Interesting wording from Kerry - "But I can do a better job of protecting America’s security..." So, our "security" needs protecting, not our borders or our people.
What exactly is being protected in the phrase "protecting America’s security?"

He could protect America. Or, he could make America secure.

Wow, and I went to public schools!

He can't expect any help from the Germans or the French. When he told Schroeder that he would be one of the first overnight guests in the Kerry White House, Schroeder replied, "I was afraid you'd say that."

Now Bill,

You know someone will come along and say kerry didn't really mean to say what he said at the debate, about Global Test, and Fuel Rods.

His Position has now changed....

To Who Knows what....

And instead of calling him Senator, how about calling him a Truancy Problem instead.

Better Ring, yes, and more attributable to his attendence record in the Senate.

But hey why talk about Kerry's record, right, wait a day, and see the position change.

Regards,
Sonar5

TS Eliot on Kerry-types

We are the hollow men We are the stuffed men Leaning together Headpiece filled with straw. Alas! Our dried voice, when we whisper together Are quiet and meaningless As wind in dry grass Or rats’ feet in our dry cellar

At what point in U.S. history did it become acceptable for our first response to adversity to be attack? As the greatest country in the world, we should be expected to negotiate before we pull out the guns. Kerry wants to bring us back to this. He wants to shake us out of the shoot first, ask questions later mentality that Bush has made popular. Not that it matters to most of you, but negotiation skills garner respect from most other countries. I'm quite sure that Kerry will take to arms if all else fails. So don't worry, with Kerry you will still have plenty of late night violence-for-entertainment news shows.

Anonymous Scientist. Let's see, we negotiated with Saddam Hussein for twelve years. How exactly was invading a 'first choice'? That giant sucking sound you hear that is the memory-hole of the DNC.

Gee, Anon. Scientist, I thought we were attacked on September 11, 2001. My mistake. I guess I'm wrong as well that the US is going through the UN, IAEA, and the EU in dealing with Tehran; and additionally working with China, South Korea, Japan & Russia in dealing with Pyong Yang. Problem being, everyone else talks a good game but doesn't back it up with anything.

Gee Robert -- I guess I'm having problems understanding how the terrorist attack on 9/11 justifies immediate military response to Iran? Was Iran also involved in 9/11? If not, then why are you invoking 9/11 as justification for unilateral military action?

We are going to be really, really busy if we plan on attacking every country that doesn't follow by the rules. Don't you think we should save our strength for Korea? The could really turn out to be some tough contenders.

Dear Rusty, I don't object to removing SH from power. I object to being lied to. I object to taking inconclusive data (regarding WMDs) and talking about it as fact. This is called lying. The lie made nearly all of us believe that we were under an imminent threat. The imminent threat led nearly all of us to endorse a war. Now that most of us know we were lied to, we are p*ssed off because we endorsed war under false circumstances. How can I be any clearer than this?

There still remains a minority of people in this world who think Iraq was justified (can you identify with this group Rusty?) The majority intends to correct this problem in November.

Anon Sci: keep living in your fantasy world.

The bottom line is this: in the age of terrorism, the only way to prevent another attack in this country is through preemption. Sorry to break that news to you. You can't have fantasyland. It's either preemption or allowing the US homeland to be attacked again, this time worse than 9-11.

As for what the majority of the world thinks...who cares? The majority of the world didn't like Reagan's policies during the 80's, yet he won the Cold War. The majority of the world is messed up, and often fed inaccurate information through their press. Why do we want to follow them? They don't have such a great track record.

As for the "imminent threat" line...what Bush said was that we have to act before a threat become imminent, because then it is often too late. It was actually Edwards who told us that the threat from Iraq was imminent.

Anon Scientist you said:
"Dear Rusty, I don't object to removing SH from power. I object to being lied to. I object to taking inconclusive data (regarding WMDs) and talking about it as fact. This is called lying. The lie made nearly all of us believe that we were under an imminent threat. The imminent threat led nearly all of us to endorse a war. Now that most of us know we were lied to, we are p*ssed off because we endorsed war under false circumstances. How can I be any clearer than this?

There still remains a minority of people in this world who think Iraq was justified (can you identify with this group Rusty?) The majority intends to correct this problem in November."

Your vice-presidential candidate said on the CNN show "Late Edition" 2/24/02 that Iraq was the "most serious and imminent threat to our country". Was he lying? Why have a liar on your ticket who "parrots" the opposition? WAS he lying?

We don't want any free nuclear fuel from you, Satan! Begone!

