Valhalla Legends Archive

Quote from: hismajesty on May 15, 2004, 04:48 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 15, 2004, 04:24 PM
Bush pushed for the war, his people fabricated lies to convince people to war. He deserves blame. He shouldn't have gone to war, and now that he did, he'll have to fix up the mess he made.

What lies? I'm assuming you're talking about Weapons of Mass Destruction but before I comment on that I'd like to make sure.

That's one. One that was very neatly illustrated in some recent video clip here where Rumsfeld I think it was claimed that he had never said anything like that, whereupon they played back an interview where he was saying just that...

I remember that Rumsfeld clip. As far as WMD I personally still beleive he had them. He had them in the past and used some on his own people. Perhaps digging up the corpses would be enough proof? The UN gave Saddam plenty of time to move the weapons or hide them prior to their arrival in Iraq. I also beleive they gave him a list of dates they'd be visiting.

I believe he tried to develop WMD long ago, with the support of the USA. He got a lot of assistance from there, you know, those evil terror supporters. President, I think they call their leader.

I don't believe he ever had any really functional WMD. I don't believe he was close to getting any WMD.

Chemical and biological weapons still qualify as "WMDs" IMHO.

BTW, it's funny how this little debate made its way into a "Post Your Picture" thread.

Quote from: Raven on May 15, 2004, 06:15 PM
Chemical and biological weapons still qualify as "WMDs" IMHO.

BTW, it's funny how this little debate made its way into a "Post Your Picture" thread.

I wouldn't say that having a tube of poisonous gas is equivalent to having WMD. I know that Saddam did tests with poisons against villages in Iraq, but I don't think he had useable weapons, i.e. missiles he could launch even back then.

And even if he had them then, those missiles were long since destroyed when he was attacked.

Quote from: Adron on May 15, 2004, 06:23 PM

Quote from: Raven on May 15, 2004, 06:15 PM
Chemical and biological weapons still qualify as "WMDs" IMHO.

BTW, it's funny how this little debate made its way into a "Post Your Picture" thread.

I wouldn't say that having a tube of poisonous gas is equivalent to having WMD. I know that Saddam did tests with poisons against villages in Iraq, but I don't think he had useable weapons, i.e. missiles he could launch even back then.

And even if he had them then, those missiles were long since destroyed when he was attacked.

Saddam Hussein had loads upon loads of mustard gas as well as anthrax, which he knowingly used on Iranian soldiers and civilians, and later on the Kurdish people in Iraq. Many mobile laboratories were discovered and seized, most of which were used to experiment on and grow various germs or to develope chemicals. He had been warned and sanctioned plenty of times on developing ICBMs, but he never really heeded them. He had an entire arsenal of missiles capable of reaching places like Israel, which he had demonstrated on more than one occasion. Although he was never quite able to develope missiles capable of reaching North America, numerous defecting scientists and discovered documents proved that he remained diligent in acquiring such technology, disregarding what the UN was trying to tell him. Multiple high-range missiles were discovered all over, but didn't receive much attention due to the fact that none of them were equipped with "WMD" warheads. People seem to essentially "down" the threat Hussein and his regime posed to the world simply because he apparently didn't have nuclear weapons. He had more of power, resources, and a bigger arsenal than anyone the likes of him should ever have. His relentless support of terrorism and repeating crimes against humanity were enough to earn him the boot and what follows it.

Quote from: Raven on May 16, 2004, 12:39 AM
Saddam Hussein had loads upon loads of mustard gas as well as anthrax, which he knowingly used on Iranian soldiers and civilians, and later on the Kurdish people in Iraq.

He is known to have had and used chemical weapons a long time ago. I haven't seen any evidence of him having them now.

There is nothing that says he didn't once have chemical weapons of mass destruction, but disposed of them (buried them, crushed them, etc) after demands from the UN. You might still be able to find traces of chemical weapons in Iraq, but that doesn't mean anything. We still find canisters of live Mustard gas in the Baltic sea, as disposed of after World War II. I wouldn't call finding that "Evidence of having WMD today".

Saddam even dismantled long range missiles in the time just before he was attacked. Stupid of him. He should've known that USA would attack him no matter what he did.

What USA did was keep adding demands until he could take it no more. A good strategy for creating a war to improve your ratings a bit, and distract people's attention.

