Kerry continues to demonstrate the clueless and hollow nature of his campaign. It has so far consisted of little more than Bush-bashing, with the exception of a gumdrop-fairy promise to create ten million new jobs (Why such a modest number? Why not just promise 0% unemployment if you're going to fantasize?)
Today he accused Bush of "rushing to war." Right. A year-long international debate is a "rush." By that definition, a tree sloth battle royale would be a blindingly fast confrontation. As for his contention that the post-Iraq planning was weak, I'm inclined to agree. It was impossible to forsee all outcomes, and the situation is rapidly shifting.
I also highly doubt that a Kerry cabinet of California liberals would have been a big improvement. Especially when he spouts nonsense like this:
"I believe our troops are in greater danger today, exposed to more gun fire and more mortar attacks and more ambushes than they had to be if we had done what common sense dictates ... which is to build alliances and share the responsibilities,"
These potential allies are a bit like his jobs. They exist only in his imagination. If Bush's patient negotiations with the UN didn't secure us allies, where were these allies to come from? Further, this is an incredible insult to the large number of countries whose troops are suffering and serving right alongside ours. It's interesting to watch him insult and alienate the 35 countries who have contributed to the Coalition forces in Iraq, all while telling us how much more diplomatic he would have been than Bush.
As usual, he wants it both ways. He voted in favor of Bush's "rush to war," finding the pace just fine back then. He voted against the 87 billion dollar supplemental bill to pay for additional body armor and pay raises for the military, but then attacks Bush for not providing for the troops.
He also keeps forgetting to mention that bin Laden is no longer Minister of Defense in Afghanistan, Libya has abandoned its WMD aspirations and Iran is increasingly open to accountability on the subject.
America IS safer thanks to Bush and his post-9/11 response.
Posted by Discoshaman at mai 29, 2004 02:33 AM | TrackBack
Not a rush? Inspections were going on, but they didn't tell us what Bush wanted to hear (that there were nu-kyu-lar weapons on every street corner pointed at us) so he said Blix and his team weren't doing a good job. It turns out they were, and had they been allowed to finish we could have found out that Iraq didn't have WMD without sacrificing over 800 American lives. Not a rush? He got the UN resolution but the failed work with the UN to put together a team for the invasion, liberation, occupation, and reconstruction of Iraq. He thought at that planning was a huge waste of time so we put on his cowboy boots and said we'd go it alone. Well we did and look at us now - wishing we'd taken a little time to plan for anything other than being a big bully. And don't tell me we have an "international coalition" - Honduras supplied 300 troops (which they've since pulled), Another Latin American country (sorry can't remember which) gave us 800. Spain gave us 3,000. We now have 138,000 over there - minus the 800+ who have already died. Know how many we have in Afghanistan searching for the supposed Public Enemy #1? 11,000. Some priorites, eh? (It's that same rush that made Rumsfeld say, "Grab whom you must. Do what you want," when these innocent Iraqis picked off the streets didn't seem to be producing the info on where the fictitious WMD were. Never mind taking the time to figure out you got the wrong people and that there really were no weapons. That'd take too much time.)
And just how is America safer today? We've helped al-Qaeda grow and recruit by playing right into their fears/prejudices about America. I seriously dont' get the we are safer argument. How?
And Iran is open now? I thought they just bought secrets of Chalabi? How open is that?
As for Kerry, he wanted to beleive the President had our nation's best interests at heart tat hte start of the war, hence the signing of the Patriot Act, the yes vote on the war. But given time, and the chance to see what the President really had in mind, he's not the only one changing his mind. Seen the President's poll numbers lately? I agree Kerry's running a sucky campaign - he's being very milk toasty. I wish he'd say what Gore is saying and get tough! In spite of that, he's ahead in the polls, against an incumbent. What does that tell you about the American public's tolerance for lies, stubborness, and the sullying of our good name?
Hello, dear friend. . .
Our weekends are a flat-out sprint (It's 10:30 and I just got in the door.) I'm barely coherent, yet alone in a posture for thoughtful discussion. See you manana. :-)
Posted by: Discoshaman at mai 29, 2004 10:29 PMAutmom-
The inspections were constantly impeded. Further, you're confusing the nature of the inspections. The onus was never on Blix to find them, from the American government's perspective. It's not a matter of debate how many thousands of tons of chem weapons Saddam made in the past. All sides agree on that number. Blix was to verify the status of these weapons. That they were gone. Saddam never accounted for those chemical weapons. If he had destroyed them, it should have been very easy to demonstrate it. He chose to either hide them, or to bluff in a way that made it impossible for us NOT to think he had hidden them. Because what kind of idiot would destroy them and then pretend he hadn't, with a sword hanging over his head?
"He got the UN resolution but the failed work with the UN to put together a team for the invasion, liberation, occupation, and reconstruction of Iraq.
It amazes me what people can say with a straight face sometimes. Please, IN DETAIL, explain how he should have gone about getting Security Council support for the invasion, given the massive oil contracts of France and Russia with Saddam (and his direct payoffs to several influential players in both countries.) Let me know what Powell should have done that would have made them forget those. . .
"Well we did and look at us now - wishing we'd taken a little time to plan for anything other than being a big bully.
A big bully? Yeah, we should definitely put you Dems in charge. You have a real sense of the gravity of this. :P
There are 22,000 foreign troops taking part in the Coalition. We have more countries in THIS one then we did the last. And 800 troops for a small country is an incredibly expensive prospect. Liberals are clueless about defense matters in general, but one thing they especially don't realize is how hollow the militaries of many of our allies really are in terms of deployable troops. There's a reason that Europe sat on its butt while Bosnia exploded. It's called impotence. France, Britain and Russia are three notable exceptions, having real militaries. One is with us, the other two were Saddam's strongest allies. Some might see a connection.
"And just how is America safer today?"
I gave three good examples in the final paragraph of my post. I'd also point out that al-Qaeda, despite a real hankering to do so, hasn't managed to do squat in the United States since 9/11. Bush is doing a great job worldwide at tracking down the al-Qaeda leadership. He's also done a good job pressuring Arab countries to defund the "charities" that support the terrorists.
Most importantly, the presence of thousands of US troops next door woke the Saudis up to the reality that we're serious. They've, for the first time ever, taken concrete steps against the militants. They've deposed and even arrested militant imams, closed down "charities", and started using their internal security forces to crack down on terrorist groups rather than winking at them. While still imperfect, it's a long way from before.
"Know how many we have in Afghanistan searching for the supposed Public Enemy #1? 11,000.
I'll explain some of the differences between Afghanistan and Iraq. First, one is a mountainous tribal region made up of various fiefdoms. The second is a flatland, desert, urbanized country.
The first has a functioning Army already, and needs us primarily for specialized support and advice. The second is still organizing its armed forces.
Consequently, we have 11,000 troops in Afghanistan, but they're heavily weighted toward special ops and light troops. You might think it's a good idea to send Reservists and National Guard troops or mechanized infantry (such as are serving in Iraq) traipsing around mountains covered with suspicious or outright hostile tribes, but the minds at the Pentagon see things differently.
"What does that tell you about the American public's tolerance for lies, stubborness, and the sullying of our good name?
I'll have to ask you to stay on topic. No one mentioned the Clinton Administration even once.
Posted by: Discoshaman at mai 30, 2004 09:22 PM