"Your vice-presidential candidate said on the CNN show "Late Edition" 2/24/02 that Iraq was the "most serious and imminent threat to our country"

SAHMmy, that was most definately the line of thought at the time. But, the Iraqis were seen as a "serious and imminent" threat because they supposedly had WMDs. The seriousness of this charge was intentionally over-amplified by Bush & Company to justify a war in Iraq. In addition, Bush & Co. tried to make a connection between SH and AQ. Again, there was no evidence of this, but they had most people convinced of a connection prior to the invasion. Cheney's words (in an interview with Tim Russert on Sept 14, 2003):

===============
MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don't know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that.
===============

Another Thought: I really love it when someone tries to convince me that their reality is more real than mine. My so called "fantasy" is shared by most thoughtful people walking on this planet. You know, the people that you don't care about? It's time for you to realize that living in fantasy is putting your hands over your eyes and ears and making up a set of rules that is only amenable to a minority of the world -- and then enforcing the rules with military might. The fantasy continues when you begin to believe that your beliefs are more right because you have the ability to squash anyone who provides a countering view.

Anon Scientist:

The fact that John Edwards told the American people that Iraq was the most serious and imminent threat to our country has nothing to do with the Cheney/Russert exchange that you posted.

I couldn't tell from your double-speak, but WAS Edwards lying? That's a yes or no answer, btw.

SAHMmy, the reason you couldn't ascertain a connection between the "imminent threat" comment, and the Cheney/Russert exchange is because I wasn't trying to make one. I was trying to show a record of conspicuous misleads that were staged by Bush & Co. WMDs were one mislead, and the Saddam Hussein - Al Qaeda was another. Both were used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Double-speak. Hmmm. I think I was clear, but I will give you more clarity. John Edwards was basing his "imminent threat" comment on the trumped up intelligence reports. Was he lying? Well, if he knew that the intelligence reports were trumped up, and he presented them as fact, then he was lying. But if he took Bush & COs word (about WMDs) at face value, then he was simply restating what he was told, and not lying.

Lying is making an untrue statement with intent to deceive. Truth telling is when you take an idea that is thought to be true, and relay it to others.

Do you know Edwards' level of access to the intelligence regarding Iraq? He's a democrat, I doubt that he knew much more than he was being told by Bush & Co. However, I'm willing to listen if you know different.

As to the wisdom of preemptive action, consider the Israeli action in 1981 to take out Saddam's nuclear reactor.

Now, everyone considers that to have been a magnificent thing...without it, Saddam would very well have had nukes even before the first Gulf War. We would have had a guy with a Hitler complex in the Middle East with nukes.

But back then, "global" opinion was overwhelmingly against the Israeli action...in fact, this action did not pass the "global test" that Kerry likes so much.

This case illustrates two points:
1) The value of preemptive action often is not clearly seen until many years into the future
2) The "global test" would not allow for just and wise preemptive action...

As to the wisdom of preemptive action, consider the Israeli action in 1981 to take out Saddam's nuclear reactor.

Now, everyone considers that to have been a magnificent thing...without it, Saddam would very well have had nukes even before the first Gulf War. We would have had a guy with a Hitler complex in the Middle East with nukes.

INDC Journal heartily endorses Another Thought's sentiment and hereby awards him the "Prescient Comment of the Day" Award. There's no prize except for a nice thanks and a box of candied gummy bears, but well said.

Bill: Thanks for the kind comments...they are reward enough indeed.

Here's something else interesting about that Israeli preemptive strike: then, as now, French President Chirac led the opposition and outcry against it. Quoting from a BBC report:
French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac cultivated France's special relationship with Iraq during the 1970s to maintain an influence in a region dominated by Anglo-Saxons and boost trade links with the oil-rich nation.

He led the universal condemnation of Israel's attack on Osirak.

Then, 22 years later - as French president - Mr Chirac was vehemently against the USA and Britain going to war with Iraq over the issue of weapons of mass destruction.
--end of quote
Reference:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

I just wish the Bush/Cheney people would use this example...

Anon Scientist,

I wonder how you seem to think that Edwards concluded that Iraq was an imminent threat from Bush and Co. when Bush and Co. stated emphatically that the threat Iraq posed to the U.S. was NOT imminent. You do recall Bush stating that Iraq was a "gathering" threat, not imminent, yes?

You seem to be implying that Bush and Co. KNEW the intel was wrong and went to war despite that. Is that your implication?

