During the first Presidential debate, Senator John Kerry said:
"I have a plan for Iraq. I believe we can be successful. I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning. And we need a fresh start, a new credibility, a president who can bring allies to our side." [emphasis added]
Yesterday, though, he admitted that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he's elected president:
"Does that mean allies are going to trade their young for our young in body bags? I know they are not. I know that.�
When asked to clarify his statement, Kerry added:
When I was referring to that, I was really talking about Germany and France and some of the countries that had been most restrained." Other countries are obviously more willing to accept responsibilities."
So which countries is he referring to? If elected, Kerry would have 148 democracies to choose from:
Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, the Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bermuda, Bolivia, Bosnia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Republic of the Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, The Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Greenland, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, South Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Isle of Man, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands Antilles, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Niue, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Many of these countries, though, have already answered the call. Now when we look at the list with the Coalition of the Willing highlighted we find:
Many of these countries, though, have already answered the call. Now when we look at the list with the Coalition of the Willing highlighted we find:
Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, the Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bermuda, Bolivia, Bosnia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, (Canada), Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Republic of the Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, The Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Greenland, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, (Israel), Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, South Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Isle of Man, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Niue, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Switzerland, (Taiwan), Tajikistan, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Since Kerry is promising to bring in new allies we can remove those countries from the list. We can also eliminate nations that have already said they would not get involved militarily (Germany, France, Russia, Egypt, and Bangladesh). Pakistan has its hands full aiding us in Afghanistan and Switzerland is, as always, neutral, so we can scratch those two as well. The countries that don't have a military (Andorra, Dominica, Kiribati, Mauritius, Panama, Nauru, Tuvalu, Vanuatu) are obviously excluded as are the states that rely on others for their defense (Bermuda, Greenland, Isle of Man, Niue).
Kerry also doesn't want to "bribe" countries into joining the effort so we can take off all of the nations that aren't able to pay their own way. Because of the cost to deploy troops to Iraq, we should remove any country with a military budget under $200 million a year (Antigua, Armenia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Republic of the Congo, Cook Islands, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Dominica, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Moldova, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Zambia, and Zimbabwe).
Once we scrub our list we are left with the following:
Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, Ecuador, Finland, Greece, Indonesia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Mexico, Nepal, Peru, Serbia and Montenegro, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen
Which of these remaining countries will Kerry persuade to join the "diversion" in Iraq? Will the Botswana Defense Force be patrolling Fallujah with the Marines? Will our soldiers fight alongside the Kazakhstan Republican Guard? Which nations will join Kerry's Coalition of the Remaining?
The nation is awaiting your answer, Senator.
[See also: Calling Kerry's Bluff: Who Will Join His Coalition?]
Maybe Kerry will be happy were these countries just to contribute supplies.
Finland and Nepal can provide skis. Brazil, Ecuador, and Chile can send jungle camo suits.
And I'm still not giving up on France. When our troops surrender, the French can send down a few hundred thousand white flags--they always seem to have quite a few handy.
Joe,
I'm thinking you can scratch Bosnia (war fatigue), Belarus (pretty close ties with Moscow), Kazakhstan (almost 1/2 Muslim), and Yemen (almost 100% Muslim). (Also, you mention Andorra twice as not having an army.)
Of course, this is all a smokescreen. You, or someone else, have said that Kerry really has no "plan" but throws ideas up against the wall to see if they will stick. His plan, I suspect, is to pull us out of Iraq as soon as possible and blame the resulting chaos on Bush.
Mark
Of course, it's probably a good idea to point out the reasons why hypothetically Kerry's plans won't work. It helps distract people from the fact that Bush's plans actually aren't working. ;)
T,
I think you meant Kerry's "hypothetical" plans, but that's a quibble.
Let's see, the Coalition invaded Iraq something like 19 months ago. Dude, like, how can it take so long, that's almost, like, two whole television seasons or something.
I assume you have a "Vote McClellan in '63-Remove the Miserable Failure Lincoln" button floating around your house somewhere.
Mark
No no no, it's not a hypothetical plan. It's a super duper top secret (no gurls allowed) plan.
I realized something reading this post, possibly for the first time ... This stuff doesn't bother me anymore.
For a while, after I figured out that I'd been played for chump change by this White House on Iraq, I got riled up whenever they lied or distorted, or changed the subject, or went off on an attack against their critics using any dishonest means they could. I got frustrated when someone defended an admin that took us to war on false pretenses and cooked Intel and tried to blame the whole mess on anyone but themselves. I was worried that people seemed to support a War President who attacked the wrong country blowing hundreds of billions of dollars and then went on to flame an undercover CIA asset in the SaudiOil/Aaramco arena, and the whole amazingly incompetent and downright petty mess.
And when fellows like Joe would try to divert attention from those failures by attacking the people who are offering to assume the mantle for fixing these horrific screw-ups, to somehow, inexplicably, ague that this is a good reason to retain the culprits who perpetrated the greatest foreign policy error in the last fifty years, it would make me downright depressed.
I don't know exactly when the Bush campaign 'jumped the shark' so to speak. It was building in August until the attack on Kerry's War Heroism materialized.
But somewhere along this weird, gyrating, illogical two month ride with George Bush: The Movie at the helm, I sensed they had overplayed their rather mediocre hand.