How would you respond if Iraq demanded to inspect your nuclear missiles, chemical laboratories and other military installations to ensure you weren't having more than your allowance? How should Iraq feel when USA (having now twice attacked them) wanted to inspect their military installations? I'm sure that data collected under the guise of "looking for WMD" was used to further the war against Iraq. Very dishonest. Very ugly. Proof that Saddam was right?

Quote from: Raven on May 16, 2004, 12:39 AM
Many mobile laboratories were discovered and seized, most of which were used to experiment on and grow various germs or to develope chemicals. He had been warned and sanctioned plenty of times on developing ICBMs, but he never really heeded them. He had an entire arsenal of missiles capable of reaching places like Israel, which he had demonstrated on more than one occasion. Although he was never quite able to develope missiles capable of reaching North America, numerous defecting scientists and discovered documents proved that he remained diligent in acquiring such technology, disregarding what the UN was trying to tell him.

Having mobile laboratories makes sense. Doing research makes sense. Trying to obtain technology makes sense. Following the restrictions of the UN makes sense. If "what the UN was trying to tell him" was that he should leave himself defenseless, then of course he would disregard that.

What he had to regard was the letter of the demands, that he allow inspectors here and there, that he destroy this and that. And he did.

Quote from: Raven on May 16, 2004, 12:39 AM
Multiple high-range missiles were discovered all over, but didn't receive much attention due to the fact that none of them were equipped with "WMD" warheads. People seem to essentially "down" the threat Hussein and his regime posed to the world simply because he apparently didn't have nuclear weapons. He had more of power, resources, and a bigger arsenal than anyone the likes of him should ever have. His relentless support of terrorism and repeating crimes against humanity were enough to earn him the boot and what follows it.

So does the USA. More power, resources, and a bigger arsenal than anyone should have. Their relentless support of a state practising terrorism, and repeating crimes against humanity are enough to earn them the boot and whatever might follow it. Anything else?

This was about WMD, not about weapons or terrorism support. Of course he wanted to get weapons, anything he could be allowed to have. And of course he would walk right on the borderline, no reason to build less than what you're allowed if what you really want is to build more.

I haven't seen any believable claims or evidence that he supported terrorism any more than the USA does. Any country is likely to have hosted terrorists at some time. That doesn't imply support or collaboration from the leaders of the country. He didn't belong to the same religious group as bin Laden, he'd be more likely to suppress such groups in Iraq.

I believe that there was a large amount of mustard gas and anthrax that was known that Saddam had, but when they came looking, they could not find it. I believe he sold these chemical/biological weapons to terrorists or kept them very well hidden.

And Adron made a very very good point.

Adron:  Adding to everything you said, my biggest gripe about the "march to war with Iraq" was the demand that Iraq turn over its WMD, and if they didn't, it was proof that they existed.

Iraq has WMD, we know that for a fact, because they have failed to show proof of their destruction.

Adron has WMD, we know for a fact, due to his failure to turn them over.

Quote from: Adron on May 16, 2004, 05:32 AM

He is known to have had and used chemical weapons a long time ago. I haven't seen any evidence of him having them now.

The evidence lies in the disease and suffering of Kurds, among others, in various parts of Iraq today. He has also used such devices on prisoners of his regime. Series of vials, containers, and development material were also seized. However, they were "disregarded" because they were nuclear weapons. Saddam being arm-less now? Who are you kiding?

Quote from: Adron on May 16, 2004, 05:32 AM
There is nothing that says he didn't once have chemical weapons of mass destruction, but disposed of them (buried them, crushed them, etc) after demands from the UN. You might still be able to find traces of chemical weapons in Iraq, but that doesn't mean anything. We still find canisters of live Mustard gas in the Baltic sea, as disposed of after World War II. I wouldn't call finding that "Evidence of having WMD today".

After demands from the UN, Saddam disposed of cosmetic amounts of his arsenal to show that he was doing something. Things like Anthrax and AOrange aren't exactly things you leave "trace amounts of". For it to completely be disposed of, measures need to be taken to ensure negligible amounts remain and then decompose or disjoint over short periods of time. Finding vials of live germs and chemicals being preserved in somewhat-ideal conditions doesn't constitute "trace amounts". Sure Saddam's regime made galiant efforts of getting rid of as much as possible when they knew their twilight was approaching, but that doesn't really change the fact that they had it just days ago.

