I wrote this before on my own blog, but nobody noticed so I'll rehash it here.

If you were to tightly wrap John Kerry in 18 gauge copper wire and shove him in between some magnets, you'd have a virtually unlimited source of electricity from all the flip flopping he does.

Here, let me be your editor:

"Anyone that votes for Kerry because they think that Iraq was "Bush's distraction" is living in a world of spin and denial" should read: "Anyone that votes for Kerry is living in a world of spin and denial."

You're welcome.

My favorite quote from that link to Kaus' piece: "[But you're for Kerry--ed. Yes. But just between us he's such a pathetic bull------r.]"

Thanks for linking to that, it made my day.

Interesting. The moonbats have pounced on the Stolen Explosives thread. Got it all figured out. GW Bush personally lost 0.058% of the explosives in Iraq. Cheney also worked for Halliburton.

Then there's this comment thread. No comments on Kerry's previous comments? Paint me shocked.

Good point, Hoodlumman...

Where is postit and the rest? Us feeble-minded Bush supporters can't break through the nuance. Please shower us with your intellect so that we may understand.

Kerry was not my first choice in the Democratic primaries. He wasn’t my second choice either. I did eventually vote for him, but that was because I live in California, and by the time the primaries made it here, it was him, Edwards, or Kucinich. I didn’t want to support Kerry, because I was angry with him for his vote to authorize the President to go to war in Iraq.

On the other hand, I don’t think his arguments about the war have been completely without merit either. His position that it was appropriate to authorize the President to use force so he could persuade the U.N. to get serious with Iraq, and that the President misused that that authorization, isn’t absurd on it’s face. You may disagree with it (I do, though probably for different reasons than you), but it’s not completely without merit. He did say at the time that he was authorizing the President to go to war with the expectation that he would use this to work with the international community, after all. I suspect John Kerry’s position is actually in accord with a large section of the American public, who supported the war at the time, but who are now surprised we never found WMD, and that we are now committed to what may turn out to be a long, bloody, and costly occupation.

Also, regardless of John Kerry’s stand, it was the President who made the decision to go to war. He would have gotten all the credit (and rightly so) if things had gone as well in Iraq as some predicted, so I think it’s fair he gets most of the blame if things are going badly (of course whether things are actually going badly or not is a topic for another discussion). And as I said earlier, I think he would be getting less blame now if he’d done a better job of preparing the country for war.

Just my two cents,

Rick Taylor

P.S. Ok, I've spent way too much time posting. Back to work...

I agree with you, Rick, in that Kerry's argument concerning giving the President the authority to invade as a bargaining chip is an effective one.

There is no doubt that it resonates with a good number of voters and is further proof that Kerry is able to parse his words well.

But how does anyone explain away Kerry's talking point that Bush "took his eye of the ball" in going after Saddam when Kerry began encouraging the president to do just that only a few months after 9/11?

Rick, that rationale is pure weaseling. If Kerry wanted force applied only with UN support, then that is what he should have pushed. While Kerry has a pathetic track record for leading legislation, if he was genuinely concerned that the President might act without UN support he could easily have promoted such a requirement and gotten a fair number of other Democrats to back him. But that isn't what he did. Nobody in their right mind believed for a moment that the UN was going to support use of force, not when the extraordinary corruption of various security council members regarding the sanctions was already coming to light.

This means Kerry was in full insincerity mode when he cast his vote. This means that Kerry was ingoring one of the first critical lessons of boot camp weapons training. Never point a weapon at another person if you aren't prepared to use it. Every cop and soldier knows the moment their gun leaves the holster it's for real. There is no inbetween state.

Even if I believed Kerry's statements about authorizing the invasion only as a bargaining chip, I would have to wonder why he is so freely talking about it now. He is telling future opponents that sometimes Congress will authorize a war resolution but not really mean it. How can a president bargain with future war resolutions if a congressman is telling everyone that sometimes they aren't *really* war resolutions? If this was a powerful tool the US government uses, it is surely now lessened, if not useless.

Hello Deltanine,

***But how does anyone explain away Kerry's talking point that Bush "took his eye of the ball" in going after Saddam when Kerry began encouraging the president to do just that only a few months after 9/11?

I haven't read the full text of Kerry's argument that Bill referred to, and I think it's dangerous to evaluate a politician based on a sound bite. That said, I'll ignore my own advice and take a stab at answering your question.

