topic more or less... For those who asked me to provide a basis for my opinion that we needed more troops from the get-go through the occupation, the raging liberal tool Jerry Bremer seems to agree with that opinion.

Bremer's comments were striking because they echoed contentions of many administration critics, including Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, who argue that the U.S. government failed to plan adequately to maintain security in Iraq after the invasion. Bremer has generally defended the U.S. approach in Iraq but in recent weeks has begun to criticize the administration for tactical and policy shortfalls.

Bremer said: ” "We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

Read the rest at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6180514/

posted on 10.05.2004 10:00 AM

Dave S. writes:

26

Nations form alliances because they feel that doing so will be in their own best interest over time. They do not form alliances because they like a country's leader, and they do not act against their own self interest because they dislike someone. We are not talking about the sixth grade.

France, Germany, and Russia all had significant business interests with Saddam's regime. France and Germany also have large Moslem populations and their own internal security concerns. This is why none supported us in this war.

France has a faily modern and capable armed force, but also has her own commitments around the world. Germany spends very little on defense and has instead based their defense policy on the US troops stationed in Germany.

The idea that some other countries are going to rush into Iraq, allowing us to ship ours home is ludicrous.

As to whether or "most of the world" wants the President re-elected: who cares? We are having an election soon enough and as I recall, the only votes that count are our own.

posted on 10.05.2004 10:55 AM

Chris writes:

27

Joe, I think it's safe to say that you've failed to understand what Kerry said. He certainly doesn't believe that Arab states will help him in Iraq, and has given no indication that he does. His talk of "old allies" has almost always meant Europe (specifically France and Germany).

You also failed to mention that Germany and Italy also provided military support (however minimal).

Does Kerry naively believe that France, Germany, Italy, and other nations now completely disaffected with U.S. policy in Iraq (and in some cases, the larger "war on terrorism") are going to send tens of thousands of troops to Iraq? Certainly not, but Germany has a well-trained military police force, Italy can provide support, and France can provide troops. What's more, if these countries are on our side, they can provide money! Naturally, we'll still be doing the lion's share of the work, militarily and financially, but that's the way it always is, and Kerry has said nothing to imply that he thinks otherwise.

posted on 10.05.2004 11:17 AM

Rob Smith writes:

28

nurture those international relationships he has spurned. Perhaps, after several years, he could repair the damage to those relationships to the point that we might get some help with Iraq.

What international relationships has Bush spurned? Liberals are always a little vague on who the nations are. Do they include France? Germany? You'd think they might show a little gratitude after we spent 40+ years and billions of dollars keeping the Soviets from overrunning Western Europe, but no, they were more concerned with keeping their oil deals with Saddam. Hell, there wouldn't even be a France if it weren't for the US (World War 2, anyone). Maybe if we promised them exclusive control of the oil fields they might join the "coalition of the bribed and coerced." What about Syria, Iran, and the other thugocracies of the Middle East? Are they among the nations we spurned? And what could Bush or Kerry do to court these spurned former lovers? Sign the Kyoto accord (ruin the economy), or perhaps the IOC (have US soldiers tried as war criminals by Cubans, Syrians, Iranians). Really, why is it always the US that has to bend over and grab their ankles to make the world happy?

Bremer said: ” "We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

Allow me to point out that Bremer is a diplomat, not a soldier. Tommy Franks never complained about too few troops on the ground.

posted on 10.05.2004 11:29 AM

tgirsch writes:

29

~DS~:

The only statement we have on that from AQ was released after the attack in Spain in which the spokesperson said they want Bush in power because he's foolish or something like that.

Details are here:

The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."

The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world.

Joe:

You are decidedly in the minority in thinking things are going well in Iraq. The consensus is that much more troops are needed, and you're arguing that they won't come from allies. You've also argued that there won't be a military draft. So where are these additional troops going to come from? Or do you think we can get by continuing to run the war on the cheap?

posted on 10.05.2004 12:16 PM

tgirsch writes:

30

Rob Smith:

You forget that our two biggest "allies" in this, Great Britain and Spain, supported us despite the fact that their populations overwhelmingly opposed what we were doing. With a change in leadership and a willingness to relinquish some control, we could conceivably receive additional support from existing allies like GB and Spain, as well as adding European allies like France and Germany, by re-winning their populations to our cause.

I know you don't care that the world hates our president. But if you're going to be an isolationist, then be an isolationist; otherwise don't. You can't have it both ways.

posted on 10.05.2004 12:21 PM

Rob Smith writes:

31

It means it's something we should take into consideration when public sentiment against our country could turn so sour throughout the entire Western World within less than 4 years. This is especially true after the unprecedentally high levels that we had after 9/11.

To me, this shows that the rest of the world prefers a weak, bloodied US, coincidentally so do most liberals. Let's face it France doesn't like us because we are a strong, dynamic nation and they are not. France has not been an important world power since the Napoleonic era, and it justs frosts them that a bunch of uncultured boobs, led by a Texan is the most powerful nation in the world. The same could be said for most of the other nations of Western Europe. If the world were a Simpsons episode, Western Europe would be Grandpa Simpson.

posted on 10.05.2004 12:29 PM

~DS~ writes:

32

Rob S, rather or not France and Germany should show gratitude for WW2 is something I have no control over; but I'm firmly on your side that they damn well should. Not to mention WE stood up to the USSR for fifty freaking years, on their behalf to a great deal. The USSR posed a greater threat than Al Qaeada does now to the entire world.

In my opinion Bush is not popular in a number of nations primarily ebcause of Iraq. Canada, GB, Spain, Italy, France, and certainly Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, Turkey etc. That's what folks in those nations I correpsond with tell me in no uncertain terms.
It certainly makes sense that our popularity would plummet after being dead freaking wrong about Iraq and being exposed lying flat out to the UN while ridiculing the input of nations which dared to dissent from Bush's view.