Quote from: Adron on May 16, 2004, 05:32 AM
Saddam even dismantled long range missiles in the time just before he was attacked. Stupid of him. He should've known that USA would attack him no matter what he did.

If he thought those long-range missiles could be effectively used against the Americans, he'd probably want to keep them intact. The dismantled missiles were of the same grade he used during the first Gulf War, and he probably assumed that this time, launching a volley of missiles at Israel or a neighboring country as a means of "defending himself" probably wouldn't score very many points with the national community, so ofcourse it was in his best interest to dismantle them, because then atleast it'd seem like he didn't "have them".

Quote

Quote from: Adron on May 16, 2004, 05:32 AM
What USA did was keep adding demands until he could take it no more. A good strategy for creating a war to improve your ratings a bit, and distract people's attention.

The USA didn't keep "adding demands" that was the UN., and boy did they do it well. The US's demands included little more than actually allowing UN Weapons Inspectors, which Saddam didn't follow all that well, as a majority of sites that the inspectors wanted to see were denied to them.  The US simply helped enforce the UN's word. And no, this war did NOTHING to boost the American government's "ratings". In fact, if you'd follow the polls, you'd know that Bush's approval ratings have been slipping with just about every passing day, so I can't quite see where you're going with your wag-the-dog accusation.

Quote from: Adron on May 16, 2004, 05:32 AM
How would you respond if Iraq demanded to inspect your nuclear missiles, chemical laboratories and other military installations to ensure you weren't having more than your allowance?

I doubt I'd allow "Iraq" to do much inspecting, but if it was the national community, I'd probably comply. In fact, the US, like most superpower nations, are subject to inspection from various global agencies regarding compliance with various arms-control treatis, some established after WWII, and others during and after the Cold War. I've yet to see the national community raise red flags in response to the USA's "lack of compliance" with such regulations.

Quote from: Adron on May 16, 2004, 05:32 AM
How should Iraq feel when USA (having now twice attacked them) wanted to inspect their military installations? I'm sure that data collected under the guise of "looking for WMD" was used to further the war against Iraq. Very dishonest. Very ugly. Proof that Saddam was right?

The US attacking Iraq twice? The first incursion into the Gulf was a worldwide effort by a coalition of nations to stifle Saddam's territorial ambitions. His forces invaded neighboring Kuwait by force, and the US and its allies were called upon to end Saddam's incursions, which it did. Inspection of military installations was one of the most paramount provisions of the cease-fire agreed to by the UN and Saddam's government when General Schwarzkopf's forces and their allies were knocking on the door of Baghdad. Is expecting Saddam to comply with provisions he himself signed upon really that unreasonable? What kind of data collected under "looking for WMDs" do you really think would further the war against Iraq? Proof that Saddam had ambitions that were explicitly denounced and warned against by the national community? Or perhaps schematics on Saddam's weapons systems or troop movements? If you truly believe that Saddam is a victim in all of this, perhaps you should reevaluate your creed.

Quote from: Adron on May 16, 2004, 05:32 AM
Having mobile laboratories makes sense. Doing research makes sense. Trying to obtain technology makes sense. Following the restrictions of the UN makes sense. If "what the UN was trying to tell him" was that he should leave himself defenseless, then of course he would disregard that.

That's the point. He didn't follow UN restrictions. That's where this fiasco began. Or perhaps this is all part of Dubbya's "blood revenge" for Saddam's attempted assassination of his father.

Quote from: Adron on May 16, 2004, 05:32 AM
What he had to regard was the letter of the demands, that he allow inspectors here and there, that he destroy this and that. And he did.

Once again, all he had was the obligation to comply with the national community, and he failed to do so.

Quote from: Adron on May 16, 2004, 05:32 AM
So does the USA. More power, resources, and a bigger arsenal than anyone should have. Their relentless support of a state practising terrorism, and repeating crimes against humanity are enough to earn them the boot and whatever might follow it. Anything else?

Hopefully, you mean the US government and not its people. The US doesn't have more power, resources, and a bigger arsenal than it should. The US is not a lunatic dictatorship that tortures its own people and acts solely for its own good at the expense of the world. Sure, at the national level, you can argue otherwise, but such a debate would be a broken record.