I guess it would be a matter of degree. John Kerry obviously felt Saddam Hussein was a danger, enough that it was appropriate to enable the President to threaten to use force (and to actually use it if necessary), but he now says the President went to far, going to war before at least attempting to gain the support of our major allies, and before giving inspections (which the threat of war had made possible) a chance to work. He also claims that the administration was obsessed with Iraq to the degree that it hurt the overall war on terror. Certainly the administration didn't help its case that time it forgot to put money in the budget for Afghanistan.

Just because Kerry criticizes Bush for paying attention to Iraq to the exclusion of Osama bin Laden, doesn't mean he's saying Bush should have focused exclusively on Osama bin Laden and ignored Iraq entirely.

Again, I don't necesarily completely agree with John Kerry's position. I think both John Kerry and the President over-prioritized the danger coming from Iraq (though President Bush more so than John Kerry). But it's not an argument that's ridiculous on its face.

--Rick Taylor

P.S. Ok, this time I really am going back to work...

Just because Kerry criticizes Bush for paying attention to Iraq to the exclusion of Osama bin Laden, doesn't mean he's saying Bush should have focused exclusively on Osama bin Laden and ignored Iraq entirely.

Which is pure fantasy camp. The only reason that Saddam Hussein agreed to anything at all was because Bush was willing to drop a couple of hundred thousand troops on his border.

Any serious proposal demanded a diversion of resources - that have a finite logistical orbit in the area - and as another commenter said - "you don't point a gun at anyone unless you're ready to use it."

The French would not confront Saddam - they were stalling because America could not maintain the military build-up. Any idea to the contrary is fantasy.

It is beyond me why anyone would trust this man with our nations security. He is too poll driven, and frankly I want a president who will make decisions based on what is right not what is politically expedient.

Kerry wants to please too many people, and he as president he can't please them all, all the time, and he is going to have a serious percentage of the moonbat left to keep happy-and keeping them happy may mean compromising what is best for the US.

First, this is hardly Kerry's "newest position," but that is besides the point. I think he has it right. It seems to me he is talking about after success in Afghanistan, but even if he is not, Kerry’s criticism today is more to the point that we failed to get bin Laden, and the amount of resources we are expending in Iraq is hurting the fight against global terrorism.

“The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis?”

Kerry certainly did not say we should let up on bin Laden, intentionally mislead the American people into thinking that Saddam was connected to 9-11, then rush into a war without any real plans beyond being ‘greeted as liberators.’

I can't agree with the argument that Kerry autorized force only as a barganing chip. He is too conveiently washing his hands of his responsibility for the vote. If he votes to give the president the autorization to use force then he must expect that the possibility exists that the president will do so. Bush never said to anyone in private and secure committees, "look, give me this authorization and I won't use it." Furthermore, Kerry cannot claim that Bush did not make an effort to get the UN involved. Bush and Powell did not make all those speeches to the UN to exercise their lungs. Those were genuine, heartfelt attempts to get everyone on board.

Rollins -

It seems to me he is talking about after success in Afghanistan,

Kerry retroactively said it after the Afghan campaign, in the first citation, the 2002 speech.

Kerry certainly did not say we should let up on bin Laden, intentionally mislead the American people into thinking that Saddam was connected to 9-11, then rush into a war without any real plans beyond being ‘greeted as liberators.’

And there you go with the mislead crap. Can you please specify what the heck is wrong with Bush's case for war? What offends you or makes you think that Bush misled you with this perfectly sober assessment:

In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?

It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program--R&D, production and weaponization--are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.

Iraq never fully accounted for the major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of the pre-Gulf war weapons of mass destruction program, nor did the Iraq regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons and production infrastructure.

Can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?

What? What exactly is so misleading about that?

Seriously, this drives me nuts. What is so damn misleading about what he said?

Just please answer this one question, Rollins.

Who says we didn't get bin Laden? Yeah, no one in politics will claim he's dead but isn't he a little overdue with one of those video clips showing how he's behind all the death and destruction in the middle east, Russia or wherever?

Kerry’s criticism today is more to the point that we failed to get bin Laden, and the amount of resources we are expending in Iraq is hurting the fight against global terrorism.

Yeah, I'm gonna need some examples on where it's hurt the GWOT. Afghanistan won't work - they just democratically elected their leader...

