Go Kerry. Go away, Bush.

[Zorm]

For a more on topic post, I don't agree with everything Bush has said or done. But that doesn't mean he is a bad president and that I should go for the other guy. I don't agree with most of the things Kerry says either. Its great that he served in vietnam and all but I see no value in having a  person who served vs one who didn't as president. After all the president isn't the one drawing the battle plans so what does it matter? He has been a senator for the past 19 years too, and the 9/11 commission placed most the blame on congress so thats not exactly a plus for him either. Suppose I should point out that I don't agree with Bush's stance on gay marriage and that anyone who supports everything another person does is just a blind follower.

[Arta]

On Thursday, Blix reiterated that Iraq's weapons declaration was incomplete. "We think that the declaration failed to answer a great many questions." ElBaradei said Monday that after two months of inspections it was still too early to determine whether Saddam Hussein's regime was trying to develop nuclear weapons. "We are not certain of Iraq's (nuclear) capability," he said. Blix has called on Iraq to answer outstanding questions in the declaration on Iraq's chemical, biological and missile programs, which is required under Resolution 1441, adopted Nov. 8. "Iraq may have more to say. I hope so," Blix said.

Yes! That's what happens when you pull out inspectors and go to war too soon!

Then we have an incident in Iraq that calls into question most of the rest of your post. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html . Now given what quoted about it having a 5 year shelf life is either clearly wrong which calls into question if this guy really has a clue what hes talking about or Iraq has WMD and made them in the 3 year period that the inspectors were gone.  Take your pick, they both work for me :p

hmm, well, not being an expert I couldn't say - I'm just repeating what I've read. Incidentally, here's what Scott Ritter has to say about that incident. Either way, an IED doesn't constitute evidence of a stockpile - something rather insidiously absent from FOX's article...

[Arta]

For a more on topic post, I don't agree with everything Bush has said or done. But that doesn't mean he is a bad president and that I should go for the other guy. I don't agree with most of the things Kerry says either. Its great that he served in vietnam and all but I see no value in having a  person who served vs one who didn't as president. After all the president isn't the one drawing the battle plans so what does it matter? He has been a senator for the past 19 years too, and the 9/11 commission placed most the blame on congress so thats not exactly a plus for him either. Suppose I should point out that I don't agree with Bush's stance on gay marriage and that anyone who supports everything another person does is just a blind follower.

Regardless of your position on policy, don't you think that misleading your country and the world at large and unilaterally going to war on the basis of unreliable evidence is grounds for voting for the other guy? Even if Bush didn't deliberately mislead the public, surely he's at fault for disregarding warnings from the state dept and the CIA about the uncertainty of the evidence? Here in the UK, many people are furious with Blair for that exact thing. The Butler report has shown that evidence full of reservations ("might have", "it's possible that", "potentially posesses", etc) ended up being presented to the public as unreserved fact - ("does have", "certain that", "posesses", ...).

Surely it's the job of a good leader to investigate every avenue, to be thoughtful and inquisitive, to accept advice from all parts of the political spectrum, to collate information and ideas and then make a balanced decision based on ALL the information available? (Unless you spend too much time playing golf) I get the feeling Bush just did what Team Rumsfeld told him was right.  

Even if Bush has done nothing wrong and has played no part in this hornet's nest of incompetence, he should resign anyway. It was his watch. Ultimately, he's responsible.

[Grok]

Quite simply, they lied.  They knew (not "they might have known") that if they told the truth ("might have", "potentially possess") to the public, that public would not support war.

A country that potentially possesses threats is a potential threat.  A country that does possess threats is an immediate threat.  North Vietnam?  An impoverished, uneducated and militant country that is anti-American if it is anti-anything.  They want nothing less than for the USA to be a melting radioactive scrapheap of buildings and automobiles, and our charred remains smoldering in the scattered destruction.

Iraq, otoh, was and is less a threat to the United States than their sworn enemy and close neighbor, Iran.

[quasi-modo]

Saddam still was in violation. They had al sammoud 2 (sp?) missiles. They were also fireing off skuds when we first invaded. Why have a delivery system without a war head? He had a means to put crap into surrounding countries, and that did not alarm anyone? If he had balls to he could have done some real damage in tel aviv.

I read somewhere that under saddam terrorist camps operated openly in north iraq, that couldn't happen without it being sponsored. Nothing really went down in iraq without saddam knowing.

Also, even without WMD, this war was still neccessary. There are other issues. I think making a big deal about WMD was a political mistake (though I do not feel bush was lieing, I still feel there are weapons, remember we found guys in iraq with shells with sarin in them, how do you get just 1 or 2 shells with sarin? It would not be produced by the table spoon, there has to be more), but it was one of several reasons why we waged this war. The fact is that saddam was sponsoring terrorism, he was still being hostile to our forces (still fireing at our planes over the no fly zone), and the fact that he could have weapons was a threat, why would you risk letting him get these weapons, provided that he didn't already have them?