Quote from: Adron on May 16, 2004, 05:32 AM
This was about WMD, not about weapons or terrorism support. Of course he wanted to get weapons, anything he could be allowed to have. And of course he would walk right on the borderline, no reason to build less than what you're allowed if what you really want is to build more.

The justification and causality of the war is something that's being debated to no end. Some say it's WMDs. Some say it's removal of his oppressive regime. Others say its oil. Some may even say that Cheney is some supernatural evil force trying to throw the world out of whack. It's probably a combination of reasons, the predominate one only being obvious to those directly affiliated with the Bush administration. The reasons behind his refusal to comply with his obligations are irrelevant; the fact is he didn't comply, and that was problematic.

Quote from: Adron on May 16, 2004, 05:32 AM
I haven't seen any believable claims or evidence that he supported terrorism any more than the USA does. Any country is likely to have hosted terrorists at some time. That doesn't imply support or collaboration from the leaders of the country. He didn't belong to the same religious group as bin Laden, he'd be more likely to suppress such groups in Iraq.

There is tons of proof in the pudding, such as Saddam's gifts of $25,000 to family's of Palestinian suicide bombers, and his supplying of any anti-American forces with assault weapons and other supplies. He's done plenty enough to be branded as someone who actively supported anti-American and anti-American interest terrorist activity. bin Laden is not really part of a religious group. He is more of a militant tyrant who attempts to use religion as a means of garnering support from Muslim zealots. Most Muslims, infact, insist that bin Laden isn't really a Muslim, but instead someone who radicalizes many of its teachings for his own gains. Saddam Hussein's powerbase and support came predominately from the Sunni majority in Iraq, and bin Laden himself was also believed to be a Sunni. The current situation with al-Sadr and his Shi'ite militia is that it appears to me that al-Sadr essentially wants to capture power, as during Saddam's reign, Shi'ites lacked desirable influence.

Quote

Quote from: Adron on May 16, 2004, 05:32 AMI haven't seen any believable claims or evidence that he supported terrorism any more than the USA does. Any country is likely to have hosted terrorists at some time. That doesn't imply support or collaboration from the leaders of the country. He didn't belong to the same religious group as bin Laden, he'd be more likely to suppress such groups in Iraq.

Good point.  What we call "supporting terrorism", when it is done against us or our allies, we call "propping up democracy" when we supply arms, munitions, money, intelligence, training, trucks, food, etc, to rebels or counter-rebels of whatever regime world-wide.

Quote from: Raven on May 16, 2004, 01:24 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 16, 2004, 05:32 AM

He is known to have had and used chemical weapons a long time ago. I haven't seen any evidence of him having them now.

The evidence lies in the disease and suffering of Kurds, among others, in various parts of Iraq today. He has also used such devices on prisoners of his regime. Series of vials, containers, and development material were also seized. However, they were "disregarded" because they were nuclear weapons. Saddam being arm-less now? Who are you kiding?

I'm kidding noone. Why should I be? You seem to think you're kidding me, but you're not. Saddam wasn't arm-less, but he wasn't using wmd on the kurds now. Can you point at any news that says that wmd were seized in iraq, and specifies what? All I've seen is news saying that nothing but traces of weapons have been found still. Various buried remains, similar to the remains of world war weaponry you find at sea here. They've found plans, equipment that may be used to produce weapons or similars, but no actual wmd. No immediate threat. Nothing that inspections couldn't have kept in check.

Quote from: Raven on May 16, 2004, 01:24 PM
After demands from the UN, Saddam disposed of cosmetic amounts of his arsenal to show that he was doing something. Things like Anthrax and AOrange aren't exactly things you leave "trace amounts of". For it to completely be disposed of, measures need to be taken to ensure negligible amounts remain and then decompose or disjoint over short periods of time. Finding vials of live germs and chemicals being preserved in somewhat-ideal conditions doesn't constitute "trace amounts". Sure Saddam's regime made galiant efforts of getting rid of as much as possible when they knew their twilight was approaching, but that doesn't really change the fact that they had it just days ago.

Days ago? All gone now? Strange how all the wmd just magically disappear....

Quote from: Raven on May 16, 2004, 01:24 PM
If he thought those long-range missiles could be effectively used against the Americans, he'd probably want to keep them intact. The dismantled missiles were of the same grade he used during the first Gulf War, and he probably assumed that this time, launching a volley of missiles at Israel or a neighboring country as a means of "defending himself" probably wouldn't score very many points with the national community, so ofcourse it was in his best interest to dismantle them, because then atleast it'd seem like he didn't "have them".