It'd be good to get some proof that bin Laden is still trapsing around the hills of Tora Bora singing 'nanna-nanna boo boo' but there is none of that, either.

The glass is always half empty, I suppose... and of course that's Chimpy's fault.

"It'd be good to get some proof that bin Laden is still trapsing around the hills of Tora Bora singing 'nanna-nanna boo boo' but there is none of that, either."

Heck, by that logic, we can safely assume Ben Affleck is dead, too.

(sigh)
Ok one more post, and then no more.

Again, I'm defending someone here I don't agree with. I believe that the constitution gives the power to declare war to congress, and that congress should not authorize war until it is time to wage war. Period. My opinions are best captured by Senator Byrd's eloquent remarks at the time. And even if I felt otherwise, I would still have opposed the resolution at the time, because I didn't believe this administration should be trusted with the authority to declare war.

That said, I don't think John Kerry's position is as indefensible as people here are suggesting. He didn’t authorize war purely as a threat; he believed that it might be necessary to go to war with Iraq, but he expected that the administration would use the authorization responsibly, and would only go to war when all other avenues had been exhausted and when we'd made every effort to bring our major allies on board. He thought it was appropriate to give the President the authority to make war so that he would have the leverage both with the international community and with Hussein to attempt to disarm Iraq peacefully, and failing that, to go to war with as many major allies on board as possible.

It is completely disingenuous to criticize Kerry for giving the President authority to wage war as a "bargaining chip". At the time, President Bush asked for the power to declare war as a bargaining chip. He didn't say give me the power to wage war so I can go to war right now. He said, give me the power to wage war so I can put pressure on the international community and on Hussein, so I can force Iraq to disarm. He said at the time that giving him the power to wage war was the best hope for a peaceful solution. He said at the time that he would only go to war if that was the only option in the end. Given that, of course it's legitimate for Kerry to criticize Bush if he feels he misused that authority. You may have legitimate reasons to disagree with that criticism. You may feel that Bush did honor his commitments, that he did his best to exhaust all other avenues before it became apparent that going to war was inevitable, and that he did his best to bring the international community on board, and that he made a responsible decision. But Kerry's argument is not absurd on its face. It's a reasonable position that intelligent people can disagree about and discuss.

--Rick Taylor

Ben,

Just who is claiming that Bush has failed in capturing Ben Affleck?

Rick,

If you're busy, you really don't have to respond any longer or even read the responses to your posts. the majority of people commenting here disagree with your position, so it's likely you won't have the last word anyway.

Rick:
He didn’t authorize war purely as a threat; he believed that it might be necessary to go to war with Iraq, but he expected that the administration would use the authorization responsibly, and would only go to war when all other avenues had been exhausted and when we'd made every effort to bring our major allies on board.

Why do you and Kerry ignore the 5 months of grovelling to the UN Security Council our nation engaged in after Kerry voted to go to war?

Bill,

Why do so many people think Saddam was involved with 9-11? Did it just come to them in their sleep? The Republicans are great at dancing around things, and while no, Bush never said "Saddam was responsible for 9-11" - there were enough people in the Administration, including Bush himself, suggesting it so that people became to believe it.

Rollins, you answered a question with a question. That doesn't count, you sneaker, you!!

Rollins -

Don't ask your question about something non-specific, answer mine, which is very specific. What was wrong, so misleading about Bush's statement in my previous comment?

What?

It's crap like this that reveals Kerry's "foreign policy" to be the contradictory sham that it is. Hell, even the supporters of Kerry I talk to know full well that he makes absolutely no sense on foreign policy and has no meaningful plan for the war on terrorism and Iraq (besides Al Franken that is)...they just don't care...after all, he's not George Bush.

I've been deeply ambivalent about this election and was planning on a protest vote for Tony Blair; but Kerry's cynical and openly contradictory pandering over matters of national security combined with today's sudden reversal by Bush on civil unions just might have sealed my vote for the administration.

To bad Andrew Sullivan still seems to be lost in la-la-land.

The key word is "HOW."

Everybody on the planet knew that Bush was out to get Saddam, and that eventually that is where the US's attention would go.

But, the question of "how" the US was supposed to address Iraq was a big question. Kerry believes that Bush did it the wrong way.

Geek -

Kerry believes that Bush did it the wrong way.

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? All Kerry points out is "the wrong way."

And you buy it all, because you hate Bush.

When Bush didn't address Iraq soon enough because Iraq was such a threat(which requires a diversion of resources), he did it wrong.