Remember, it's not as if the world loved us to start with. Being the biggest richest kid on the block means people are suspicious and envious of you right off the bat. We had some sympathy after 9-11. But no WMD's, no AQ link,s and over a year of bungling later in Iraq, that has been played out imo.
The question was originally, is Bush likely to flip-flop and go after help from the UN or other orgs, and even if he is, would he be more or less successful at it than someone else who is starting from scratch?
I think he's unlikely to admit the list of errors his WH has made publicly on Iraq and apologize to those nations he ridiculed and downplayed. And but I think even if he does, he has a more difficult uphill battle to regain the credibility he lost internationally than a newcomer would face.

posted on 10.05.2004 12:30 PM

Arthur Dent writes:

33

Moderate:

http://info.onet.pl/988047,11,item.html

is the original report about the Kwasniewski interview. It's of course in Polish, but you can find the "Texan Gentlemen" and several other of the quotes even if you don't know the language. I have to admit that I thought the report was fake, too - apparently my BS radar needs adjustment.

posted on 10.05.2004 12:41 PM

Rob Smith writes:

34

I know you don't care that the world hates our president. But if you're going to be an isolationist, then be an isolationist; otherwise don't. You can't have it both ways.

I relly don't see the connection between the two.

I think you are being pretty simplistic when you blame the "world" hating us on our current president. I honestly don't remember the world loving us that much when Clinton was President. Let's be honest, the reason most of Western Europe and the Islamic world hates us is because after centuries of being important players on the world stage, they are no longer relevant and we are. To echo my previous post, they don't understand how an upstart nation led by an uncultured boob could be the most powerful nation in the world. Not just a little more powerful either, we are by far the most powerful and influential nation in the world and they don't understand it and refuse to accept their diminished role in the world.

posted on 10.05.2004 12:43 PM

Patrick (Gryph) writes:

35

The entire train of thought is irrelevant. It's up to the Iraqis, not the USA whether to allow foreign troops on their soil. Neither President Bush or Kerry have the authority to make those kinds of agreements anymore. Since the changeover to the interim government its up to Allawi. It's his job now. And he has been making the rounds, but so far without too much success.

Also, while there has been a great clamor for security from the Iraqi people, there has been no great clamor for more foreign troops on their soil. It would probably just make things worse. The only real option might be to increase the numbers of US troops, while at the same time continuing the course of getting the Iraqi's to take care of their own security. But it may be too late for more US troops to do any good at this point.

Rummy & Co. screwed us over too much in the beginning for there to be any good solutions left. By way of comparison, our current force is about 150,000 troops. When NATO went in with peacekeeping forces to Bosnia, it was with 500,000 troops. The estimates I've seen for Iraq are that we could have provided stability at the beginning with about 300,000. But the milk is already spilled, its too late. There is no other course now but the slow march forward with high payments in both American and Iraqi blood and money.

posted on 10.05.2004 12:43 PM

Larry Lord writes:

36

The bottom line is that Bush has very little credibility with the world at large. He's perceived (accurately) as a moronic wanna-be cowboy on a half-assed crusade to get elected by rich ignorant white Christian conservatives and keep America rolling along as the world's one and only tough-talking ass-kickin' bully.

Electing Kerry will show the world that America, in fact, is embarassed of George Bush and what he has done to this once-great country's reputation.

Go read the headlines on CNN to see what a bunch of hypocrites are running this country. Did Bush not criticize Kerry's ability to be a "commander in chief" because Kerry questioned the credibility of others? And yet Bush stuck his middle finger in the entire world's face. And now the Bushies are sticking their middle finger in Paul Bremer's face and calling him a liar -- Paul Bremer, the guy who was running the reconstruction efforts in Iraq until this summer. So now we're calling the people we personally installed to run Iraq liars? Say it isn't so!

Of course, Paul Bremer isn't lying. He knew more troops were needed and he was ignored but he was right. THe people who screwed up are still working at their old jobs in this Administration where accountability means pointing fingers at others or, if you're Condi Rice, just pretending to be really frigging stupid.

posted on 10.05.2004 12:51 PM

~DS~ writes:

37

I fear your downbeat forecast may prove accurate Patrick although the idea that Allawi has significant veto power over the US is a bit of a stretch.
But we have to try something to turn things around. We owe it to the Iraqi's and it's squarely in our interests to succeed. So, given that we have to increase troop strength, I'd just as soon at least try to get other nations involved for obvious reasons. Again remember; Iraq is not a basket case. They have one of the largest reservoirs of cheap oil on the globe. And right now oil is flirting with a record 51 $ dollars a barrel.

posted on 10.05.2004 12:52 PM

Rob Smith writes:

38

Sure I am not the first to see this but CNS new is reporting that they have 42 Iraqi intelligence documents confiscated by US forces showing that Iraq had anthrax and mustard gas and operational connections to terrorist organizations, including Al Queda. Not sure how reliable the story is (they have posted some of the documents on their website) but they go are going to great lengths to document their methodology. Anyway, here are the links:

Story: http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html

Methodology:
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200410\NAT20041004b.html

posted on 10.05.2004 12:57 PM

Mark O writes:

39

Patrick,
So when the WH says, "Well, I think you heard from our commander of the region, General Abizaid, about that very issue. And we've always said that we will make sure that our troops have all the resources they need, and we will look to our commanders in the field and our military leaders to make the determinations about what levels of troops are needed to meet our commitments and complete the mission. There has not been any request for additional troops. The military leaders have told us that they have what they need at this point. But that's something that we always look to the commanders on the ground and our military leaders to determine." (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040927-2.html)

You just don't believe that to be true. Is that just wishfull thinking, or do you have facts to back it up?

posted on 10.05.2004 1:02 PM

Rob Smith writes:

40

Of course, Paul Bremer isn't lying.

posted on 10.05.2004 1:02 PM

Larry Lord writes:

41

Joe Carter writes

"Seriously, what has France and Germany done in the past hundred years beside lead us into two World Wars?"

Seriously, Joe, I think there is a company that make special suits which allow people to venture outside of their protective plastic bubbles. Look into it. I'm sure they'll ship to Texas for a small fee.

posted on 10.05.2004 1:05 PM

Dave S. writes:

42

tgirsch- "I know you don't care that the world hates our president. But if you're going to be an isolationist, then be an isolationist; otherwise don't. You can't have it both ways."

Not placing "being liked" at the top of the international to-do list does not make one an isolationist. I would say that those who did not want to engage the enemy in Iraq would be more accurately labeled isolationist than those who do. The anti-war position is reminiscent of Chas. Lindberg and the America First movement prior to WW2. (We spent so much money in Iraq that we could have spent on ourselves!!)

I would also like to point out that being an object of international scorn is a role that the U.S. has played for many years. In the 50s, 60s, and 70s the Marxists couldn't make their Yanqui-Go-Home signs fast enough to keep up with the demand. The idea that we were the darlings of the European set until George W. Bush became president is just not correct.