If no, then good. If yes, then I'd like some proof that Bush KNEW there were no WMDs yet claimed (As world and US leaders had been claiming for more than a decade-INCLUDING John F. Kerry on the Senate floor in 1997) there were. Kerry and Edwards saw the intel that Bush saw. They have their own minds don't they? Why try to pretend that they were mislead by Bush when they saw the same intel?

Now perhaps we need more than a global test for the next U.S. President, perhaps we need a Clairvoyant Test. The U.S. President must be able to discern with 100% accuracy which intel is accurate and which intel is false.

Is Bush's "catastrophic mistake" that he relied on intel that turned out to be inaccurate? If a President cannot use intel to guide him in making decisions, what would you suggest?

The point is, Bush and more than a dozen other global leaders believed that Saddam was in possession of WMD based on combined intel. He acted on it.

What is your alternative to a gathering threat? What say you to the fact that Kerry in '97 recommended unilateral pre-emptive attacks in dealing with Iraq? And since Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat, Edwards must've come up with that all by his lonesome, no? WHy try to blame Bush for Edward's mistatements?

"INDC Journal heartily endorses Another Thought's sentiment"

Bill, I wish I could celebrate with you, however, I don't believe that past success in the area of preemptive action means equal future success. We live in a drastically different climate than we did 23 years ago. We need to be more responsible, or we will lose our dominance in the world.

Consider this proverb: "He invites future injuries who rewards past ones."

"You do recall Bush stating that Iraq was a "gathering" threat, not imminent, yes?"

SAHMmy, this is a semantic argument -- "gathering" and "imminent" are synonyms. And yes SAHMmy, I am implying that Bush & Co. overstated the legitimacy of the intel to justify war. Consider this quote from from former CIA official Ray McGovern:

"President Bush on October 7, 2002 said that Iraq could possibly produce a nuclear weapon within a year. These are deliberate distortions. Lies. When a US president decides it is necessary to go to war, he has to procure intelligence to prove the need for war."

No, Anon Sci., in the speech Bush gave about Iraq's "gathering threat", he also said (I'm paraphrasing a bit) "some say we should wait until the threat is imminent." To me that is Bush clearly distinguishing between gathering and imminent. I don't think Bush lied about intelligence assesments on Iraq, rather he looked at the worst case scenario based upon faulty intelligence (some of which was forged by an Italian working for our alleged ally France). Bush could either overreact to a threat or underreact. As per the Bush doctrine, after Sept. 11, we are no longer going to underreact.

"I don't think Bush lied about intelligence assesments on Iraq"

Robert: This is your thought and opinion. Mine is that he knew more than he told us. Did you ever read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" by Wolfowitz et. al? It was published in September 2000 (prior to Bush's election) for Bush & Co. It said the Pentagon should be "prepared to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars." And it said the Pentagon should "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions." The report humbly offered itself as a "road map for the nation's immediate and future defense plans." The report anticipates the value that an attack on the United States would have in getting its transformative agenda adopted. "The process of transformation ... is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor."

It's great reading! It's like reading history before it happened! I'm not suggesting that we could have stopped 9/11 (that's for another debate), but what I'm suggesting is that Bush & Co. leveraged the tragedy and fear surrounding 9/11 as an opportunity to begin the "process of transformation" in the "critical regions" of the world.

You can find it in PDF format on the web -- have a gander.

Just to clear things up with regards to what Bush actually said:
Here is what Bush said in his 2003 SOTU:
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

Clearly, Bush is stating we have to act before the threat becomes imminent. So this meme about Bush declaring Iraq to be an imminent threat is bunk.

Anon Sci writes
"I don't believe that past success in the area of preemptive action means equal future success."

Wrong..hit the buzzer. Basically, you offer no defense of your belief, but just state it. Then you offer some silly little quote. So a quote from the past somehow carries more weight than an actual historical event from the past.

Earth to anon scientist: we always need to learn from the past...we also operate on the principle that sometimes things that work in the past will continue to work. That is kind of basic to human life.

So, yes, the example of the Israeli bombing of the Iraq nuclear reactor is a relevant example of successful preemptive action.
As Anthony Damato writes:
These retrospective and counterfactual speculations make it clear that Israel did the world a great service on June 7, 1981, in its air strike against the Osiraq nuclear reactor. But Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. We ought to take the perspective of 1981 and ask two questions: (1) Could
the importance of Israel's action have been assessed years before the Persian Gulf War? and (2) Was Israel's air strike permissible under international law?

