HAHAHAHA This is hilarious. I'm sure all of those voters who switched to theDems side because they saw the candidates eating at Wendy's must feel so betrayed. To try and portray this as a scandal is so ridiculous. I saw Edwards and his wife both eating burgers, so they did really eat there. The fact that other folks had food also on the bus, means nothing. This was one of the lamest attempts at trying to scandalize Kerry and Edwards I've ever seen. It's as funny as some of TJ's best posts, but maybe even funnier since someone published this as a serious attempt at a story. I love it.
I'm more interested in how they got five-star lunches for about $10 a pop! Perhaps Kerry should be posting in the cheap eats thread.
OK, back here in reality, Saddam had let the inspectors back into his country and had given them unfettered access to the sites they wanted to see BEFORE BUSH KICKED THEM OUT! You can cite the years old obfuscations by Saddam all you like, but it does not change the FACT that SADDAM WAS COMPLYING right up until the inspectors were pulled out BY BUSH! The inspectors WERE working in the days leading up to the war and Saddam even offered to let thousands of CIA and FBI agents in to search IN ADDITION to the UN weapons inspectors. You are right about denial, but it is YOU that is denying the truth, not I.
andymoon = Baghdad Bob? There were deadlines, & stinkin' UN resolutions blatantly overlooked the entire Clinton reign.... as well as up to the point we began the bombing this go 'round. OSTRICH... But hey, I could be stupid. I could have only watched the proceedings on ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, BBC and misinterpreted the entire 12 years... VOTE KERRY! Let FREEDOM to dictate your people, and fire on the UN appointed patrols RING! Viva la' spin doctor!
Congratulations.... You have just made my ignore list by comparing me (one of the most dedicated patriots I know) to Baghdad Bob. Have fun with your head in the sand.
Funny thing. I actually credit Bush for forcing progress in Iraq regarding the resolutions. When he started to push the issue, the UN finally took notice. However...rather than continuing to forge resolution, and take advantage of the momentum he pushed for, he chose to throw it all out in a rush to invade. I think the 'years of noncompliance' argument is quite shallow when you consider what progress was FINALLY being made in the last few months before Bush and Co stormed in. Diplomacy's a b****, i suppose. But we've had this discussion umpteen times already.
Obviously it was in comparison to your denial of things going on around you... not in your lack of patriotism. A patriot will debate and endure discourse. However you threw that out the window where I'm concerned by placing me on ignore... How ironic. So then are you, or aren't you? Patriotic, that is.... I can see you are Ostrich-esque. You place me on ignore - a metaphor for sticking your own head in the sand of ignoring me, all the while getting continually lambasted by several here. I am merely a "shill" in your dictionary, so why could ever, or how should I ever affect you so adversely, oh "patriotic" one? How do you like your eggs? Benedict? I have accomplished as much as you have on this thread. Nothing. No votes changed, no votes gained. Yee Haw. Marines still dissed Kerry. And you can quote me having quoted them... or something. You big bad ignore list user you. I guess if you ignore enough of us "neo-con scum" you can be the true censor you really long to be... and all the while claiming it is we on the right that do the censoring. No we must not... because it is priceless watching this... I know you're lookin.'
Exactly. With a few more months of inspections and even more feet on the ground in the form of the above mentioned CIA and FBI agents, we could have finished up the work diplomatically. Instead, Bush had to get his war on. This lends a LOT of credence to the claims by several ex-administration officials that the decision to wage war on Iraq was made even BEFORE 9/11 and they were just looking for a pretext.
just curious, and not to get all clinton on your ass, but how would you define "rush"? is it a unit of time? if so, how long is a rush? is it an attitude?
IMO, the "rush" occurred in pulling the inspectors out of Iraq, foregoing the diplomatic solutions that presented themselves, and alienating our allies by going to war over the objections of the VAST majority of the rest of the world. Saddam could not have been a real threat to his neighbors, much less the US, for many years even if ALL sanctions against Iraq had been ended. Why was it so IMPERATIVE to invade when we did? The only thing I can think of is that Bush's window of opportunity on the WMD claims was about to close once the weapons inspectors reported that Iraq was clean.
attitude and time, i suppose. without looking up links and the such (an exercise some of you are much better at than i) the following come to mind immediately: a) there was no triggering event (such as a kuwait invasion) b) the wmd evidence was not strong enough (still not found to the degree anticipated! this wasn't a cuban missile situation with photos to corraborate the story). c) Blix and co were only in for a few months and had asked for more time -- resolution was Nov 2002 and invasion in the spring. d) not enough allies had been brought on board -- nor enough effort to convince them to come on board. i tend to dismiss the whole twelve years thing because the UN was not taking the situation seriously until Bush forced the issue. It is like your mom sort of nags you to clean your room for months -- then, when she finally gets her point across and you start to tidy up -- she storms in within five minutes and throws everything out! I give him credit for making Iraq non compliance an issue. But once he got the worlds attention, he failed to work with them. Perhaps an invasion was imminent. Perhaps there would be no alternative. But it certainly doesn't appear that the urgency was there to the degree that Bush sold it.
Those who are making the "not enough time argument" should spell out how many days - 30, 60, 120, 1440?
Only fools would further appease Saddam, take him up on his offer to send in CIA and FBI to be killed, and call it "diplomacy."
After the weapons inspectors finished and brought out the report at least. Then, enough time to convince our allies to support the invasion and come up with a viable framework for a government. THEN, if Saddam was found to be in violation of the UNSC resolutions (by the only agency responsible for finding a country in violation of such a resolution: The UN), an invasion would have been in order.
I think what should of happened, is we should have explored the possibility. I disagree strongly with your statement. I think only fools would refuse to use war as a last resort, and send young volunteers into situations that will kill them, without exploring peacerful solutions first. If the FBI CIA offer wasn't real, then there was still plenty of time to invade later. Saddam had recently allowed Inspectors back in, and had capitulated on the surveilance flights over Iraq, etc. You also seem to have a strange definition of appeasement. Sending inspectors, and thousands of u.s. intel agents doesn't sound like appeasement to me.
Exactly. If a hair on any of the heads of those intel agents were to be harmed, everyone (including France and Germany) would have supported an invasion, as I would have. The problem was the Bush didn't take the diplomatic solution seriously as he had made his mind up to go to war. For that, as well as the way the war has been mismanaged, Bush deserves the boot.
Sometimes people get too caught up with the means and then mixed them with the goals. I thought that GWB's goal was to protect America. Taking out Saddam was just one of the ways to achieve that goal, under certain circumstance - if he has WMD. He is a bad guy, who hates America, but there are other ways to force him to yield. International supports in surveilance, sanctions, and inspections are very good alternatives. War for me, is always a last resort, after you fail all the other attempts. Because in war, not only bad guys get killed, good guys too, and innocent civilians who happen to live with bad guys as well. If GWB can catch him on act, he would have international support to go to the war. Instead, he mixed his goal with means, focused all his mind to take out Saddam. If one is determined on his goal, and keeps a steady course, that's leadership for me. But if you have highway 1 and 2 to go from A to B, and you decided to choose highway 1. After a while, you totally forget your goal is to reach point B, and just set your mind to go on highway 1. It would still be ok, if highway 1 functions as normal. But despite you hear the radio announcement that highway 1 is closed, the police flashing warning signs, people in other cars flashing and waiving at you, you decide to be steady in your course and just go on highway 1 blindly. I don't know what is that, but it's NOT leadership for me at least.
I'll try again: I understand what you were referring to. I was trying to determine which negative reports on Kerry were being ignored.