A country- like a person- is measured by the quality of its friends and not by the number. I don't know about you, but my world does not stop spinning because the French and Germans don't like our president. I'd be more concerned if they did. I don't think that those two have our best interests at heart.

posted on 10.05.2004 2:05 PM

Larry Lord writes:

43

You can apologize anytime, Rob.

From WaPo today:

President Bush's campaign, reacting today to a report that the former U.S. official who governed Iraq after the invasion said more troops had been needed to subdue the country, today acknowledged that L. Paul Bremer had clashed with military leaders over troop levels.

In an unusual public acknowledgment of internal dissent, campaign spokesman Brian Jones said, "Ambassador Bremer differed with the commanders in the field. That is his right, but the president has always said that he will listen to his commanders on the ground and give them the support they need for victory."

The campaign statement contradicted a senior defense official who, speaking on the condition of anonymity, yesterday denied that Bremer has asked for more troops.

posted on 10.05.2004 2:08 PM

Larry Lord writes:

44

"The anti-war position is reminiscent of Chas. Lindberg and the America First movement prior to WW2."

Here we go again. Yeah, it's reminiscent. Vaguely reminiscent. But the circumstances leading up to World War II and those leading up to the US invasion of Iraq are so transparently dissimilar that when such allusions are made one has to wonder if the person making the allusion is joking or just a wingnut reciting from his freeper script. I suspect the latter.

"The idea that we were the darlings of the European set until George W. Bush became president is just not correct."

Nope, it's not. It is a nice strawman for you to beat on, though, isn't it Dave? Keep it up. Maybe both your forearms will be equally muscular after a few years.

"A country- like a person- is measured by the quality of its friends and not by the number."

Or, to put Dave's trite little bogusness in other words, "Friends who ignore you when you ignore them aren't true friends." Or maybe, "The only true friends are those that are afraid of being your enemy."

"I don't think [France and Germany] have our best interests at heart."

And what are America's best interests, Dave? Go Spill it, man. Don't be shy.

posted on 10.05.2004 2:23 PM

Larry Lord writes:

45

Hey Mark O.

So when the White House says

"There has not been any request for additional troops."

but in fact there has been and they know it, does that make them liars?

Just a rhetorical question, of course. I know that when the White House admits its lie the next day, that makes it all fine for those whose memory of inconvenient facts lasts about five hours.

posted on 10.05.2004 2:28 PM

Larry Lord writes:

46

David Marcoe's favorite pollsters prove that 62% of Republicans are complete freaking morons:

According to the most recent Gallup poll, 62% of Republicans think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.

posted on 10.05.2004 2:33 PM

~DS~ writes:

47

If by ‘what other country’s think” we mean what the citizens of other countries collectively do, then what they do is can be pretty damn important to our way of life. They can help us, or they can hurt us.

I don't think anyone is suggesting our every national move and utterance should be carefully vetted with the UN-outside of the Bush admin of course. But like or it not, alpha-male-cowboy-romantic loner aside, we're a global community and a global economy. Terrorists really don't even need to attack us on our soil anymore because we're so dependant on international factors & finances we cannot control. Most notably oil. (This is true of most nations on earth. I’m not singling out the US and it’s not Bush’s fault or anyone elses)

Other nations-outside of the US-will have relationships we do not have with business, political, and ideological centers of influence. Thus, by enlisting those nations in a common cause, we can bring pressure to bear to our benefit on matters affected by those centers of influence.
And it's been a staple in warfare and conflict for all of recorded history to “Divide and conquer”.

If other countries decide to massively boycott US products such as cars, weapons, electronics, commodities, or even cereal, you will hear Wall Street howl along with the entire S & P 500 for the President’s head no matter who they are. And for good reason; In no time that boycott would reach right into your private life and throw you for a loop.

If Japan, China, or Saudi Arabia decided to stop purchasing US Treasury Notes at the auction and dumped all US Treasury Obligations they already have, financing rates on the national debt would shoot up so quickly and so substantially that we would be looking at a national default. You savings, your investments, your checking account would all freeze up; the end result would almost certainly be Bank failure, FDIC failure, the devaluation of currency, both paper and electronic.

That’s the reality we live in folks. So the cowboy response of I don’t care what other nations ‘think’ might play well in a movie or a novel, or even in the rhetoric of a campaign speech, but it’s so far removed from the current reality that it has no meaning at all, outside of scoring a few political points with an unthinking populace that fancies itself as self sufficient. If you really think that...Stop kidding yourself.

posted on 10.05.2004 2:38 PM

Rob Smith writes:

48

LL--I misunderstood your comments, I thought you were talking about people here calling Bremer a liar, so no apologies to you or Bremer:P. That still doesn't answer how Bremer is qualified to know how many troops were needed. He is a State Dept weenie, not a military commander. I don't recall Generals Franks or Abizad claiming that they did not have enough troops.

posted on 10.05.2004 2:39 PM

Rob Smith writes:

49

If other countries decide to massively boycott US products such as cars, weapons, electronics, commodities, or even cereal

If Japan, China, or Saudi Arabia decided to stop purchasing US Treasury Notes at the auction and dumped all US Treasury Obligations

Not bloody likely. Japan, China, and Saudi Arabia are much more dependent on us economically then we are them. You really have no grasp of economics do you? A boycott cuts both ways, what would China do if we stopped buying their cheap crap? There country would collapse, same with Japan if we stopped buying Toyotas and Sonys. What are the Saudis going to do if we don't buy there oil, fill there pools with it, drink it? Honestly, anybody with even a remedial grasp of global economics knows that any of these countries would come off far worse in a trade war with us.

posted on 10.05.2004 2:53 PM

Larry Lord writes:

50

Rob,

Is your position that only enlisted men and women are qualified to evaluate whether sufficient numbers of troops have been or were employed for a particular purpose?

That seems to be your position, based on your characterization of Paul Bremer, the man President Bush appointed to run Iraq in the aftermath of the war, as a "weenie."