But it was only just now I realized, reading Joe's post, that these guys are really feeling the heat for the mistakes the admin has made. And they're so cornered by the facts now evident to all; no WMD's, no AQ/911 links, cooked Intel, and the absolute bald faced lies this crew beamed out at us from the screens and the Blogs and the newspapers with complete assurance that what they were telling us was God's honest truth, that all they have left to do is to try and criticize the future performance of an employee as a defense as to why we should keep an unmitigated disaster on our payroll.
I can't blmae them for trotting what they can. And it's a sign of hospitality that our host is willing to do that just to give us something to argue about. Nor do I don't expect someone as tough and passionate as Joe Carter, or many of the other regs on this blog I have a grudging a respct for, to just give up and fold. But I feel kinda bad for that that's the posioitn the Bush admin has left them in.
No sale Joe. Come over to Our Team :)
DS/tgirsch,
A question--merely a hypothetical. Leaving aside the administration's justifications for the invasion (at least as you portray them), let us say that the administration, instead, had argued that the invasion was warranted to stop the gross violations of human rights that Hussein was perpetrating on his fellow countrymen. Those atrocities are well documented (feel free to rebut that of course). In other words, would a Bosnia justification have been acceptable to you?
Mark S.
It's nothing personal Joe. The campaign to paint the Dem ticket as inadequate compared to George Bush has been fairly slick. They've done well in tapping into folk's religious bias and they had some success with trashing their opponents and distorting their opponents position and character.
I just think you've bought into the caricature the Bush Campaign has contrived for you a bit much.
To answer your question: If I thought the democratic candidate was some kind of lying, cheating, genocidal, treasonous kook like the GOP is trying to portray, I wouldn't support him. But the real candidate is John Kerry. So I sleep pretty well.
Caricatures are useful for campaign I suppose, but they're not very accurate. George Bush has done a poor job in Iraq, that's saying it nicely. He's basically lost credibility with me and with a bunch of moderates republicans or Independents like me. (I change my voter registration to "I" this last Monday. last day I could do it Florida) but I don't think he's an idiot or that the Nation will Crumble if he gets reelected. I don't buy into that caricature that george Bush is utterly incompetent that he will single handedly bring down the nation. In fact, he might even learn something from the mistakes he made and do a little better this time around. That's my hope anyway if he wins. Caricatures are fabricated constructs. If you want to get a good handle on the candidate of either oarty, you look at their results. And on that scoring system, Bush would lose to Ralph Nader.
DS,
On "genocidal," I think Joe was taking Senator Kerry at his word when Kerry said he, along with others, committed atrocities in Vietnam. He said that in the Senate--it's on the record. So, he's either a (admittedly low-level) war criminal or a liar on this one.
Mark
Nope Mark S I wouldn't. If we were at peace and had the support of other nations in the area, I might consider it in a limited role. Anyone would feel the humane call to help people out of those situations although exactly where you start is a good question. There's no dearth of such unpleasent regimes in the world.
But while in the beginning stages of at War with a religiously fanatical enemy who had struck us hard and promised to do so in the future whenever possible? And then add in the cost and the commitment? No way. It would be pretty dumb.
DS, et al.,
I deleted an inane rant of my own that I wrote late last night. I had hoped that no one caught it but it looks like DS responded to it before I was able to cut it. Sorry for the confusion.
Where's Sweden in your list (Norway and Denmark are also missing)! I guess we could supply a few doctors and nurses or so...
If that was an inane rant in your mind Joe, then you're a pretty polite and classy fellow with admirable standards of conduct.
I thought you raised some interesting points.
BTW does anyone else here feel a sort of 'burn'out' from politics in general? This stuff is taking it's toll on me. At times it's so emotionally exhausting I find the comfort of an action flick or a good sci-fi book a needed reprieve from reality.
~DS~,
Kerry's current position on Iraq is that we are not and should not be fighting a global war on terror. Kerry wants us to be fighting a war of reprisal against al-Qaeda.
Bush, post 9/11 declared a global war on terror and all terror supporting states. Let's face it, you will never support Bush if you think it should just be a war on al-Qaeda. However, certainly in 2002 there were very few who would support the claim that we should limit our attentions to just al-Qaeda.
After the Taliban (as terror supporting regime) was toppled, he looked for the next move. You (and Kerry) seem to think Iraq was the wrong choice. Nobody, at least as far as I can see, *did* suggest or are now suggesting a better strategy. Iran is teetering. Do you imagine a free, vital, growing Iraq next door will make it harder or easier for the Mullah's to keep the screws locked down in Iran?
It is also claimed that Iraq is a colossal cock-up and that their was no "plan" for the peace. It is military doctrine that all plans survive only until first contact with the enemy isn't it? Who anticipated success on the ground in twice the time it took? Very few I would submit. Mistakes have been made, we all know that and nobody is claiming otherwise. However, to claim that we should always act with 20/20 hindsight is disengenous or worse.
Kerry claims he will run a "smarter" war against Iraq. His political campaign is his first big venture. Not exactly the perfect demonstration of how he is "smarter/better" then Bush. He, unlike Bush in Iraq, has made no errors or mistakes, running a flawless operation, eh?
Kerry's current position on Iraq is that we are not and should not be fighting a global war on terror.
I'd say that's an astonishingly transparent false premise right out of the gate Mark. Iraq =/= AL Qaeda/9-11.