Or, perhaps he assumed that since he was doing what he was told, he'd be ok? What would he have done to not be attacked? Produce some wmd that he could then publicly dismantle, to satisfy the USA?

Quote from: Raven on May 16, 2004, 01:24 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 16, 2004, 05:32 AM
What USA did was keep adding demands until he could take it no more. A good strategy for creating a war to improve your ratings a bit, and distract people's attention.

The USA didn't keep "adding demands" that was the UN., and boy did they do it well. The US's demands included little more than actually allowing UN Weapons Inspectors, which Saddam didn't follow all that well, as a majority of sites that the inspectors wanted to see were denied to them.  The US simply helped enforce the UN's word.

The UN's word was to not attack Iraq. Saddam didn't like to allow American inspectors, a perfectly understandable opinion.

Quote from: Raven on May 16, 2004, 01:24 PM
And no, this war did NOTHING to boost the American government's "ratings". In fact, if you'd follow the polls, you'd know that Bush's approval ratings have been slipping with just about every passing day, so I can't quite see where you're going with your wag-the-dog accusation.

It did help distract from local politics for a while. Now that Americans are getting their heads sawed off, ratings are likely to not rise so quickly. Wars that aren't being quickly and smoothly won tend to have that effect. Maybe that means Bush will be pulling out soon. Hopefully not, as that'd just leave a big mess that he's created.

Quote from: Raven on May 16, 2004, 01:24 PM
I doubt I'd allow "Iraq" to do much inspecting, but if it was the national community, I'd probably comply. In fact, the US, like most superpower nations, are subject to inspection from various global agencies regarding compliance with various arms-control treatis, some established after WWII, and others during and after the Cold War. I've yet to see the national community raise red flags in response to the USA's "lack of compliance" with such regulations.

Ah, the difference is then that USA sends its agents under the UN flag? I don't think Saddam saw that difference. And I think the USA would've taken any chance they could to sneak in spies among the inspectors.

Quote from: Raven on May 16, 2004, 01:24 PM

Quote from: Adron on May 16, 2004, 05:32 AM
How should Iraq feel when USA (having now twice attacked them) wanted to inspect their military installations? I'm sure that data collected under the guise of "looking for WMD" was used to further the war against Iraq. Very dishonest. Very ugly. Proof that Saddam was right?

The US attacking Iraq twice? The first incursion into the Gulf was a worldwide effort by a coalition of nations to stifle Saddam's territorial ambitions. His forces invaded neighboring Kuwait by force, and the US and its allies were called upon to end Saddam's incursions, which it did. Inspection of military installations was one of the most paramount provisions of the cease-fire agreed to by the UN and Saddam's government when General Schwarzkopf's forces and their allies were knocking on the door of Baghdad. Is expecting Saddam to comply with provisions he himself signed upon really that unreasonable? What kind of data collected under "looking for WMDs" do you really think would further the war against Iraq? Proof that Saddam had ambitions that were explicitly denounced and warned against by the national community? Or perhaps schematics on Saddam's weapons systems or troop movements? If you truly believe that Saddam is a victim in all of this, perhaps you should reevaluate your creed.

Yes, the US attacked Iraq twice. Once it was sanctioned by the UN. The other time it was just a regular illegal assault war on a small country. Both were definitely attacks. I don't think Saddam liked either one of them?

I think that knowledge of troop locations, strengths, weapons systems, etc could help further the war. Typically summarized as "Intelligence". You're saying that USA didn't take advantage of any Intelligence gather by the weapons inspectors, during the war?

Quote from: Raven on May 16, 2004, 01:24 PM
That's the point. He didn't follow UN restrictions. That's where this fiasco began. Or perhaps this is all part of Dubbya's "blood revenge" for Saddam's attempted assassination of his father.

Many countries don't follow the UN. One example of such a country could be the USA, attacking random small helpless countries such as Iraq. Is what you're saying that such countries deserve anything they get?

Quote from: Raven on May 16, 2004, 01:24 PM
Hopefully, you mean the US government and not its people. The US doesn't have more power, resources, and a bigger arsenal than it should. The US is not a lunatic dictatorship that tortures its own people and acts solely for its own good at the expense of the world. Sure, at the national level, you can argue otherwise, but such a debate would be a broken record.