Let me know if that is your position, or if your position is simply that Retired General Franks and General Abizad are infallible gods. That also seems to be a viable alternative, based on your comments here.

posted on 10.05.2004 3:03 PM

Dave S. writes:

51

Larry Lord- Maybe someday you can write a response in a civil tone. Try it. Take out you hostility in another place and time. I do not appreciate your name calling- never have and never will.

posted on 10.05.2004 3:05 PM

Patrick (gryph) writes:

52

Mark O. says:

Patrick,
So when the WH says, "Well, I think you heard from our commander of the region, General Abizaid, about that very issue. And we've always said that we will make sure that our troops have all the resources they need, and we will look to our commanders in the field and our military leaders to make the determinations about what levels of troops are needed to meet our commitments and complete the mission. There has not been any request for additional troops. The military leaders have told us that they have what they need at this point. But that's something that we always look to the commanders on the ground and our military leaders to determine."

...You just don't believe that to be true. Is that just wishfull thinking, or do you have facts to back it up?"

No, I emphatically do not believe what Abizaid says on the issue of troop needs.

The top brass at the Pentagon are political animals first, and military leaders second. And they learned what happens to those who are honest about troop needs when Rumsfield made the US Army Chief of Staff General Eric Sheneski retire a year early. His crime was that he had told Congress that he thought it would take several thousand troops to hold Iraq. Wolfowitz made sure to go back to Congress afterwords and call his estimates "wildly inaccurate".

If you want facts to back me up then go read the pre-war study done by the USMC. Go read the pre-war "New Iraq" analysis done by the State Dept. Go read the post-war lessons learned analysis done by the Army War College. And look at the recent comments of Bremer.

Far from getting the troops everything they need, Rummy's administration has done exactly the opposite.

posted on 10.05.2004 3:10 PM

~DS~ writes:

53

Yes certainly, boycotts can cut both ways Rob.
Since we enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, we have more to loose than a nation like India or China in a boycott, all things being equal.

I have a feeling that others would be willing to step up and buy Saudi Oil or Jamaican Boxite, especially if the price dropped for those consumers while they charged the US extra...
The double edged sword concept you correctly noted supports exactly what I pointed out; what other nations do can affect us. That's one reason why what other country's think matters. The other reason being that other country's can also help us.

I wouldn't call myself an economics guru but I do work in field of finance. Nor does someone need to be a Prof of Economics to realize that it would be potentially bad for the US if China decided they really wanted to cripple us by dumping bonds. If you think China would hesitate to do so in a conflict and use nukes on us instead, because of the 'strain' it might put on their capitalist element, I think you're being unrealistic. But it is pretty funny you'd think that!

I've noticed a few references to what other country's 'thought', E.G. about Saddam having WMD's for example. That global concern has been trotted out by both the Bush admin and members of this forum as evidence for why invading was warranted. So please, let's not be hypocritical.

What the 'world' thinks most certainly does matter if it translates into action. It's fun to pretend to ourselves that we're a bunch of non-conformist brave individualists who depend on no one and nothing outside of our own wits and sweat to stay affluent. It's great for campaign speeches and gives us a warm fuzzy feeling. But when we wake up from the fantasy and plan for the future we have to consider that world can both help us and hurt us in many ways. To deny that is to deny reality and miss opportunity.

posted on 10.05.2004 3:15 PM

Larry Lord writes:

54

Dave S., with tears streaming down his baby face, writes

"I do not appreciate your name calling- never have and never will."

Poor poor little Dave S. Maybe after your mommy changes your diapers you can attempt to fashion a substantive response to my comments.

No, Dave S., I don't mince words and I don't pretend to enjoy educating wingnuts who are so filled with paranoia by their lilly white teachers that they fashion paragraphs such as

"I don't know about you, but my world does not stop spinning because the French and Germans don't like our president. I'd be more concerned if they did."

Yes, Dave S., you wrote without a hint of irony that you would be more concerned if French and Germans liked our President than if they don't. Never mind that there are many plain and simple reasons for not liking George Bush and that roughly half the country thinks he's mildly retarded. Nope, such facts don't bother Dave S. Dave S. has his eye on those French and German pollsters -- God forbid they approve of our President's policies! Dave S. would be concerned if that were the case. Why? Dave S. doesn't say.

But whatever his reasons, they're likely to be as reliable as his proclamation that nations "do not act against their own self interest because they dislike someone." If only that were true! Unfortunately, our own invasion of Iraq is Exhibit #1 that Dave's Law is horse hockey. It's understandable why Dave might have ignored that Exhibit. Dave likely belives that the war is over and it was a great success. After all, he saw the Great Protector descend on an aircraft carrier at sunset beneath a giant sign that read "Mission Accomplished." And every one knows that Iraqi schoolchildren no longer have to sharpen their pencils with their teeth anymore. And in January we all know that a significant portion of the eligible Iraqi population will be able to cast a vote without fear of getting blown up. Surely no other country of mostly Christian white people has ever been so inspiring to Arabs around the world.

posted on 10.05.2004 5:05 PM

tgirsch writes:

55

Rob Smith:

I relly don't see the connection between the two.

Basically, we act as though we want the world to mind its own business and let us go about ours, but then we consistently involve ourself in the rest of the world's business.

And you make a grave and dangerous error if you think the Islamic world hates us because of who we are. They very much hate us because of what we do, namely, propping up oppressive regimes in their region (including Hussein, don't forget) just to protect our economic interests, and then citing "humanitarian" reasons for killing them in large numbers. If you really care at all about defeating the enemy (Islamic terror), you need to understand the enemy (Islamic terrorists). It serves no one to paint a caricature of the enemy and ridicule that. You have to understand why they do what they do, if you're ever to have any hope of defeating them.

This is why I have so little tolerance for people (such as yourself, in this case) who trivialize anyone with the gall to disagree with us. It adds nothing useful to the debate. If you don't agree with French policy, that's fine. But what's to be gained from lumping the French all into one bucket and then having a hate-fest toward them?

There's supreme irony in you complaining about countries that hate us for what you perceive as no good reason, all the while professing your hate for many of those same countries for no good reason yourself.

posted on 10.05.2004 5:23 PM

tgirsch writes:

56

Rob Smith:

I don't recall anybody accusing Bremer of lying, only that he is a State Dept weenie, not a military guy.

Keep on toeing the Bush line. Haven't you noticed this pattern with this administration? Someone leaves the administration -- often voluntarily -- and criticizes them for areas in which they can improve. Rather than address or acknowledge the criticisms, the administration attacks the character of the person making the criticisms. It happened with Clarke, O'Neill, Wilson, and now Bremer.