When Bush addressed Iraq at all (which requires resources no matter what manner its done in), he did it wrong.

Don't you see what a joke your logic is?

"The right way."

What's the right way that's good enough for Geek?

"I'd get allies."

But the allies have huge economic interests with Saddam, are being bribed by oil for food and have hostile electorates.

"Well if we would have waited for inspections to work ..."

We couldn't - the operating cost and political cost of keeping a prepped army on Saddam's doorstep was abolutely unsustainable.

"Well who says we needed to stage all those troops ..."

Because Saddam refused all inspections until we dropped 200k soldiers on his doorstep. And then refused parts of the agreement even then ...

"But ..."

Ah, forget it.

Bill,

Ultimately, Bush hatrid is a pathology, and the left has been infected by it. There is no logic in their quest for hate or their desire for power.

A person who has some brains and yet believes the tripe of the Democratic party and Kerry that you point out as logically inconsistent is willfully delusional. Any other person either recognizes the inconsistencies and is thus a Bush supporter if they're not obsessing for some other leftist cause (like Andrew Sullivan), or is too ignorant to care.

So talking to the willfully delusional will get you nowhere, talking to those obsessed with other causes other than our very safety as a society will get you nowhere, and pointing out these inconsistencies to everyone able to see them for what they are often becomes an echo chamber.

All that really matters at this point is to wait and see how far down the path of madness this county has really traveled. If Kerry is elected, then you can kiss the War on Terror goodbye, as all the delusions of the left will rise to the forefront (and don't think that they won't, as stupidity begets stupidity). I'd like to prepare myself, but waiting for NYC to be destroyed doesn't make me sleep easy at nights.

The campaign of Kerry and the Dems is simple: criticize. Of course, anyone can be a critic...it's the easiest thing to do. Even Mother Theresa was criticized by some, for goodness sake.

I could criticize Curt Schilling for allowing 4 hits and one run, instead of pitching perfect no hitter, but that doesn't make me a better pitcher than Schilling (or for that matter, even make me a major league pitcher at all).

Any leader of any substantial organization, and of course a country, can be criticized.

Notice that not one of the liberal commentators on this site seems to be able to offer much in the way of positive things to say about Kerry or what he would do.

Another tactic adopted by the Dems and the MSM: blame literally everything that goes wrong on Bush, as if Bush were god. If someone burns their toast in the morning, blame it on Bush. Soldiers make decisions on the ground that doesn't produce instant victory with zero costs, blame it on Bush. A federal govt office worker loses a paper clip, blame it on Bush.

Kerry is a pathetic loser...and this is shown by the fact that he can only criticize, and not offer any real alternative vision.

Bill, Bill, Bill:

Kerry was faulting Bush for turning to diplomacy too late, not for going after Iraq too late.

I don't have the time to debate the entire issue of what went wrong with the Iraq war. However, Bush's horrible lack of planning regarding the post-war occupation and abysmal record since the occupation began alone merit removing him from office.

Geek, Geek, Geek -

Of course that's how you spin it, avoiding the inconvenient details of building a coalition, building up troops to force Saddam to comply, but having a finite timeframe to do so because it's unsustainable.

"Turning to diplomacy too late."

Jesus.

You selectively defend the first quote, then you selectively defend the second quote, but you can't contextually defend them both.

Your spin is irritating. A smart person could conceivably vote for Kerry, but anyone that doesn't acknowledge his disingenousness is either deluded, stupid or lying.

I haven't decided which factor is controlling your thought process.

I'd like to know how many military campaigns that Geek has planned...

It seems to me that his criticism is just plain empty, with no relation to reality.

Obviously, Geek has not read what Tommy Franks, the commander of the Iraqi operation has written regarding his stupid criticisms.

Of course there was a plan, and a brilliant plan. The whole Iraqi operation has gone off remarkably well, when seen from a historical perspective.

Iraq is something we can all be proud of...let's not let Kerry and his Vietnam mentality convince us otherwise.

Bill, it's possible that he's deluded AND stupid AND lying, or some such combination. Why make it an either/or? Madness knows no boundaries.

Bill -

I orignally said "Kerry certainly did not say we should let up on bin Laden, intentionally mislead the American people into thinking that Saddam was connected to 9-11, then rush into a war without any real plans beyond being ‘greeted as liberators.’"