We could have kept the heat on in Afghanistan. Bush chose not to. If we decide to engage in nation building to ‘impress the Arab world” and ‘wow them with our democratic government and ideals’, we could have 'stayed the course' in Afghanistan and rebuilt that tragically war torn nation into a shining example of the democracy you allude to. We could have built roads, trains, power plants, invested in industry, directed international relief, all those things in Afghanistan. For the kind of money we've spent in Iraq chasing phantoms we could have damn near built a network of high speed bullet trains over there. That would have impressed the moderate Arab world buddy.
Instead, we went charging off half cocked into a country that did not pose a threat and had nothing to do with 9-11 … and went straight for the oil ministry and the oil fields while the nation was ransacked by looters. If you think that performance is building credibility in the Moderate Arab world for the US, you are simply not facing reality. More ‘credibility’ like that and even our economic partners in the region will have to cut us loose.
DS,
BTW does anyone else here feel a sort of 'burn'out' from politics in general? This stuff is taking it's toll on me.
I'm with you on that one. I can't wait until the election is over so we can move on to other topics. While I feel these issues are still important (and therefore need to be discussed) I'm ready to talk about something -- anything -- else.
I wish the whole blogosphere would take a 90 day moratorium on political discussions starting Nov. 4rd (we'd have to give the winning side at least one day to gloat).
Kerry's current position on Iraq is that we are not and should not be fighting a global war on terror. Kerry wants us to be fighting a war of reprisal against al-Qaeda.
That's probably the best description I've heard of the Democratic postion on the WOT.
Can we dispell some of the myths out there regarding Iraq/Al Queda links? None of the reports yet issued have disputed that there were links between Iraq and Al Queda, what is in dispute is how extensive those links are. Were they true operational links where Saddam supplies funding, training, and planning or something less, along the lines of a non-agression agreements, or something in the middle? I don't think that question has been answered yet. In truth, while I think it is unlikely that Saddam had any direct involvement in 9/11 (I think indirect involvment is another matter), I think it is wrong to dismiss the possibility out of hand.
We are doing all those things in Afghanistan. We're doing them in Iraq too.
Time will tell if it works out or not. A large part of me feels that the Islamic world is beyond redemption: that, given the choice between living in crushing squalor and oppression or living a life of prosperity, given the choice between watching their children grow to a ripe old age or strapping bombs on them and putting them on a Jewish bus, given the choice between coming to America to make a great life for themselves or coming to crash airliners into our business districts, most will choose Door #2. In which case, it's best we just develop a large, mobile rapid reaction force to destroy the government of any Muslim leader who challenges us, then just take off, leaving the rest of the pathetic country to stew in their own juices.
But I'll try the liberal way for a while longer, "winning their hearts and minds" when I consider most of the Islamists from the horn of Africa to the islands of Indonesia to be heartless and mindless. What I don't understand is why the Leftists in this country are giving us such a hard time this go around. Can't win with you people.
Pelle Poluha,
Where's Sweden in your list (Norway and Denmark are also missing)!
When I looked the countries in the CIA Factbook Sweden, Norway, and Denmark were all listed as "constitutional monarchies." (Denmark, by the way, was part of the CotW.) I wasn't sure where the line needed to be drawn but being American, I have a natural bias against countries with Kings and Queens. ; )
DS-
Who'd you vote for in 2000? You never gave your party affiliation before you say you changed it to "I". You also use the term "moderate republicans". In my experience the rare "moderate republican" pulls the D lever in national elections every time. You have never mentioned a single reason for voting Kerry other than he's not Bush. If you ever were a Republican I don't think the party lost much when you left.
No Kevin. We are not doing those things in Afghanistan. Not on any scale that matters. We had the opportunity to. We started out well. We had the entire world on our side, a budget surplus, a country that had been decimated to the Stone Age, a charged up military, and so forth. But for whatever bizarre reason we dropped that ball, I guess maybe it was working so well we had to stop… and went off chasing desert mirages.
You guys are flip-flopping from the 'threat of WMD's/AQ' line. I can’t blame you since that bit of stupidity has been pretty much grape stomped into sullen mush by the facts. And now you’ve changed gears to, to the 'we going to impress the Arab world and get them to like us by building a shining democracy in Iraq' fantasy. Along we have to liberate the poor downtrodden people of Iraq. The same people by the way that I‘ve seen some among the religious right denigrate as filthy animals and call “Satan Worshippers”
Flip-flop aside, the public simply would not have supported this war if that was the case made in the beginning. Not a chance in hell folks. And for the amount of coin we've blown in Iraq already, we could have transformed Afghanistan into the envy of the Islamic World. If Bush’s ‘strategy’ in the "Global War on terror" is to avoid going after the terrorists with everything we've got and pursue affection and appreciation in the Arab world for the US and for democracy elsewhere, one would think we would at studiously avoid brutally invading and occupying an oil rich nation that wasn't involved in 9-11 and posed no threat to us.
So…no WMD’s and no links to AQ later…our goal is now to get Arabs to ‘like us’ by getting the Iraqi’s to ‘like us and like democracy’ despite the fact we shouldn’t ;care what anyone else thinks about the US?