Why doesn't the administration ever directly confront the criticisms? My guess is because they can't (at least, not without acknowledging that there's something to them). The strategy was made clear by Bush during the debate: if you ever admit that you've done anything even the least bit wrong, you "lack resolve," you undermine our allies, and you give comfort to the enemy. No, the correct thing is to continue down the current path, no matter how bad it may be. That way, at least, you have "conviction!"

(I can think of a couple of "convictions" of another kind some of these nutjobs should get, but that's another rant.)

posted on 10.05.2004 5:28 PM

Kent writes:

57

DS and LL are selectively quoting Bremer, by the way. From the msnbc.com article originally linked by DS:

In a statement late last night, Bremer stressed that he fully supports the administration's plan for training Iraqi security forces as well as its overall strategy for Iraq.

"I believe that we currently have sufficient troop levels in Iraq," he said in an e-mailed statement. He said all references in recent speeches to troops levels related to the situation when he arrived in Baghdad in May 2003 — "and when I believed we needed either more coalition troops or Iraqi security forces to address the looting."

He said the occupation government developed a plan to address the problem, which is still in place under the new interim Iraqi government.

Bremer also said he believes winning the war in Iraq is an "integral part of fighting this war on terror." He added that he "strongly supports" President Bush's reelection.

Which directly contradicts the point DS was making:

The consensus I’ve seen among military commentators is that more, many more, troops are needed in Iraq to stabilize the nation and be able to thwart any future threats to that stability.

That's the problem when you invite people to "read the rest," DS. Some actually do.

posted on 10.05.2004 5:36 PM

Mark O writes:

58

Actually I thought the Islamists hated us for a whole bagfull of reasons. Things like Charles Martel defeating them in Spain (Battle of Poitiers) in 732). Because by the 19th century, third rate Western powers could outmatch the Ottoman on the battlefield so they had to pretend it wasn't so. Then they resent us because we had an industrial revolution which they missed. And we kept going, we then went ahead and had a information age revolution which they also missed. If the West hadn't gone and decided to become completely dependant on burning and black goop buried underneath their tents, they'd be hating us for ignoring them.

posted on 10.05.2004 5:43 PM

Mark O writes:

59

Sorry that's "burning and USING" the black goop.

posted on 10.05.2004 5:44 PM

Larry Lord writes:

60

Yo Kent.

I wasn't selectively quoting anything. I just posted the article which related to an ongoing debate here on the piss-poor planning of the war by Bush and his incompetent cronies.

And Bremer's comments do not directly contradict DS's point. As others have lectured us here, Bremer is not military. DS is correct and uncontradicted with respect to his assertion that military commentators -- including former US generals -- have expressed serious doubts as to whether we have enough troops to keep Iraq stabilized AND as to whether the invasion was carefully planned in the first place.

But hey, those generals are probably gay, so who cares about their opinions, right? Isn't that on page two of the script Karl handed you?

posted on 10.05.2004 5:50 PM

~DS~ writes:

61

Kent that's why I provided the source article. So you could read it for yourself.
I see no contradiction, indeed I see no connection between what I said "The consensus I've seen is that more troops are needed ..."

And your response that Bremer believes winning the war in Iraq is critical.
My statement regarded my opinion based on what I've seen about troop strength and quoted an article by attributed to Bremer, and your response quoting Bremer stated his opinion on the importance of winning the war in Iraq and in a hasty CYA you say he e-mailed after his statements were published he apparently retreated from any embaressment he may have caused the WH.

How about publishing a source showing the entire e-mail with the time stamp so we can compare what he may have written after the fact with what he stated in the article? That way, you'll be providing the rest of us with the courtesy I provided you...the original text.

posted on 10.05.2004 5:51 PM

Larry Lord writes:

62

"we then went ahead and had a information age revolution which they also missed."

Just a historical question: did Fox News come before or after Al Jazeera?

posted on 10.05.2004 5:53 PM

~DS~ writes:

63

OK let's have some fun: Predictions on the debate. Let's hang it out folks and I'll go first.

Vice-President Dick Cheney is a smart guy who can think on his feet (Or sitting down for this occasion). He got where he is by his own talent and efforts and those qualities will register in this debate.

Edwards also suceeded with his work and his salesmen abilities. But there the similarities end. Being younger and aggressive, he will come off as an ankle biter.

I predict Cheney will do surprisingly well. Certainly well enough that the opinions about who 'won' will split down partison lines at the very least.

posted on 10.05.2004 6:26 PM

Kent writes:

64

Larry: I misread your posts. You did not quote Bremer. I apologize.

DS:
My statement regarded my opinion based on what I've seen about troop strength and quoted an article by attributed to Bremer, and your response quoting Bremer stated his opinion on the importance of winning the war in Iraq and in a hasty CYA you say he e-mailed after his statements were published he apparently retreated from any embaressment he may have caused the WH.

I don't say ... the Washington Post says. (I inadvertently credited the story to MSNBC earlier. It's on their site, but it's from the Post.) Perhaps I wasn't selective enough in my quotation. Let me give you the relevant statement again so that it's absolutely clear: "I believe that we currently have sufficient troop levels in Iraq," he said in an e-mailed statement. He said all references in recent speeches to troops levels related to the situation when he arrived in Baghdad in May 2003 — "and when I believed we needed either more coalition troops or Iraqi security forces to address the looting." (emphasis added) That is directly from the same Washington Post story you quoted. I suppose you could continue to demand proof that the e-mail actually came from Bremer ... but those demands are better submitted to the Post, not me. I'm willing to accept the Post's reporting on both the speech and the e-mail.

Again, in your initial post you said: The consensus I’ve seen among military commentators is that more, many more, troops are needed in Iraq to stabilize the nation and be able to thwart any future threats to that stability. (emphasis added. Note, not were needed, are needed).

In a subsequent post, you say For those who asked me to provide a basis for my opinion that we needed more troops from the get-go through the occupation, the raging liberal tool Jerry Bremer seems to agree with that opinion. (emphasis added). The part of the article that I quoted indicates that Bremer believes there are enough troops there now, which I presume we agree is still part of the occupation. So Bremer would not agree with your assertion that more, many more, troops are needed.

