Reply With Quote
I disagree. What bothers me is that Bush wanted Iraq from day one of his administration and wasn't going to take no for an answer.
As for me, I don't want another 4 years of Bush.
Liberal Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby makes his case for re-electing President Bush. In doing so, he reaches the conclusions that, I think, swing voters as a class have reached or will reach. Thus, Mallaby provides a good explanation for why, more likely than not, the president will be re-elected.
Mallaby believes (as I suspect most Amercans do) that if we had known two years ago that Saddam Hussein's weapons program had fallen apart, there would have been no convincing argument for war. He also thinks that, by insisting otherwise, President Bush has "made himself appear blind to reality." But this is basically old news, as far as Mallaby is concerned. For him, "the question that matters in this election is: what next?"
Mallaby concludes that Bush has the better answer: "Bush offers a military vision, based on the idea that the best defense against terrorism is aggressive offense. He doggedly believes that by doing the 'hard work' in Iraq, the United States will eventually create a democracy, transforming Middle Eastern politics. He is determined not to let hostile global opinion get in the way."
Kerry, for his part, "seems to reject most of this. He emphasizes homeland security [and] stresses the importance of allies, which necessarily implies accepting a check on preemption, however much he denies it." And when it comes to Iraq, "Kerry's 'plan' is a smoke screen. He says he would summon more help from allies, though little would be forthcoming. He says he would train Iraqi troops, but Bush is dong this already. If Kerry's plan to share the burden fell apart, would he stay committed anyway? It seems fairly unlikely."
Mallaby's concluding lines should strike fear into the heart of all Kerry supporters: "If you are willing to read the tea leaves on how Bush and Kerry would prosecute the next phase in this war, then Bush comes out better. His gut instincts on terrorism are right -- and Kerry, by assailing the president's foreign policy record at every turn, seems to be saying that those instincts are not his own ones."
<a href=”http://www.powerlineblog.com/”>Power Line</a>
I disagree. What bothers me is that Bush wanted Iraq from day one of his administration and wasn't going to take no for an answer.
As for me, I don't want another 4 years of Bush.
Do you have proof of this or is this just speculation?
I was watching PBS lastnight and they had a show about Bush and Kerry and they noted that Bush was determined to take Saddam out one way or the other and 9/11 gave him the excuse he and Rumsfeld were looking for.
It was PBS Joe.
Did you happen to also notice that when they got to time period when President Bush was elected to the White House Frontline had no more interviews with pro-Bush conservatives or anyone on his "team?"
It was all from people who have been critical of the President. Whereas for Kerry, it was all fluff.
PBS = Pure Bull Network
What's even worse is that PBS is taxpayer-supported.
Well Yonivore, there you go again.
Unless it is pro-Bush, it's BS.
I don't have any problems admitting Kerry isn't perfect unlike your adopted beloved candidate Bush.
I see, so it's just speculation at this point... okie dokie then...
Taxes, schmaxes...unless it is FoxNews you guys won't believe anything.
Speculation was also what got us into the Iraq war.
Bush has taken us backwards in the war on terror. I've stated ithere with facts to back up the opinion, and many people here still cling on to the theory that bush is better for national security.
Ok.
But others have posted facts to refute your position.
But one fact that cannot be disputed is this:
The number of amputees, wounded, injured or mentally ill due to the Iraq war is a staggering 28,150.
Your source?
I disagree.
The Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein, through it's consort with known terrorists, harboring of known terrorists, support of known terrorists organizations, expressed desire for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, preparations for the production of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, exploitation (at the expense of starving Iraqi children) of the U.N. run Oil for Food Program, defiance of 17 U.N. resolutions, repeated violations of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, attempted assassination of a sitting U.S. President, and the perpetration of genocidal acts within the borders of Iraq are what necessitated the invasion and swift (21 days) conclusion of the war begun in 1991.
Now, we're in a second battle in Iraq -- one with the very terrorists that sought safe harbor there and who have, unlike you, realized the strategic importance -- to the terrorist cause -- of Iraq and are streaming in to fight the coalition infidels.
I think it's interesting to note -- since the so-called "Mainstream Media" won't bring it to your attention -- that the "insurgent/terrorist" coalition has fractured in Fallujah. We are winning the battle there. Just as in Sadr City were the insurgents have begun to turn in their arms and turn on Muqtada al Sadr himself, to avoid being killed, the insurgents in Fallujah have tired of the terrorist's tactics in Fallujah and have apparently turned on Zarqawi and his merciless thugs.
Iraq wasn't invaded for speculative reasons. The strategic, military, and security objectives are as clear to me today, if not more clear, than they were in March 2003.
Buck it up, man! You're supposed to be a Marine...
Kerry will take us backwards in the war on terror. I've stated ithere with facts to back up the opinion, and many people here still cling on to the theory that kerry is better for national security.
Ok.
What facts have been posted to refute my position Travis? Show me where Bush is making headway in Afghanistan or Iraq?
I don't think Kerry is great for national security either, but I'd rather change teh newspaper in the cage than let Bush on it for 4 more years.
Tell me Yoni, what good will this second battle do us if we LOSE it???? I don't see how an Iraqi civil war will advance our cause.
I think Yonivore's post summarizes many of those facts well. He's not the only one, of course...but it has the advantage of only being a few posts up...
I wonder why the objectives are not as clear to Bush since Mission Accomplished was declared months ago.
I am a Marine and perhaps that is why our views are so different. It is easy to support war in the comfort of your own home.
Buck it up man and join the military!!! You're supposed to be a war supporter..
Am I not en led to my own opinion. I respect yours all I ask is the for the same in return.
I think there are facts to support both sides of the issue.
Afghanistan: Free and Democratic election was held on Saturday with little violence and certainly not the violence that was expected. That's headway.
Iraq: Sadr City is negotiating and actually complying with coalition and Iraq demands, there's a growing voice of resentment towards Muqtada al Sadr. That's headway.
Iraq: Fallujah Iraqis are starting to rat out Fallujah terrorists almost non-stop now. The fragile "coalition" between pro-Ba'athist remnant insurgents and al Qaeda terrorists appears to be flying apart. That's headway.
Iraq: Reconstruction is moving forward at a blistering pace, outside the Sunni Triangle, and at a not so blistering pace -- but progressing -- inside the Sunni Triangle. That's headway.
Iraq: Iraqi forces are, more and more, taking responsibility for their own security and for initiating offensive actions in areas of unrest. That's headway.
You don't pay attention.
That's because you're an idiot who believes everything that comes out of the "Mainstream Media" and the DNC.
My brother is a Marine and he supports the war wholeheartedly as do many of the people in the service that I'm aware of. Even my ex-brother-in-law, who's been to Baghdad and back, a previous Democrat, will be supporting Bush this time around.
And I support their right to do so.
Oh God! Doom and ing gloom. Is that all you know?
A) We're not going to lose this battle...unless, John F. Kerry with his abandon Saigon mentality takes office and withdraws.
B) There are encouraging signs -- both, from Sadr City and Fallujah, that Ba'athist remnants are acquiesing and starting to realize the benefit of negotiating peace with the Iraq government (and coalition) instead of standing beside the completely insane terrorist movement that has coopted their cities. I don't see a civil war on the horizon.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