Heh, that’s hysterical. But hey, if our goal is to get the Iraqi's to 'like us' it would be far cheaper and much more effective to simply throw sacks of money out of airplanes over Baghdad every day. At 3 billion a month, about half of what we're spending there now, we could toss out 100 Million a day. And I assure you, the Iraqi's would like that a hell of a lot more than they like being bombed.
Terry I voted for Bush in 2000. I was registered Repub in Texas at the time.
Maybe it would help illustrate the inconsistency of arguing that this action is justified on the premise it might potentially have some benefit to us or the Iraqi’s down the road using an example near and dear to your hearts. Joe complimented Larry and I last night saying that our positions were ‘at least consistent’. The position I’m seeing here on Iraq is utterly inconsistent with your position on stem cell research. (I saw this beaut on someone’s Blog but I can’t remember where. I didn’t think of it on my own)
On Iraq and the ‘we have to liberate the people because it’s our moral duty’ meme: The argument I’m seeing is that it’s justifiable to kill innocent people in the hope that the long term result will benefit both the Iraqi’s and ourselves. So if babies, toddlers, kids, teenagers, men and women, old people, and the infirmed, get inadvertently shredded to bits by an errant smart bomb or bad Intel or friendly fire, that’s regrettable and no one is happy about it, but its justifiable. The ends here justify the means. It’s questionable if the means in this case will ever be realized, but that’s another question entirely.
But in your view it’s utterly and absolutely immoral to allow a single human blastocyte to be used for stem cell research despite the potential human misery it might eliminate world wide. It’s immoral because, according to you, killing an innocent embryo is wrong because embyro’s are people and killing people is always wrong no matter what the benefit.
So Iraq=>OK to kill people if it might help people down the road.
Stem cell research=>not OK to kill embryos no matter who it will help down the road.
And both these mutually exclusive views come from the religious right who labor under the delusion that they, and they alone, hold the high ground of self-proclaimed consistent absolute morality? Jiminy Crickets. SNAP.
I honestly don’t know someu folks manage to juggle this nonsense inside their heads. But it must be mentally exhausting.
Your ignorance about the amazing transformation occurring in Afghanistan as we speak renders everything you say about our conduct of the war vis a vis Iraq and Afghanistan completely moot. Elections will be held Saturday and the economy has grown by 30% this year. But according to you this is impossible because we are distracted by Iraq. Wake up!
These issues aren't mentally exhausting. Whenever I happen to be in doubt on a particular issue, I log on to the Internet, and find out what Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Larry Lord, DS, and the rest of the Far Left are saying, then I take the opposite view.
They've been wrong on every single major policy event of the last 40 years, and so the opposite is probably right. Kind of like that Seinfeld episode where George decides to do everything that he would ordinarily NOT do, to great and immediate success.
DS-
I believe you, but let me explain the reasons why I suspected you were never a Bush voter:
-You say Bush "Cooked the books" on the WMD intelligence when other members of the security council with their own intelligence resources, some of them hostile to the proposition of deposing Saddam, came to the same conclusion.
-". . . the culprits who perpetrated the greatest foreign policy error in the last fifty years" Worse than 50,000 American dead and 3,000,000 refugees in southeast Asia? That's the kind of hyperbola I'm used to reading in Atrios.
-You give Bush and his team no credit for deposing the Taliban in Afghanistan, the "Graveyard of Empires", with fewer than 300 casualties.
-Joe Wilson is a partisan Democrat who has been caught in several fibs about his Nigerian report, yet you accept his version of the Plame Affair without question.
-You capitalize all of the phrase "Kerry's War Heroism". The man got a piece of shrapnel in the ass. He's not Audie Murphy, for cryin' out loud.
-In general you give Kerry every benefit of a doubt, but Bush none. That's the work of a partisan, and not a Republican partisan.
The problem for both Kerry and Bush is, as it turns out, that France and Germany can say they were right and thereby undermine, or control, the next time a coalition is marshaled.
These issues aren't mentally exhausting.
That's the odd thing Kevin. You're clearly an intelligent guy with a good sense of humor. You run a successful business, which likely means your only freedom is the freedom to choose which 90 hours a week you work and worry. That all requires someone who is on the ball and results oriented.
But you appear, from my perspective at least, to effortlessly glide past gaping inconsistencies in your ideology at will.
I’m not the one who is claiming moral superiority, or claiming this moral absolutism as superior.
I’m not the one who is claiming that using blastocytes which are headed for the commode in research is the equivalent of killing innocent people.
I’m not the one claiming that killing innocent clumps of human cells that will never be people is an absolute moral evil, even if it provides a cure for Parkinson’s or Juvenile Diabetes.
And I’m certainly not the guy who is claiming that invading Iraq and killing innocent people is OK if it might result in a better life for the surviving Iraqi’s down the road.
I’m just the guy pointing out the fly in the ointment you get if you add that all up. Reducto absurdum.
I found the original Blog I got this on. It’s Matthew Yglesias at http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/ and he attributes it to Justin Logan.com. I’ll use Matthew’s wording which is far superior to mine
“To put this another way, the main arguments on offer to defend the Iraq War all rely heavily on utilitarian reasoning. We will launch a war, killing many Americans and many more Iraqis, in order that the surviving, non-maimed Iraqis might lead a better post-liberation life. Or, we will launch a war, killing many Americans and many more Iraqis, in order to forestall the possibility that at some point in the future Saddam Hussein will do something that gets more people killed. The factual bases of these claims are disputable, but as normative statements they take on a reasonable form. But it's a form of argument that's wholly inconsistent with an opposition to stem cell research where you can grant the "pro life" side any premises about the nature of personhood you like and you still wind up with the conclusion that we're killing a few (purported) people in order to save and/or improve the lives of significantly more people. The fact that the American, Iraqi, and other victims of the Iraq War are more determinately persons than are embryos only strengthens the argument, but it's not essential to it.”