Larry is quite correct, Bremer is not a "military commentator." So technically, it doesn't contradict your initial statement. But that's a little like "what the meaning of 'is,' is." I was dealing with the substance of what you said, DS. Paul Bremer does not agree with your opinion that many more troops are needed...only that they once were.

posted on 10.05.2004 6:50 PM

Kent writes:

65

P.S., D.S: (that's kind of fun, isn't it?)

I agree with your comments about the debate tonight.

posted on 10.05.2004 6:52 PM

~DS~ writes:

66

Dawgonnit...Kent is right. Upon review of his information, I was wrong. Bremer did qualify his statement in an e-mail. My apologies. In my defensive zeal to find credible evidence for my opinion I disregarded or missed that qualifier.

posted on 10.05.2004 7:06 PM

Larry Lord writes:

67

"OK let's have some fun: Predictions on the debate."

Right on.

Edwards will manage to get Cheney's feet in the fire and we will all get to see the "major league xxxhole" side of Cheney. It's not pretty.

After that, Cheney's hidden horns and batwings will pierce his bloated shroud, he will hover for a moment above the debate table, screaming, then fly out of the studio, defecating liquid fire and leaving an unholy stench that will force the eventual condemation of the building.

I'm rather excited, of course, as all this and more is less than an hour away!!!

posted on 10.05.2004 7:08 PM

Kent writes:

68

Happy to help, DS.

RE Larry's prediction: Now THAT would energize the base!!!

posted on 10.05.2004 7:25 PM

Rob Smith writes:

69

DS--I am really trying to avoid a long response to your post about boycotts (econ is such a boring subject, truly the "dismal science"), so forgive if this is a little general.

1. Regarding potential Saudi (or even ME) use of some sort of oil boycott or oil surcharge against the US. It wouldn't work for several reasons. First the US imports most of its oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuala. We also have some domestic sources, including several untapped ones such as ANWAR, and the Gulf. So for the boycott/surcharge to work all oil producing countries would have to participate. I find it difficult to see any scenario in which Canada or Mexico decides to stop selling us oil. Second, the Saudi Government does not sell oil to the US government, they sell it to various oil companies, many of whom are multinational. The companies then refine and ship the oil to where it is needed. As such, it would be nearly impossible to enforce any kind of oil embargo. Even if Saudi Arabia where able to enforce some sort of oil embargo against the US, it is unlikely that their government could survive the loss of revenue.

2. Regarding China "dumping its US bonds" to harm our economy, again this is an incredibly unlikely scenario. People and governments don't buy US bonds because they have any love for the US, they buy them because they are a stable, safe vehicle for putting money. The Chinese and many other governments use US bonds (among other things) as assets to back their own currency. If there were to be a sudden huge drop in the value of US securities, the likely result would be a worldwide currency crisis that would devastate much of the world's economy. China's Communist Party derives much of it's legitimacy from being able to provide a rapidly growing economy. Absent that growing economy it is not hard to envision a massive upheaval in China resulting in either a massive crackdown (larger than the Tiananmen Square crackdown), or the overthrow of the current government. So I reject your assertion that we have more to lose in a economic war with China. Even if the US economy collapsed, it is unlikely that we would see our national leaders hanging from lightpoles, I don't think the same can be said for China.

3. The US is the largest market in the world, consuming nearly 25% of the world's output. If all of the sudden, the US were unable to buy, either through embargo or economic collapse that 25%, there is not enough excess demand in the world to absorb it. You would see massive plant closures and layoffs world-wide. Countries with mature economies and stable governments, like Japan, Western Europe, and the US would probably be able to weather the storm, but countries like China, India, and the ME would collapse into chaos. Recall the Great Depression, the US got hammered, but survived, many other countries, like Japan and Germany did not fare so well.

posted on 10.06.2004 6:39 AM

Rob Smith writes:

70

you make a grave and dangerous error if you think the Islamic world hates us because of who we are. They very much hate us because of what we do, namely, propping up oppressive regimes in their region

Really Tom, I think you are the one making the error here. Your assertion might make sense if there was any history of non-oppresive regimes in the Muslim world or if OBL and company were planning on installing secular democracies in Saudi Arabia or Iraq instead of Sharia.

If you really care at all about defeating the enemy (Islamic terror), you need to understand the enemy (Islamic terrorists).

I think I have a pretty good understanding of the terrorists ultimate goals, they want to install a Taliban-like regime throughout the ME, and push the Jews into the sea. Did I miss anything? Is there some Thomas Jefferson or John Adams figure in the Islamic terror movement advocating secular governments and equal rights for women and non-Muslims that I am missing?

This is why I have so little tolerance for people (such as yourself, in this case) who trivialize anyone with the gall to disagree with us. It adds nothing useful to the debate. If you don't agree with French policy, that's fine. But what's to be gained from lumping the French all into one bucket and then having a hate-fest toward them?

I am really not sure were your're going here. French policy WRT Iraq was to support Saddam. The main reason being because they were making big bucks off of oil deals and by selling him weapons. Is there something noble here that I am missing?

posted on 10.06.2004 7:29 AM

~DS~ writes:

71

Rob,

I appreciate your response. I understand that many people don't want China or any other nation to have any leverage on the US, because you don't want to face the modern fact that what other country's 'think' i.e. do, should be a consideration. Hell I share that! I don’t want that to be the case either. But we have to be realistic.

If China is confronted with the decision to bring serious pain to the US they have a number of choices; conventional weapons, nukes, or dumping bonds, maybe others not as severe. Which one do you think they're going to choose out of those three as the first option? Which one would you choose if you were in their shoes?
You want to go toe-to-toe with the US on nukes? I doubt it. You want to exchange bio-weapons? Not a pretty idea although the Chinese could probably handle 10 % their population being cut down a hell of a lot better than the US. You want to get into a battle with the US using conventional weapons? Not a good choice either, although it's superior to total nuclear destruction or chemical and bacteriological pandemic. Or, do you threaten to dump bonds and cripple us without losing a single freaking guy? BINGO.

I'll tell you what I would do if I were the Chinese faced with that decision. I would buy as many put options and Treasury futures as I could, in as many offshore accounts as I could, and then I'd dump those underlying T-notes, or just threaten to dump them, and clean up-as the price of T-notes plummets and financing costs for our debt skyrocket .. thus throwing us a curveball so nasty we would be scrambling to keep up with the changing dynamic.