I responded to the point about the Saddam / 9-11 connection issue. I did not say Bush's speech you provided was misleading.

What exactly is so misleading about that?

Well, you're taking one statement Bush made (when?) and ignoring the media environment of the time, and a whole bunch of other statements he made. You complain about the "liberal media", but during the buildup to the Iraq war, the Bush Administration did everything but come out and say it to equate Saddam with al-Qaeda in the minds of the general public, and they had plenty of help. Do you remember Khidhir Hamza? How many times was he interviewed by those Democratic Party shills at CNN, etc.?

Some of it was much more subtle than that, but if you can recognize pandering and disingenuousness in Kerry (which is certainly there), then you should also be able to recognize that for anyone who can't so much as point to Iraq on a globe, saying something along the lines of "We were attacked on 9/11 by evil freedom-hating terrorists. Saddam Hussein also hates freedom and has weapons of mass destruction." creates an association, regardless of evidence. You know this, Bill. You also know that such statements make for great sound bytes and video clips on the evening news. You can't possibly tell me that this was not done deliberately. It was a blatant attempt to play to the fears of an uninformed public. Whether or not you agree with the cause of bringing democracy to the Middle East by force, you should at least be able to acknowledge that the vast majority of the electorate, as your ideological fellow-traveler David Brooks puts it:

...most voters have only the foggiest notions of what they are voting on. As a Cato Institute study reminds us, 70 percent of voters do not know about the new prescription drug benefit, 60 percent know little about the Patriot Act, and during the cold war, only 38 percent of voters knew that the Soviet Union was not a member of NATO.

38 percent of voters. Knew that the Soviet Union was not a member of NATO. The Bushies know this, as does the Kerry team. Most of what they say is not targeted at political junkies, but at people who wouldn't know Iraq from a hole in the ground. There is no doubt in my mind that the public was manipulated into supporting this war. You won't convince me otherwise.

Where you might, and indeed almost have, convince me, is that the war was seen by the Bushies as a genuine last-ditch attempt to stem the future tide of mass casualty terrorism. I still don't think this was the way to go about it, but maybe they really believed this was the best thing to do in pure national security terms. Now the question is, having unleashed the storm, are we going to, as they say, reap the whirlwind?

Rollins -

The citation I posted above was Bush's case for Iraq.

Instead of attacking it, you provide the following logic: "If C exists, and A COULD lead to C, then A MUST be responsible for C," regarding a large percentage of the population believing Saddam was responsible for 9-11 because the Bush Admin misled them.

This logic neglects the other 24 letters in the alphabet. It's not a causal relationship that's mutually exclusive.

It's bs.

I've heard some very smart people make this argument, yet be unable to provide ANY compelling evidence - instead all they point back to is "they gave that impression."

As someone that strives to be 100% accurate and honest, and succeeds most of the time (I think), I know how frustrating it is to "give an impression" while being as accurate as possible.

I am going to give you four choices:

1. Choose to find and present a compelling body of evidence that demonstrates how the Bush Adminisitration willfully tricked the American public into believing that Saddam was responsible for 9-11.

or

2. Choose to make the case against Bush's case for war cited above.

or

3. Choose to apologize and retract your original statement criticizing the Bush Admin.

or

4. Choose to cease and desist from commenting.

I am compelling you to pick one. One requires time for googling, one requires taking the statment posted above and framing an ad hoc argument against it, one requires swallowing pride, and one involves no effort at all.

I'm not being a hard-ass, take your time, but this is framed in a logical sequence that a law student should find amenable.

Address my challenge or the conversation goes nowhere.

Cake or death!

Walter -

Saddam Hussein also hates freedom and has weapons of mass destruction." creates an association, regardless of evidence. You know this, Bill.

In my hyper-informed opinion, the relationship that Bush draws between Saddam Hussein and terrorism is correct and appropriate. I think that the larger roots of terror stem from the broken governance and culture that stagnates the region. I also think that the fact that Saddam was a terrorist state puts them on a long hit list, and the fact taht they are a "hot" enemy of the US puts them at the very top. In addition, the high level communication between the two groups, along with Saddam's history and known intelligence about WMD, made them an unacceptable threat.

So your argument is meaningless to me based on the fact taht the Bush Admin makes an appropriate argument, IMO. Now about perception - The fact that a significant portion of the population draws a conclusion about 9-11 and Saddam is not their fault.