Terry, You can believe whatever you want. I grew up in Austin, I've met the guy, I was highly suspicious of democrats growing up during the Carter admin and being exposed to what I felt was liberal arrogance. I thought Reagan was exactly the right guy at the right time and I never bought into the press caricature that reagan was a doddering old fool.
I still am a repub at heart-old school. I really want to vote for a decent and effective Republican candidate. I can envision a wise, fiscally conservative, Republican Leader that holds the moral high ground with america and with the world by telling the turth at all times.
So I can't vote for Bush in good conscience, not to mention out of sheer practicality based on his dismal record.
I capitalized those works "Heroism" to drill home that that's exactly what it was that a lot of people in this community happily trashed; based on spurious claims from a shadowey group now whole discredited. I don't hold it against Bush for opting out of a jungle war slogging through the rainforest in order to fly the most advanced Jet Fighters in the world. Sheesh, I'm JEALOUS that he got to do it! I would love to have had that chance.
For the record, if memory serves, the only dem I've ever voted for in a National Election was Clinton in '96. I liked Dole, Dole is a great guy. But Clinton had done OK and I don't vote to fire people who are performing satisafctorily. But you can believe whatever you want about who I voted for or who I did not. Nothing I can do to stop you there. And it doesn't really matter in this discussion if I voted for David Koresh :)
As simple stated as I can:
Who cares whether the action in Iraq was justified or not? We are there, and we need to vote for the Presidential candidate who will have the best chance for success in the future. That would be.... o ya, the only one with a plan, George W. Bush. I would vote for a Democrat if one stopped complaining enough to come up with a plan. The politics of complaint which Mr. Kerry is playing does not put policy into place. Actual ideas, plans, and sacrifice do.
I unfortunately, will be voting for Nader. I could vote 50,000 times for President Bush and my states electoral votes would still go to Mr. Kerry.
Truth be told, I had never heard the term "blastocyte" before two months ago, and it was right here. Which is a shame, because as often as I've played Scrabble, it would have been nice to use it, if only to show off. My feelings on stem-cell research aren't exactly on the firmest of ground yet. But every time I hear Kerry or Edwards spout off about it I move more decidedly the other way.
But I am sure about my place in the world, and America's. You choose to ignore the most important parts of the WMD report. Hussein was aggressively restarting his program. High-level contact between his government and Al Queda DID take place--Democrats on the 9/11 commission say so. Just because Hussein did not direct 9/11 does not mean that he wasn't a threat, did not support terrorists, or wouldn't continue to do so in the future. So America took him out. We can argue about whether we should rebuild Iraq or not, but not that Hussein's demise is good for America, Iraqis, and the world should not be in dispute. It is the anti-Bush hard Left that isn't getting that message.
You and others think we're just stupid. Is Ed Koch stupid? Zell Miller? Lee Hamilton? How about the 70%-plus of active-duty military who will be throwing the lever to re-elect GWB? We all see the same facts, come to a different conclusion.
I believe what the report might be saying is that Saddam "hoped" to be able to restart his program after the Sanctions were lifted. Not that he had restarted them. I could be wrong but I think that’s the gist of it. And it also speculated that he was not planning to use any future WMD’s on the US or planning to arm terrorists, he was worried about popular uprisings in the North and South and also worried about Iran.
I'm not sure how one goes about determining for sure that Saddam 'hoped' to restart his chem and bio programs. But it's plausible; I'm not exactly shocked that a dictator would ‘hope’ to acquire WMD's...LOL. Bottom line was he did not have an active WMD program or active links to 9-11, and he had no stockpiles of WMD's as advertised.
But what this really tells us Kevin is that the sanctions were working to contain him. They were much more effective than the Bush admin believed. He was boxed in. Our invasion was unnecessary from the standpoint of “keeping America safe from Saddam’s stockpile of WMD’s getting into the hands of terrorists and waking up to a mushroom cloud*”.
*I don't know about you, but my biggest worry was not gas or bioweapons, although that did worry me. My real panic, the reason I jumped on board the War Roller Coaster Ride, stemmed from the thought of a 'mushroom cloud'.
We now know that the two primary lines of evidence for a ‘mushroom cloud’ coming from an Iraqi WMD nuclear program, the Niger Docs and the Aluminum tubes, were not taken seriously by the majority of the relevant experts in the Intel agencies after examination. That Intel was cooked, or horribly and inexcusably mismanaged, and presented to the public as completely legitimate and beyond reasonable possibility of error..
And again, if this war had been 'marketed' as "Saddam has no existing ties to Al Qaeda and has no WMD's, but he might someday get ahold of some and he might even sell them to terrorists", I know I wouldn't have bought that and I doubt the American people would have when a known enemy who had just clocked the sh** out us remained on the loose.
PS Could Al Qaeda be used in scrabble? That would give you a Q without needing a U.