Yes, I mean the government. It has wmd. It has a history of supporting regimes that support the US no matter what (i.e. coups, torture, dictatorships) instead of supporting legitimate regimes. And no, the US tortures mostly other people, and acts solely for its own good, sometimes at the expense of the world. I'm not sure what you mean about "national level".

Quote from: Raven on May 16, 2004, 01:24 PM
The justification and causality of the war is something that's being debated to no end. Some say it's WMDs. Some say it's removal of his oppressive regime. Others say its oil. Some may even say that Cheney is some supernatural evil force trying to throw the world out of whack. It's probably a combination of reasons, the predominate one only being obvious to those directly affiliated with the Bush administration. The reasons behind his refusal to comply with his obligations are irrelevant; the fact is he didn't comply, and that was problematic.

The biggest claimed reason was the immediate threat from Saddam's wmd. You know, that non-existant threat. It might have been oil, in which case it wasn't very successful. It could even have been removal of his regime, whic isn't a legitimate reason for an attack - intervening in the internal affairs of another state.

Quote from: Raven on May 16, 2004, 01:24 PM
There is tons of proof in the pudding, such as Saddam's gifts of $25,000 to family's of Palestinian suicide bombers, and his supplying of any anti-American forces with assault weapons and other supplies. He's done plenty enough to be branded as someone who actively supported anti-American and anti-American interest terrorist activity.

Ah, of course. The US has never supported underground movements or revolutionists? The US doesn't supply anti-Palestinian forces with weapons, such as rockets killing dozens of innocent palestinians? I don't think this line is anything you should be pursuing, because the US has done more than enough of supporting illegal activities.

Quote from: Raven on May 16, 2004, 01:24 PM
bin Laden is not really part of a religious group. He is more of a militant tyrant who attempts to use religion as a means of garnering support from Muslim zealots. Most Muslims, infact, insist that bin Laden isn't really a Muslim, but instead someone who radicalizes many of its teachings for his own gains. Saddam Hussein's powerbase and support came predominately from the Sunni majority in Iraq, and bin Laden himself was also believed to be a Sunni. The current situation with al-Sadr and his Shi'ite militia is that it appears to me that al-Sadr essentially wants to capture power, as during Saddam's reign, Shi'ites lacked desirable influence.

I can't say whether bin Laden is a true believer or not. He claims to be. Saddam claims not to be. For that reason, seeing them in an alliance makes no sense. Saddam cared for his riches and his power in his country. bin Laden wants to destroy America for ideological reasons. They're not the same at all.

Raven is using a lot of old information. Sure, Saddam had loads of WMD before the first gulf war - which is why a worldwide coalition (a real one that time) invaded, with the UN's backing, and verifyably destroyed everything they could find. This was documented by the UN and has not yet been disputed by anyone. Sure, he used WMD on the kurds - but that was ages ago. Probably 15 or 20 years by now? You cannot use evidence that he *was* a threat to show that he *is* a threat now, especially after the world made such a sterling effort to remove his chemical and biological weapons.

Another thing that many people don't realise is that these weapons are very complicated. The two chemical weapons that Saddam stockpiled - sarin and tabun - have short shelf lives of about 5 years. Even if Saddam managed to conceal some from the inspectors the first time round, they would by now have degraded into useless sludge.

The simple fact is that with the combined effects of UN sanctions and international monitering (via satellite and soforth) of Iraq before the war and after Gulf War 1 would have detected any attempt to manufacture these weapons. If Iraq had been manufacturing these weapons after the international inspections, not only would we have known, but we would have found them after the war. To date, no WMD at all has been found in Iraq, post-war. None! People say that he could have hidden them, which I have already explained as being unlikely. This war was patently not about WMD. I really have no clue what's going on.

I hope to god that Bush looses the next election. The man's a liability.

I doubt Bush will lose, most elections have been won by the man that could raise the most amount of money. This election has had the highest amount of money than all the ones prior to it, and Bush has a lot more money than Kerry at the moment. Kerry lost out by having to pay for primaries and not getting free media coverage like Bush, since he's an incumbent and he has been stockpiling for 4 years.

Perhaps. Gallup has Kerry 1 point behind. It'll be a close thing.