As a blogger that watches so many of my relatively clear and well-constructed posts get interpreted in the OPPOSITE way, by PEOPLE THAT AGREE with me ideologically, I can tell you that managing perspective with such a complicated argument is IMPOSSIBLE. It's just impossible.

I'm sure Kerry might have something to say on this topic - Legitimately.

So aside from the equation of Iraq with terrorism, if you cannot cite any specific examples or present any evidence of the Bush Admin willfully misleading the American people into believing that Iraq was responsible for 9-11, don't comment.

Iraq did have connections with Al Qaeda, though no collaborative relationship. If there is a way to make this argument without a large percentage of dumb people thinking "kill all the middle easterners," I doubt it.

You say they "misled" because you don't agree with their case.

What? You don't remember Bush using the Bela Lugosi Hypnotic Stare on the entire country? Very clumsy of him to forget to make us forget that part, but he's supposed to be an idiot anyway.

Oh. You wanted something plausible. ;-)

if you cannot cite any specific examples or present any evidence ... don't comment.

I've pretty much had it with your pissiness and dismissive attitude. I try very hard to make arguments that will appeal to your rational side, and you shoot me down every time as if I were attacking you personally. I'm not Oliver Willis, Bill. I'm not Kos, and I'm not Michael Moore. I just disagree with you. I thought you understood the difference, but as election day has gotten closer, you have seemed increasingly unable to distinguish between a "radical leftist" and "non-Bush-supporting American". If you are, as you have said in the past, interested in viewpoints that don't correspond precisely with yours, then maybe you should climb down off your high horse every once in a while. You're in severe danger of turning this blog into nothing but a shrill right-wing echo chamber. I hope that's fun for you.

I was playing a old PC video game that never seems to bore me (Theif: the metal age). I've had this game for years and replay my favorite levels because there is always a new scenario that never occured to me before. Many times my new approach to a old problem fails when a guard spots me or I fall from a 40 foot wall, so all thats left to do is reset the game and start over.

Seems to me this is what the Kerry supporters have done in the comment thread, they try a line of approach that seems to have worked before, but when the opposition ensnares them they attempt to reset the arguement. The problem is, this isn't a static game, it's a persistent world that remembers the previous action.... despite the fact they refresh their line of arguement.

I've pretty much had it with your pissiness and dismissive attitude.

1. Butch up. When I type "don't comment" I have little emotion in the statement. I am issuing a challenge on MY BLOG, that says present evidence or stop making the assertion, because otherwise it reaches a point where it's meaningless.

It's a bloodless, emotionless statement. Back it up or stop wasting my bandwith.

2. You're in severe danger of turning this blog into nothing but a shrill right-wing echo chamber. I hope that's fun for you.

Look at these comment threads. Look at the number of lefties that are arguing here. Are you insane? It's not fun, it's a royal pain-in-the-ass trying to maintain just the right environment with the right amount of tension and discourse.

If you don't like the way I address you, then leave. Please. I've already booted you twice in other nomes de plume, but you just won't go away. Take a hike. Why do you insist on coming back?

Get a hobby. Buy a puppy. Fly a kite. Mentor a child. Wait - scratch that last one - buy a puppy. Whatever it takes.

"We were attacked on 9/11 by evil freedom-hating terrorists. Saddam Hussein also hates freedom and has weapons of mass destruction."

Bill, it's not only your opinion that suggests a connection; the history of terrorism does as well. Check out the history of German terrorism in the '60s, the "civil war" in Lebanon, the USSR and whoever, and you will find that ideologically distant movements always collaborate in terms of money, training and supplies.

It's a mystery to me why the Bushies don't talk this talk. Bush's "Mohammed attacked during Ramadan" shut the gotcha press up right quick during the Afghanistan conflict when they questioned the propriety of waging war during a "holy" month. If Bush loses, it's because his campaign will not address the complicated, incestuous nature of terrorism.

zg writes: "Even if I believed Kerry's statements about authorizing the invasion only as a bargaining chip, I would have to wonder why he is so freely talking about it now. He is telling future opponents that sometimes Congress will authorize a war resolution but not really mean it. How can a president bargain with future war resolutions if a congressman is telling everyone that sometimes they aren't *really* war resolutions? If this was a powerful tool the US government uses, it is surely now lessened, if not useless."