~DS~
Correct me if I'm wrong, the WH/bioethics stance on stem cell research doesn't prohibit it..... It just states that because of the disputed moral status of using blastocysts for research they're not going to provide federal funding for it. You may support said research, but let's face it, even you would be stretching the truth to admit that this issue is not in dispute.
Not funding something ain't the same as restricting it. For example, we do restrict research on human cloning.
I'm with DS on the political burnout. On Monday while I was waiting for an appointment to see my doctor (imagine that!) I could not help but overhear a couple engaged in a conversation about the election. It was at that point I fully realized that I've had enough of politics of late. And I'm a hard core political junkie. The problem is that you can't go anywhere without running in to it these days, and I imagine it's only going to get worse between now and November 2nd. It's even tough for me to enjoy the Twins being in the playoffs this year, because I'm trying to figure out how to watch the games around the debates. I'm leaving Saturday for a five day business trip to Europe and I can't wait for a break in the non-stop action of this campaign. I'll try to avoid the BBC and CNN International as much as possible so as to maintain my sanity. I echo Joe's call for a moratorium on all things political for sixty days after the election.
Correct me if I'm wrong, the WH/bioethics stance on stem cell research doesn't prohibit it..... It just states that because of the disputed moral status of using blastocysts for research they're not going to provide federal funding for it.
That is my understanding as well Mark.
I believe if I'm reading Yglesias/Logan correctly, they were addressing the position of the religious right on ESC research along the lines of the right-to-life concern, not the WH position on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
I wonder where Bush and Cheney stand on my favorite inflammatory topic: justified infanticide.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/07/uk.baby.ruling.reut/index.html
once you are out of the womb xians could care less about what happens to you, especially if you are from a muslim country.
No proper nouns are allowed in Scrabble, and there are only five accepted words that have a "Q" but no "U" that follow.
I have invented a word, though, that is gaining some currency and may wind up in the dictionary soon:
qerry--a Northeastern metrosexual, effete without being gay. Typically characterized by expensive bouffant hairstyles and a willingness to being "kept" by extremely wealthy matrons in an asexual relationship.
Ex: "Did you see that querry on Larry King last night?"
qerry--a Northeastern metrosexual, effete without being gay. Typically characterized by expensive bouffant hairstyles and a willingness to being "kept" by extremely wealthy matrons in an asexual relationship.M
ROFL! See Kevin you're alright sometimes. Stuff like that makes me sorry we disagree so.
I liked the SNL Bit on Kerry: The fact of the matter is, I have consistently supported the war in front of pro-war audiences, and condemned it when speaking to groups that opposed it. That is not flip-flopping, that is pandering, and Americans deserve a president who knows the difference.
Folks thanks for keeping me busy today on this thread. Sometimes my job moves very fast, but a lot of my time is spent just sitting around and waiting for other people to do some paperwork and get it back to me, or waiting for something to happen in the market. Normally I could spend that time more productively. But after a couple of hurricanes in tow weeks here in Florida, most of my clients have other things to do than set down for appointments. They're behind on their own chores, or helping out a neighbor who lst their roof, that kind of stuff. I’ve spent a lot of time dissing Bush, so I’ll leave with something positive.
I understand that George Bush has disavowed a section in a Bill that would allow ‘extraordinary rendering’ of American citizens with no due process. ER is a euphemism for outsourcing the torture of prisoners held by the US, mostly to third world sh*tholes. I haven’t read the Bill itself, but from what I understand the danger was that between that Bill and existing laws, you could have a very un-American scenario play out.
Here would be a nightmare situation: Some wackjob like Timothy McVeigh reads Joe’s blog on a regular basis. He has it stored on his faves. This wackjob happens to think of himself as a Christian Warrior for God, but that self-perception is simply a defense mechanism to cover for his pathologically violent streak. He loves guns and bombs, etc …dreams of killing people, and so on. And sooner or later this nutcake actually does something that ends up being classified as terrorism, or tries to and gets caught, or whatever. He blows up an abortion clinic and kills a bunch of people, or hits a fed building with a fertilizer bombs and kills hundreds, ad nauseaum. And the feds figure out who it is and go into his home and confiscate his hard drive.
And viola, they find Joe’s Blog on his faves and they find that the nutjob has visited Joe’s site 600 times a day. They find that the nutjob even sent Joe e-mails asking for Joe’s prayers in an upcoming ‘project for God’ the nutjob was planning. And Joe, being a nice responsive Christian, sent back his generic blessing … having no idea what the hell the guy really meant.
Now they can go into Joe’s home, and drag Joe and Joe’s wife, and even Joe’s kids or friends, out of their homes in the middle of the night. And, if an arbitrary investigator happens to feel that Joe and company aren’t cooperating, or if the investigator just gets angry, he can unilaterally recommend shipping Joe and company off to Syria or Pakistan for a little ‘extraordinary rendering’. Joe can be held indefinitely overseas. No Red Cross or Amnesty International officials will be allowed to see Joe. All of this could be done without filing charges, without providing Joe a defense, without even explaining to Joe or his circle of friends and co-workers what was going on. If he dies over there no one will be held accountable.