They would keep getting interest on the bonds they hold. They would make huge windfall profits on their options, they would be flaying our economy alive, and with the added cash from the options they could turn around and buy even more US bonds at a now drastically lower price with a commensurately higher interest rate if they so chose.

And that's just one example for China. A more sobering possibility is that right now, while we discuss this, Al Qaeada is plotting to seize control of the Ghawar Oil Reserve in Saudi Arabia and planning to kick the House of Saud to the curb. If they ever succeed, then don't even kid yourself that they will shy away from hurting the US ‘out of concerns for their trade balance’. Just the looming possibility of such an event itself will crank up the price of oil by threatening global production. We pay a free market price for oil. So, if oil skyrockets because of Saudi induced shortages, then the price we pay for oil from other providers goes right up as well.

Now, will any of that ever happen? I really hope not! And of course I have no way to know. But that's an example of why what other countries ‘think’ can matter to everyone one of us, and that’s what initiated our exchange. It's also a rejoinder to both the democrats and the republicans that enormous deficits and energy dependency lend leverage to the governments of other nations over our day-to-day prosperity.
Fact: We live in global economy and we benefit directly from global trade. Fact: We depend on foreign oil production for price stability and we are addicted to foreign investment, both from a number of totalitarian governments who could turn on a dime against us for bizarre ideological reasons or for cold blooded self interests.
It would be nice if we didn’t really have to worry about what other nation’s ‘think’. It’s a pleasant fiction to indulge in isn’t it? It tickles our notion of America the Independent and summons imaginary archetypes of the Woodsman living by his wit completely alone in the wilderness. It makes great campaign soundbites. But in terms of economic realities, it’s utter hogwash.

posted on 10.06.2004 8:19 AM

Rob Smith writes:

72

DS--Yes, yes I understand. China has the ability to damage our economy, but in order to do it they would have to destroy their own. Our economy and government is far more resiliant than China's. China going toe-to-toe with us in an economic war would be like them "bringing a knife to a gunfight". Sure they might cut us up a little, but in doing so they will get the head blown off. China needs us to be able to buy their cheap crap a lot more than we need to buy it.

posted on 10.06.2004 9:08 AM

~DS~ writes:

73

Rob I'm afraid that's wishful thinking on your part. As I briefly illustrated, China can hedge in the derivatives market and clean up. Properely managed, they wouldn't loose money, they would make it. If the need arose in their mind to hurt us, they would choose to screw us over economically long before they would attack us militarily. And not being a democracy insulates the government from being held accountable for any disoncontent that does crop up ... they'll roll the tanks like they did in Tiananmen Square.

posted on 10.06.2004 9:21 AM

Dave S. writes:

74

Larry Lord- I did not respond to your comments because you didn't make any. You dismissed my comments as a "strawman", "trite little bogusness", and called me a "wingnut reading from his freeper script (whatever that is.) You did not have any point of your own. You did ask me a couple of questions, which, due to the dismissive tone of your post, I chose to not answer because I do not want to encourage you. As a result, you chose to call me more names. Frankly, I do not see any point in responding to your invective and do not ever again intend to.

posted on 10.06.2004 10:46 AM

tgirsch writes:

75

Rob Smith:

I think I have a pretty good understanding of the terrorists ultimate goals, they want to install a Taliban-like regime throughout the ME, and push the Jews into the sea. Did I miss anything?

Actually, yes, you did. You missed how this involves us. What does the US have to do with those goals? Oh, yeah, we prop up the very leaders they're trying to overthrow (and most of them are a lot closer to Hussein than Jefferson). We support Israel unconditionally, even when they're obviously being assholes. (Should we support Israel? Yes. Should our support be unconditional? Hell, no. We should openly call them on it when they act poorly.)

You also miss the fact that the very Taliban you disparage in your statement was a beast of our own creation; one that we supported with weapons and money when we were fighting off the commies. In essence, we assisted not just a Taliban-like regime, but the Taliban themselves, in coming to power. In fact, we were giving money to the Taliban (ostensibly for their anti-opium efforts) as recently as August of 2001. And then we wonder why people in the Middle East aren't terribly fond of us.

French policy WRT Iraq was to support Saddam. The main reason being because they were making big bucks off of oil deals and by selling him weapons. Is there something noble here that I am missing?

Actually, no. What you are missing, however, is an explanation of how the disagreement between France and the US on this one issue somehow makes them not an ally at all any more, or how it justifies vilifying the entire nation of France and its people, as you and Joe seem to do quite often.

posted on 10.06.2004 10:50 AM

Rob Smith writes:

76

What does the US have to do with those goals? Oh, yeah, we prop up the very leaders they're trying to overthrow (and most of them are a lot closer to Hussein than Jefferson). We support Israel unconditionally, even when they're obviously being assholes.

Really Tom, the only morally questionable regime you can legitimately say we "prop up" is Saudi Arabia. We certainly don't "prop up" Iran or Syria, by far the two worse regimes in the area. It could be argued that we prop up Iraq, but I think the situation there is far different. In any case, I am not sure how withdrawing our support for SA and allowing a Taliban-like regime to take over would help things for us or them.

Regarding my "unconditional" support of Israel, I would find it much easier to put conditions on my support if the people trying to destroy Israel weren't such complete thugs and barbarians. Israel's enemies stated goal is the destruction of the Jewish state and the death of all the Jews. When I think of that, I am often surprised that Israel is so restrained. I feel like I am being asked to give conditional support to the FBI in their a against Al Capone.

What you are missing, however, is an explanation of how the disagreement between France and the US on this one issue somehow makes them not an ally at all any more

I think this is a pretty big disagreement. I compare it to finding out my "best friend" makes money renting homes to drug dealers to use as crack houses. It's the kind of disagreement that would make me reevaluate my friendship. I mean if France was a real friend, why would they even consider taking Saddam's side over ours.