I mean, really. Kerry would turn authorization for war into the equivalent of a "very angry letter."
Yeah, that will scare the terrorists and those who support them, letting them know that we don't really mean it when we vote to go to war, we are just, you know, really, really pissed.

Damn, I hope that on 11/2 Kerry's political future meets the same fate as Hans Brix.

--Mona--

Cake or death!

Well, we're all out of cake! We only had three pieces, and I didn't know there was going to be a rush!

I haven't read every comment, so this may've been mentioned earlier in the discussion of Kerry's vote for war.

Remember that the vote to authorize the use of force was just before the '02 elections. The Democrats HAD to seem like they were touch and resolute before going home to face the electorate. Even then, they got their clocks cleaned, which is something unusual for the party not holding the White House in the off-year elections.

I think that we had a classic case of politicians voting to cover their backsides today, with tomorrow presumeably being left to take care of itself. Isn't this classic Washington politics? Except, this time, the chickens came home to roost and "pro-war" voters, like Kerry, had to spin their "aye" votes in order to effectively come down on BOTH sides of the issue.

Sorry, I'm just catching up. The idea that "Kerry believes that Bush did it the wrong way," is enough to make me go crazy.

There is NO way Kerry would think any war was the right way (unless/untill it ends well). By Kerry's own standards the first "Gulf War" included all the elements on which he believed this war should have been executed...and he voted against that one.

Nuff said.

Bill,

I choose the first option. I have posted it here

Rollins,

very impressive but it looks to me that your entire post disproves your own point about whether or not the Bush Admin. "mislead" the American people. It looks to me that everyone you quoted was quite clear concerning whether they felt Saddam was behind 9/11.

CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11.

Sounds pretty clear. From the same interview:

CHENEY: There is-again, I want to separate out 9/11, from the other relationships between Iraq and the al-Qaeda organization. But there is a pattern of relationships going back many years.

Pointing out that there was some sort of relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda isn't saying that Saddam was behind 9/11. Can't you see in this quote that Cheney even qualified his assertion of a relationship by seperating those relationships from 9/11? I don't know how clearer he can say it.

RICE: No one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11, so we don't want to push this too far, but this is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clear, and we're learning more.

What did she say? No one is trying to make that argument? So how can you say they are?

When asked whether he thought Saddam was behind 9/11:
RUMSFELD: I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that. We know he was giving $25,000 a family for anyone who
would go out and kill innocent men, women and children. And we know of various other activities. But on that specific one, no.

You even say so yourself:
They are careful to not specifically say "Saddam caused 9/11" but they equate Saddam to al Qaeda, talk about al Qaeda being in Iraq, or when discussing 9/11, they will bring up Saddam in the same few sentences.

The administration equating Saddam to Al Qaeda is hardly proof that Bush tried to make us believe that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Read EXACTLY what they say and consider that they weren't trying to fool people into believing Saddam was behind 9/11, but they were making a case for the Iraq War based upon the lessons we learned from 9/11. You are reading things into their comments that just aren't there.

Let's take the quotes attributed to Bush:

First he says:
The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of Al Qaeda's plans and designs.

That is a presentation of the lessons we learned from 9/11. At first we had only "hint". He follows it with:
Today in Iraq we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

And there Bush declares what he believes will happen if we haven't learned our lesson from 9/11. When we don't follow up on "hints".

Another example from your own post. Bush starts with:
The entire world has witnessed Iraq's 11-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

Could Saddam's defiance be "hints" just as Al Qaeda's actions before 9/11 were "hints"? Next he ties it in with the lessons of 9/11:
We must also never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On Sept. 11, 2001, America felt its vulnerability even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then and we are resolved today to confront every threat from any source that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

I don't see where he connects Saddam with 9/11.

This is a very simple argument to understand. And it's one that his familiar to us all. Essentially Bush is saying, "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."

How you can read some sort of attempt of misleading us into believing Saddam was behind 9/11 is beyond me.

I suggest everyone take a look at Rollins' link and see for yourself the evidence he has collected that disproves is own point in its entirety.

Not only is Kerry's argument concerning giving the President the authority to invade as a bargaining chip is an effective one. It is worth noting Kerry's bargaining chip strategy actually worked!

Within weeks after the vote, the UN passed 1441 and the inspectors were back in Iraq, after having been away for several years. The absence of any weapons inspections in Iraq had understandably increased everyone's anxiety about what Saddam had been up to.