It gets worse…under torture and drugged, or forced to watch his loved ones under torture, Joe breaks (I’m not saying you would break Joe, this is just a for instance) and starts telling them anything they want to hear; anything to stop the pain and to protect his family from further abuse. He implicates other regs or neighbors or people from his congregation. The same cycle of arrest and abuse then kicks off anew, only this time Kevin W or I are in the limelight.
That is simply a recipe for disaster. No matter how good the intentions of such a measure, it opens up a potential for abuse right up there with the Nazi Death Camps. It is 180 degrees in opposition to what this country stands for. Proponents of this legislation might argue that it’s vital. They might float the ‘ticking atomic bomb scenario’ as a reason why we need it. Bulls**t. I trust that the CIA or whomever would take a chance on breaking the law and do what they have to do in a ticking atomic bomb scenario.
So if I have my facts correct, George Bush made the right decision on this matter and protected all of us from unimaginable abuses down the road.
DS
What is your information source as you seem so well informed? I know that it is not General Franks who ran both war time operations. It is not the CENTCOM website which has the most accurate information due to it's source. It is not people on the ground in Iraq or Aphganastan because I assume you are not there.
Where do you get your information? How accurate is it? What qualifies you to make judgements regarding operations in other countries where you are not?
In the years prior to 9/11 and afterwords, I would routinely see people protesting against the sanctions on Iraq, claiming that these sanctions were responsiable for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi children. In the run up to the war, these same folks switched their signs to favor sanctions over invasion. Again we here talk about how well the sanctions were working. This new report tells us Saddam believed the sanctions were soon to collapse. Does anyone really believe that Saddam would not have pursued WMDs if he had the chance. Do you think either of sons would not have? In the long run, was the sanctions regime any more effective than our embargo on Cuba?
Rick I think he would have been thrilled to get some WMD's. He might not have been real anxious to share them with terrorists though.
Can you think of a hostile brutal dictator right off the top of your head that would't be glad to have WMD's? Maybe Khaddefi if we restrict ourselves to the last couple of years only?
But it's irrelevent as far as the 'case for war' which was made to the American people though. The 'case for war' wasn't that Saddam was an evil bastard who might someday have WMD's.
The case was that he did have stockpiles of WMD's and did have ties to Al Qaeada, and the idea that he had a hand in 9-11 was nurtured constantly. WMD's, nukes, Iraq, Al Qaeada, 9-11, WMD's, Saddam ...
The real fear that shut my critical thinking down was the assertion by the WH that he did have an active nuclear program and was on the verge of aqcuiring an atomic bomb if he didn't have one already.
"The real fear that shut my critical thinking down was the assertion by the WH that he did have an active nuclear program and was on the verge of aqcuiring an atomic bomb if he didn't have one already."
Yes and where did the WH get much of their information on Saddam's capabilities? From Iraqis who hated Saddam and who later admitted lying to the United States. From Iraqis who were quickly placed in relatively cushy positions of power after the takeover. And from human scum like Ahmed Chalabi, a man whom Bush pretends he never knew.
But never mind that. SOmeone somewhere said some bad stuff about Saddam and there are a great deal of lily-livered chickens in this country like Rick that will believe anything the government tells them as long as it has a Texas accent, even a fake one. It's a truly pathetic situation -- 62% of Republicans believe Saddam was personally behind 9/11 according to a recent Gallup poll!!!! That says it all. And it's exactly why the rest of world thinks the United States is an ignorant righteous bully that should be brought down a couple notches. The rest of the world is, of course, absolutely right.
As everyone who isn't a Republican pussy knows, here is where the next terrorist attack in the US is likely to come from (the same place it came from last time, more or less):
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/07/aryan.indicted.ap/index.html
Aryan leader charged with sending e-mail threats
...
Holten says the nation opposes Jews, minorities, homosexuals, federal and local law enforcement officials, drug dealers, the media and anyone against white supremacy.
...
Although Holten has sent e-mails to various Jewish and minority groups and to the Reno City Council, police said the messages did not meet the legal standard to be considered a terrorist threat -- until last month.
"We will not misstep. Victims do not speak," the e-mail said. "Our terrorist actions will be a shock to the citizens of Reno and San Francisco."
Sorry for the err...
please transpose east with west and vice-versa in my last post.
thanks!
Mark S.:
It would depend. I honestly don't know enough about the Bosnia situation to compare and contrast the two. I will say that I generally oppose US intervention except in the most extreme of circumstances. It would also need to be demonstrated that the egregious human rights violations were common and ongoing. Most of the large-scale human rights abuses I've seen documented in Iraq took place in the 1980's, when Hussein was our "friend," and I don't believe I've seen justifications that don't use those decades-old numbers to skew the overall total.I'm reminded of when Ralph Reed was on The Daily Show and Jon Stewart asked him why, in light of new information, the war in Iraq was still justified. Reed started rattling off a list of Hussein's abuses. Stewart smartly replied, "No, I meant since 1991." (Almost everything Reed cited was from before the first Gulf War.)
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that taking out Iran's sworn enemy who attacked them in 1980 leading to a horrible war that lasted for years would be percieved by the Iranians as being 'squeezed'. Iran is Sh'ia. Osama is Sunni. Iraq was controlled by facist nationalist Ba'athist who were also Sunni. That may not mean much to you and I, but over there apparently that is a pretty big deal.