[Arta]

Saddam still was in violation. They had al sammoud 2 (sp?) missiles. They were also fireing off skuds when we first invaded. Why have a delivery system without a war head? He had a means to put crap into surrounding countries, and that did not alarm anyone? If he had balls to he could have done some real damage in tel aviv.

I read somewhere that under saddam terrorist camps operated openly in north iraq, that couldn't happen without it being sponsored. Nothing really went down in iraq without saddam knowing.

A warhead isn't necessarily a WMD warhead... and a missile which slightly exceeds the allowed range is hardly grounds for war either - especially since they immediately destroyed those missiles with the UN's supervision when we called them on it.

That stuff about training camps in Iraq is BS. Dunno where you read it, but it's just plain wrong. You may perhaps have been reading about camps in the Kurdish controlled territory (which is in the north of Iraq), but those camps were used to train the Kurdish militia who fought both against saddam and with coalition forces during the initial invasion. Either way, invading Iraq because of camps in the kurdish territory would make no sense - no one has ever claimed that was a reason for war, anyway.

[idoL]

Tax cuts for the wealthy must be nice too. I'd vote for Bush too if he made my life nice by making it harder on the other 98% of america.
Atleast when another democrat was in the office our economy was doing very well, compared to now when it's doing horrible.
The issues aren't all about the war. And the part that is, I support kerry's decsions to pull out of a war we shouldn't even be in. Just because we start problems and force these it upon ourselves, doesn't mean we should keep doing it.

[hismajesty]

Tax cuts for the wealthy must be nice too. I'd vote for Bush too if he made my life nice by making it harder on the other 98% of america.
Atleast when another democrat was in the office our econimy was doing very well, compared to now when it's doing horrible.

The Democrat was too busy screwing office staff. During the Democrats time in office the country didn't have a humungous terrorist attack that dampend our financial stability and sent us into a repression because people were scared to spend money. During the Democrats time in office there also wasn't an expensive war/country rebuild going. Sure, Clinton lowered the national deficit, but there was a Republican Congress when that happened.

The issues aren't all about the war. And the part that is, I support kerry's desions to pull out of a war we shouldn't even be in. Just because we start problems and force these problems upon ourselves, doesn't mean we should keep doing it.

You support Kerry's decisions on the war? His decision was to go to war, and not support the troops with additional funding. Now that the nation as a whole is against the war, Kerry is changing his mind about it? Smooth.

[Hazard]

The fact of the matter is, Iraq was persuing a chemical weapons program, Iraq was persuing a nuclear weapons program, and the Iraqi government was brutally toturing and murdering hundreds of thousands of his own people because their Muslim belief was a fraction of a percent off of his own. His murder of his own people is not disputed. This alone would give the United States just cause to step in and stop him and if you don't believe that, then it just goes to show you are more concerned with your own self-preservation and that you have no ethical and moral fortitude.

[Hazard]

Tax cuts for the wealthy must be nice too. I'd vote for Bush too if he made my life nice by making it harder on the other 98% of america.
Atleast when another democrat was in the office our econimy was doing very well, compared to now when it's doing horrible.

The Democrat was too busy screwing office staff. During the Democrats time in office the country didn't have a humungous terrorist attack that dampend our financial stability and sent us into a repression because people were scared to spend money. During the Democrats time in office there also wasn't an expensive war/country rebuild going. Sure, Clinton lowered the national deficit, but there was a Republican Congress when that happened.

Yes, lets trust the man that can blatantly lie to his wife with a straight face about his promiscuity. Twice. That we know of.

The terrorist attacks were obviously being planned during the Clinton era, such an attack was admittedly not pulled off between Nov. 2 of 2000 when all the terrorirists were sitting in a cave watching CNN and commited on Sept. 11 of 2001. The planning must have taken several years. Where was all of this guys intelligence? The slacking in intelligence didn't just start when Bush took office, it was years of mistakes made under PRESIDENT CLINTON. There were no wars while Clinton was in congress because he was a patsy who wasn't willing to make the tough decisions to get involved in a major armed conflict, but lets not forget that he sent us into some sticky situations too that were politically unpopular. Also, study some economic charts pre-dating the Bush entrance into the White House, which is where all the Dems point and scream the downhill slope begins. It actually begins near the END of the CLINTON term. You might also consider that those few wealthy still pay the vast, vast, majority of taxes and everyone recieved a tax cut, it lumps to a larger sum the more wealthy you are.