However, by March '03, it was becoming clear that Saddam was intent on cooperating with the inspector and the inspectors were finding none of the reconstituted weapons programs that everyone had feared.

At this point, Bush could have left the inspectors in place avoided the war. That would have left Bush in a much better position to deal with the more pressing threats of al Qaeda, Iran, and North Korea.

Based on his comments both before and after the fact, it appears that's what Kerry would have done.

5{comments both before and after the fact, it appears that's what Kerry would have done."

Perhaps, but you can't have it both ways. Based on his actions and/or comments both before and after one really DOESN'T ever know what Kerry would do.

If you watch the "Why We Fight" series it makes the case that Japanes militarism and German Fascism, were really two sides of the same coin, and that failure to stand up to one emboldended the other to attack. We just could not face one and not the other.

I guess thats why Bluto thought the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

At every step along the way, Kerry clearly and consistently gotten it right on Iraq. Before the October '02 vote Kerry was very concerned about Iraq, but he also clearly voiced his concern that Bush would rush into war without an adequate coalition and without adequate planning. It was right for him to be concerned about Iraq given the several years lapse in weapons inspections. And, as we now know, it was right for him to be concerned about Bush's judgement in regard to war with Iraq.

In March '03, on the eve of the war, when Bush brushed aside the success of the weapons inspection program, Kerry stated that he would have given the process more time.

Today, Kerry can justifiably claim that he would not have mired the US in a poorly-executed war in Iraq, as Bush has. And having committed enormous US resources in Iraq, Bush HAS taken his eye off the ball in terms of the greater threats in Al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, etc.

Once again, you can't have it both ways. The idea that he gives himself wiggle room because he MIGHT have had concerns is just silly. He voted for the war. He needs to take responsibility for it.

On the other hand...

He voted against the first gulf war which meets all his "global" tests. He has to take responsiblity for that vote as well.

His inability to take a firm stand without leaving himself an "out" on issues is what is the most troubling. This isn't the Senate debating society. The Command In Chief position he is applying for doesn't allow for such a dangerous mindset.

You're missing the point. Kerry didn't vote "for the war". He voted to give Bush the authority to use force if necessary.

By handing Bush a credible threat of force, Kerry was was able to help get the weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

By March '03, five months later, it was clear that there was no need to rush into war.

No, I'm not missing ANY point.

The point is you can't have it both ways. The resolution did not state he was giving the President "bargining power." He was authorizing use of force. The fact is that he needs to take responsibility for that vote...not what wasn't written in the resolution.

Typically, if that is the case anyone who votes on any resolution could say the same thing. I was voting NOT for what the resolution said, but for what I wanted it so say. Sheesh!

Yes, I'm afraid you are missing the point.

Kerry and the Congress handed Bush a loaded gun. They did NOT ask him to pull the trigger. Bush is responsible for having pulled the trigger. Kerry specifically warned Bush not pull the trigger unless it was necessary.

Even the resolution itself explicitly states that in order to actually use the authorization the president must "make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq"

Even in a republican-controlled congress, they managed to get that language in. What more do you want?

Regarding "intentionally mislead the American people into thinking that Saddam was connected to 9-11", in one of the earlier posts above, it sadly appears to be true that 41% of Americans believe that "Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001". This is according to a recent Harris Poll.

Among Bush supporters, not surprisingly, the percentage was even higher: 52%.

If I believed that, I might support the war, too. It's scary how uninformed the American public is about Iraq.

Will X,

The question wasn't who American's thought was behind 9/11, it was whether or not Bush tricked us that he was. I see no evidence of it from Rollins' post. All the players specifically said they weren't making that argument. Those polls do not prove Rollins' point.

Understood. But it's still sad that the American public is so ignorant. There's no way Bush could get re-elected if it weren't for widespread ignorance of some the basic facts, like the one I reported above.

Will X, if this war is going _anywhere_ south of 'acceptably', please point to an honest _war_ that proceeded better. (No, Grenada doesn't count for instance.)

Zarqawi's timeline alone highlights the whole 'Iraq is a nexus' theory also - from the 'they were a nexus before we got there' perspective.

Al -

If you want to bring up Zarqawi, you'll want to read this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/) first.

The Wall Street Journal apparently confirmed most of the details in a story published yesterday. The pentagon drew up plans to take out Zarqawi in northern Iraq a number of times in 2002 and early 2003 and the white house nixed it each time.

If your other point is "War is hell", I agree.