But be that as it may: This gig was sold as Iraq being a threat because of ties to AQ/911 and having stockpiles of WMD's- including an active nuclear program. It wasn't sold as some kind of vague strategy to isolate Iran. That sounds an awful lot like an ad hoc rationalization.
My point was that the rationalization for going in wasn't necessarily the same as the main strategic objective.
Which was not only to find WMD's, but more importantly, to contain terrorism where it lies... at least most prominently.
Do you really think that the Sunnis, Sh'ias, and Ba'athists would keep each other in check forever?
Though we may want to harp on the WMD's (lack there of), and the Al-Qaeda ties... The fact remains that Saddaam was a sponsor of terrorism. And he basically was doing the same thing as the Nazi's, on a smaller scale, by supporting the the attacks, monetarily and otherwise, on innocent Jews.
By the way, last time I checked, Israel was our ally not Iraq under the murderous regime of Saddaam. There were so many reasons to invade Iraq.... Let me quote our friend in arms, Kerry; "Knowing then what we know now..."
Oh forget that, we still should have gone in. . . I would imagine the Israeli's are thankful that Saddaam is not paying families of terrorists to kill more innocent Jews... since we took him out.
Bottom line is: The world will be much safer with U.S. presence in that part of the world. Like it or not.
I'm quite sure you can make arguements against, but it does not change the fact that muderous MF's out there want to chop our heads off, and without a proactive approach, they will succeed in beheading all of us.
"The world will be much safer with U.S. presence in that part of the world. Like it or not."
C3: be sure to forward your rainbows and flowers speech to the families of the people who were blown apart and crippled a few hours ago in Egypt. I'm sure they'll be glad to know we've got thousands of high-school "educated" Americans in Iraq looking out for their interests.
Larry Lord lays down the World's Biggest Bong for just a moment and emerges from a Cheechy Chongy fog to remind us of yet another example of Muslims slaughtering other Muslims.
Macchiavelli was right: don't try to catch a falling knife. Frankly, the Middle East was most stable when Iran was using old American arms to fight the Iraqis with new American arms and new Saddam-produced chemical weapons. Ah, the good old days. Could they be coming back?
I'd like to see the rational behind why you think removing Saddam would make the US safer from Al Qaeda C3.
Kevin writes
"Larry Lord lays down the World's Biggest Bong for just a moment and emerges from a Cheechy Chongy fog to remind us of yet another example of Muslims slaughtering other Muslims."
Man, I wish that were true. Unfortunately I'm at work and it was Muslims killing Jews in this instance.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/07/egypt.hotel.explosion/index.html
Actually Larry. . .
My family is from Egypt. . . and we are also Jews... So you might imagine, between all of your partisan rants, that I have quite a unique point of view on the situation... And the situation that the country that I immigrated to, currently faces. Though you may, in your leftist naivity, believe that an immigrant from Egypt may be far less educated than yourself... probably because I am in support of the sitting president. I have to say that your tone is the exact reason why I turned away from people like you and your party affiliates. You are a true divider Larry Lord. I hope you find some peace within yourself to be able to communicate with people in a respectful manner - that don't have the same opinion or party affiliation as yourself.
DS,
The entire world will be safer without Saddaam in power! Al Qaeda is only one of a number of Islamic fundamentalist groups that want to see the demise of the U.S. and anyone else who wishes to be and live in freedom.
Saddaam was a supporter of several of these lunatics. I don't see how only concentrating on Al Qaeda is in the free worlds best interests...
Evil is EVIL no matter what name it hides behind.
It would be extremely naive to only go after terrorists that are under the umbrella of Al Qaeda.
The entire world will be safer without Saddaam in power!
Why do you think that exactly? My intuition is some parts of the world might be safer without Saddam in power. Iran or Syria for example. But why is the US, Germany, France, China, or South America safer with Saddam out of power?
Why is the US safer with Saddam out of power? What threat did he pose to the US? What would he attack us with since he had no WMD's?
Al Qaeda is only one of a number of Islamic fundamentalist groups that want to see the demise of the U.S. and anyone else who wishes to be and live in freedom.
C3 I'll take that as an honest diplomatic admission that you can't make the case for why removing Saddam leaves the US safer from Al Qaeda. if I'm wrong, please present your case?
Saddaam was a supporter of several of these lunatics. I don't see how only concentrating on Al Qaeda is in the free worlds best interests...
OK, fair enough ... What terrorist organizations specifically did Saddam Hussien support and aid significantly, which have attacked the United States or that we know planned to attack the United States? Hezbollah? Hamas? Make your case?
Name the terrorist organization, the method of supoprt employed by Sadda Hussien, and present the evidence you have that any of those orgs had realistic plans to attack the United States because of that support?
Larry Writes: "be sure to forward your rainbows and flowers speech to the families of the people who were blown apart and crippled a few hours ago in Egypt. I'm sure they'll be glad to know we've got thousands of high-school "educated" Americans in Iraq looking out for their interests."
Larry,
Those high-school "educated" American troops are not the reason for the Lunatics blowing people up in Egypt. The Islamo-lunatics are responsible. Is that not clear yet.
And yes, the American soldiers are there to look out for the best interests of those people. They are doing their best to help in the face of a very difficult, yet necessary situation. I have a feeling the Amercans will be the first to offer assistance to Egypt, Larry. You really don't know how fortunate you are to be from this country, do you?