Sorry, Anon, I've got too much to do to read Wolfie. But hey, you know what? Under Clinton there was the idea of the US military being able to fight two regional wars as well (and the idea there was Iraq and NoKo.)
As for transforming critical regions of the world. Yes. Exactly. There are regions that hate us, mostly because those governments whip up anti-US sentiment in their citizenry to hide their own failings to those people. Does Egypt (e.g.) do this? Yes. But Egypt isn't a threat to us, it's not developing WMD. Do Iran and North Korea do this? Yes. And they are threats because they have ties to terrorists & engage in acts of terrorism themselves.

Another Thought: Please note, I said "I don't believe that past success in the area of preemptive action means equal future success."

Your "Wrong..hit the buzzer" comment implies that you think you are right. Must be nice to have all of the answers! Learning from the past is fundamental to growth. But claiming that the future is always going to be like the past is inaccurate. The "history repeats itself" mentality does not take into account an ever changing world. Life would be easy and convenient if this were the case. We would probably have world peace if history was always an accurate prediction of the future.

I don't believe this was a time to test history. I don't believe this was the time for a preemptive strike in the Middle East.

Robert, you did it! You lived up to my expectations. You invoked the Clinton defense. Good job! Now go back to reading Unfit for Command -- it's all true!

A-huh?

Back to work now.

Anon Scientist: Basically, you have no argument against my analogy other than your own belief. You are certainly entitled to those beliefs, but they are in no way authoritative or definitive.

I prefer to rely upon history.

We have a great example of where the Israeli's staged a just and successful preemptive strike against Saddam Hussein and his WMD capacity, and it saved the world from perhaps another world war. Yet at the time the Israeli action was condemned across the world, and France was leading that outrage. Sound familiar?

The example of the 1981 Israeli strike against Iraq's nuke reactor is the perfect example of a successful preemptive strike that is hugely unpopular at the time but that is vindicated by history.

So, what is Bush's great plan for dealing with this? Remember, it's all about comparison...& what would you do?

"Basically, you have no argument against my analogy other than your own belief. You are certainly entitled to those beliefs, but they are in no way authoritative or definitive."

This has breached the cusp of philosophy. You have yours and I have mine. We may both be right -- who knows?

Anon Sci: I agree that we have reached a point where we both can see that we disagree, and granted, we can't know for sure at this point who is correct.

However, my point is that I do have a historical precedent to back up my case, whereas you do not. Granted, that is not definitive...again, only the verdict of history will tell. However, I believe my argument is stronger due to that historical precedent.

As to your assertion that "We may both be right"...I doubt that...you have been listening to too much John Kerry-speak, where he tries to take multiple sides on an issue and proclaim them to be equally valid.

My thesis is that the action to liberate Iraq has been overall a wise and just action, which will have in the long term beneficial consequences to the US and to the world at large. Your thesis is otherwise. I don't see how we can reconcile those two concepts. It may take a good deal of time to see what the truth is, and along the way it may require some complex analysis if many factors, but at some point history will render a verdict...at some point, in the calculus of human good, we will be able to pronounce the action in Iraq as beneficial or not. Liberating Iraq was either a good thing or not...you can't have it both ways.

Another Thought: Actually, I was willing to concede that you have a point until you said, "you have been listening to too much John Kerry-speak". Now I'm fuming with anger! Just kidding -- good debate.

Anon Sci: I'm sorry I compared your thinking to Kerry's...I know that's a low blow...:)

Likewise, thanks for the online debate!

Awwww, that's sweet. Online love blossoms. Sigh.

Bill, you really know how to bring us all together. Thanks!

A round of Chai for everyone! Ha ha!

You asked the OBVIOUSLY rhetorical question (a ways back)

At what point in U.S. history did it become acceptable for our first response to adversity to be attack?
Short, concrete answer

09 / 11 / 2001

Others have adequately engaged your "rhetoric" decisively, it appears

A 09/10 mindset in a 09/12 world--apparently longing for a 19th century, eurocentric world view to be reinstituted.
Personally, I'd recommend a stiff dose of Ralph Peters, followed by a Mark Steyn "chaser"
choose....domesticate or eradicate

Ignore: The 9/11 tragedy has become the justification for everything this administration has done. Read the Wolfowitz report, Rebuilding America's Defenses, so that you can clear up in your mind that 9/11 was seen as a "fortunate tragedy" for this administration. I'm not suggesting they don't care about the tragedy, but using any tragedy to push a political agenda is a sin that God will surely judge. We were frightened and looked to our administration for protection. Carte blanche for them! The fact that you have bought into their thinly veiled motives only tells me that you are not truly behind the curtain.