While I'm at it, can we start to dispel some of this myth of France as great US friend and ally. I read a lot of history, and for the life of me I can't put my finger on any time in the last 200 years where France has been a true ally. During the 2 World Wars, the alliance was rather one sided, with us coming in to save their bacon. Before that the French desparately wanted to side with the South during the Civil War, but were unwilling to do so without British support. Prior to that, the French spent a lot of time trying to install a puppet regime in Mexico, in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. The War of 1812 could just as easily been fought against the French, who were doing most of the same things we went to war with the Brits over. Of course there was the American Revolution, but even there the French were more interested in weakening the British than in helping us.

posted on 10.06.2004 11:46 AM

Rob Smith writes:

77

DS--I really tire of this. So you think that China could launch some kind of 9/11 type attack on our economy and not only suffer no damage, and actually make money? They could completely severe their relationship with their largest trading partner (we buy over 20% of Chinese exports) and suffer no damage. Over 40% of Chinese exports (more if don't count the 18% that goes to Hong Kong) go to three countries, the US, Japan, and South Korea. How do you think the collapse of the US economy would impact those countries and how would that impact China's economy? They could of course use a Tinnamen style crack down to maintain political power, but how would that impact their economy? I imagine it would tend to dry up foreign investment in China. China is even more dependent on foreign investment than we. You claim to be in the financial industry, I wouldn't let you balance my checkbook.

posted on 10.06.2004 12:06 PM

Rob Smith writes:

78

Tom--Regarding our alliance with France, I remember reading (I think in "Army at Dawn") that the French trooops actually opened fire on American troops landing in Morrocco during Operation Torch. Some ally. With friends like these...

posted on 10.06.2004 12:23 PM

Larry Lord writes:

79

Dave S. writes

"Frankly, I do not see any point in responding to your invective and do not ever again intend to."

Har. I guess I'd feel the same way if I was reduced to burnt toast and was unable to apologize for my gross errors. So long, man.

Fyi, no WMDs. Again.

posted on 10.06.2004 2:14 PM

Larry Lord writes:

80

"I read a lot of history, and for the life of me I can't put my finger on any time in the last 200 years where France has been a true ally."

Evidently in Rob's world, "true ally" = butt-licking American worshipper. Having swallowed up all that kool-aid dished out by the Chimp and his cronies, Rob believes that disagreement is tantamount to treason and backstabbing.

Was the Gulf War more than 200 years ago? I recall France killing some Iraqis in that war.

How about Korea?

"Only two westerners have had their statues erected in Korea: General MacArthur and Major Jean-Louis of the French Medical Corps. Known as "The protective god of Korea," Major Jean-Louis was remembered by Korean Officials on October 25, 1986, during the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between France and Korea."

Hmm. Sounds like the French were on our side there, too. But that was like three centuries ago, right Rob?

posted on 10.06.2004 2:26 PM

Larry Lord writes:

81

"I mean if France was a real friend, why would they even consider taking Saddam's side over ours."

In other words, according to Rob, "Real friends don't question each other, no matter how obviously wrong and screwed up their actions are."

Yup. Sounds like a line from Karl Rove's script all right.

posted on 10.06.2004 2:29 PM

Larry Lord writes:

82

Rob writes

"We certainly don't "prop up" Iran or Syria, by far the two worse regimes in the area."

Oh heavens, Rob, you are so right. The United States has never meddled in the affairs of those countries and never provided any aid to them whatsoever, in any form. Certainly no Republican administration would ever treat those countries as anything other than a vile threat to our nation's security.

George Bush, the hugest freaking idiot ever elected President in this country by a long shot, once referred to Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axil of evil" in a nationwide speech! Can you believe it? What a stupid moron. We're paying the price for that lunatic comment now and we'll be paying for it for decades to come.

posted on 10.06.2004 2:33 PM

~DS~ writes:

83

Rob the initial issue was "why should we [Americans] care what other nation's think?"

Hopefully I've given some credible reasons why we should care. I don't like being subject to the whims of a Theocratic Monarchy in Saudi Arabia or a totalitarian regime in China, or any other external government. But that's the way it is. Nor is it any one person's fault.

Your objection seems predicated on the premise that China, or anyone else, would refuse to act against us because they're satisfied from the status quo for now. That's just silly. If they find themselves in conflict with us and feeling they have to bring pain down on us, then they’re obviously not happy about something. They won’t let past relationships stop them. (It sure didn't stop Iran from cutting off oil exports to the US in 1979)

The Yuan is pegged to the dollar. If China decided to dump some bonds and wanted to protect their currency and make money on the decline of bond prices, they could buy put options and a host of other derivatives arranged in fairly sophisticated strategies on various underlying instruments to do so. If you don't know how that works, I'll be happy to try and bring you up to the same level of ignorance I enjoy on the topic. I’ll only say I’m not making it up. You can make big, bad, quick, money on a declining stock price or bond price or damn near any thing. Given a sustained move down or up you can even pyramid your positions and exponentially gain as long as the move continues. I use such derivatives everyday.

If they wanted to enlist the help of the new upper class entrepreneurs that have flourished over the last decade which your concerned would ‘veto’ them, they'd cut the ones they favor in on the action and ‘disappear’ the rest. If they wanted to crush dissent, they would roll the tanks. This is not a democratic regime! They aren’t held accountable; they can do what they want. And people don’t always act rationally. I doubt they will do any of that. But since they can do it, we have to take that into consideration when forming policy dealing with China, Asia, and the whole damn world.

China is merely one rather obvious example of the effect other nations can have over us; and it’s not unusual at all. It’s not dishonorable. It’s just economics…the very topic someone here accused me of not grasping just a day or two ago . We also have economic power over other nations. This is a global economy and we’re doing just fine in that environment. But, what other nation’s ‘think’ does matter to you and I. You may not like it, you may not want to face it, and you may deny it and rationalize it away. If so, I feel very much the same way. We're entitled to choose our own opinions and desires, but we're not entitled to our own facts.

posted on 10.06.2004 2:36 PM

Larry Lord writes:

84

DS

I recall a brief discussion with Emmaus on the same topic and it was a non-starter. For some people, evidently, it's like a religious belief: the US doesn't need anybody's help with anything and diplomacy is a myth propogated by liberals to prevent the US kicking the asses of countries which are perceived to be threatening, regardless of the facts.

I'm not sure where it says that in the Bible, but presumably it must be because there is no rational basis for holding such beliefs. The only explanation I can come up with is that a lot of folks are still just plain paranoid. I wonder why that is? Could it be Big Time Dick Cheney's continued reference to biological attacks and mushroom clouds that are inherent to a Democratic presidential administration? Nah, Americans are too smart for that, right?

Except that 62% of Republicans believe that Saddam was personally behind 9/11. Maybe only Democrats are too smart to understand that Al Qaeda isn't planning on attacking the vapid suburban wasteland of the Bible belt anytime soon.

posted on 10.06.2004 2:55 PM