The issues aren't all about the war. And the part that is, I support kerry's desions to pull out of a war we shouldn't even be in. Just because we start problems and force these problems upon ourselves, doesn't mean we should keep doing it.

You support Kerry's decisions on the war? His decision was to go to war, and not support the troops with additional funding. Now that the nation as a whole is against the war, Kerry is changing his mind about it? Smooth.

He goes with whatever is going to get him elected. He says whatever he thinks will get him in the Oval Office. He votes for something, then decides to vote against it. He seems to have no convictions. He won't decide. He votes Yes to war, then No to fund the troops. He votes Yes for the Patriot Act, then No to the Patriot Act. Kerry changes his mind on everything. He is a brave war hero one day, then a anti-war lackey the next.

[Arta]

The fact of the matter is, Iraq was persuing a chemical weapons program, Iraq was persuing a nuclear weapons program, and the Iraqi government was brutally toturing and murdering hundreds of thousands of his own people because their Muslim belief was a fraction of a percent off of his own. His murder of his own people is not disputed. This alone would give the United States just cause to step in and stop him and if you don't believe that, then it just goes to show you are more concerned with your own self-preservation and that you have no ethical and moral fortitude.

You're going to give us a lecure on american "ethical and moral fortitude" after your nation's history? Gimme a break. It's America that armed Iraq in the first place. America does what suits America, just like everyone else does what's best for them, and if you can't see that then you're totally naive. By the way, religious belief was never an issue in Iraq, like I said, Saddam spent years eradicating fundamentalism, not being a fundamentalist himself. Thanks for reading my post.

[Arta]

You support Kerry's decisions on the war? His decision was to go to war, and not support the troops with additional funding. Now that the nation as a whole is against the war, Kerry is changing his mind about it? Smooth.

Why do people rail on about this as an example of kerry being bad? It makes perfect sense. He supported the war along with the rest of congress when he had been told there was a clear threat, and so he voted in favour of it. Then, after it came out that he'd been misled and that most of the reasons for war were exaggerated or fabricated, he voted against prolonging it. Simple.

[Arta]

The terrorist attacks were obviously being planned during the Clinton era, such an attack was admittedly not pulled off between Nov. 2 of 2000 when all the terrorirists were sitting in a cave watching CNN and commited on Sept. 11 of 2001. The planning must have taken several years. Where was all of this guys intelligence? The slacking in intelligence didn't just start when Bush took office, it was years of mistakes made under PRESIDENT CLINTON. There were no wars while Clinton was in congress because he was a patsy who wasn't willing to make the tough decisions to get involved in a major armed conflict, but lets not forget that he sent us into some sticky situations too that were politically unpopular.

Sure, Clinton may have made mistakes, but that's not relevant. He's not the president now, and he's not a candidate. There can be no denying that if by your standard Clinton mde mistakes, that Bush has also made mistakes. Personally, I think Bush made more. Clinton had frequent briefings on terrorisrm, and it was Clinton that broadened the NSC's pervue to include domestic terrorisrm arising from foriegn threats. Bush, however, did not continue this policy, expressing frustration at having to deal with what he called 'swatting flies'.  Indeed, Richard Clarke, the chair of the NSC's counterterrorism and security group, tried to arrange a meeting to discuss the threat of terrorism with the administration and was refused. No such meeting was held until 9/4/01... just a tad late:

From the 9/11 commission hearings:

Clarke asked on several occasions for early Principals Committee meetings on these issues and
was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. He wanted principals to accept that al
Qaeda was a "first order threat" and not a routine problem being exaggerated by "chicken little"
alarmists. No Principals Committee meetings on al Qaeda were held until September 4, 2001.

By the by, I think calling someone a patsy for not starting an uneccessary war is highly distasteful. There was no cause for Clinton to go to war. There still isn't. I think Clinton managed to keep the peace for 8 years, through a policy of diplomacy and the measured use of force, and I think that's quite an accomplishment. War is hell. War is horrible. Killing people is horrible. War is a last resort. Why are you so keen on a violent solution?

[Hazard]

I guess you're right. I mean, after all, Hussein only killed his own people. Its none of our business right?

[Arta]

It's our business to talk to people who's behaviour we disagree with. It's our business to use our economic and diplomatic strength to put pressure on people who's behaviour we disapprove of. And yes, it can be our business to use our military strength to intervene in situations which are beyond what we can tolerate, but only if that is our stated goal. If Blair and Bush had said they were invading Iraq to topple Saddam because of his human rights record, I might have supported it. But they haven't. They spewed a load of nonsense about WMD and lied to us all, intentionally or otherwise. Only when it became apparent that no WMD were present did they start talking about the humanitarian angle all the time. It's total, total hypocrisy.

To go to war falaciously and and then claim you're a humanist is an amoral, licentious outrage.