“Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing,” wrote Rumsfeld a year ago. “Is our current situation such that ‘the harder we work, the behinder we get’?” We now have metrics to work with. A year ago, Gen. John Abizaid estimated there were 5,000 enemy fighters. After capturing and killing thousands, officials now estimate there are 20,000 enemy. A year ago, there were two dozen attacks every day on coalition forces. According to Kroll Security International, the number is now 70 a day. A year ago, U.S. troops had the run of the country and the press could travel almost anywhere. Now there are “no-go” zones in the Sunni Triangle, and Sadr City is a scene of daily carnage. Outside the Kurdish north, few provinces are free of daily attacks.
With kidnappings and beheadings of humanitarian workers and foreign labor, many have fled the country. The press is now largely confined to the Green Zone, which has itself been subject to mortar and car-bomb attacks. American dead and wounded in July and August were higher than in the invasion months of March and April 2003.
Eighteen months after we occupied Germany, the nation was de-Nazified and pacified. Eighteen months after we occupied Iraq, Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise and, as Colin Powell now concedes, “We are fighting an intense insurgency [and] .... it’s getting worse.”
From 1963 to 1973, when we left Vietnam, Saigon was a safe city except during the three-week Tet Offensive of 1968. But Iraq’s capital is becoming almost uninhabitable for Westerners.
Spain, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, the Philippines, and New Zealand have all pulled out. Ukraine and Poland are debating troop withdrawals. Seventy percent of Brits tells pollsters they want Tony Blair to remove British forces, the second largest foreign contingent.
Support for Bush’s decision to invade was overwhelming a year ago. Today, a majority of Americans believe the cost of ridding Iraq of Saddam was too high. Kerry now says Bush made a mistake going in and, if he wins, we will be out in four years. But, Senator, how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?
Robert Novak cites Bush insiders as saying we may have to move to a rapid exit in 2005. Even Rumsfeld is saying we need not pacify Iraq before drawing down U.S. forces. But why then are we building those permanent bases?
On the credit side, scores of thousands of Iraqi police and soldiers have been trained. While some joined the rebels or refused to fight in Fallujah in April, in Najaf many fought to administer a bloody defeat on Sheik Moqtada al-Sadr’s forces, though al-Sadr was allowed to evade capture or killing in a deal negotiated under the auspices of the Ayatollah al-Sistani.
At the root of the insurgency—the goal of every enemy fighter—is a determination to drive America out. Our presence, our use of tanks, Bradleys, gunships and fighter-bombers, causing inevitable civilian casualties, is recruiting more enemy than we are killing.
That the number of enemy and incidence of attacks have multiplied fourfold in a year forces us to one conclusion: we are losing this war. For the guerrilla wins if he does not lose, and the Iraqi insurgents are not losing.
How do we win this war? How do we end it? How do we get out without leaving an Iraq that is a far graver terror threat than any Saddam Hussein ever presented?
The Bush strategy appears to be this. Build up Iraqi forces to lead the assault on enemy sanctuaries in the Sunni Triangle, backed by U.S. forces and firepower. Attack and occupy these cities before January. Hold elections that will, by linking slates of candidates, produce an assembly that will maintain the Allawi government in power. Have the United States then give a date for withdrawal of American forces and begin the pullout of troops—to separate the insurgency from Islamists and foreign fighters whose end goal is an Islamist regime. Continue to build up and train the Iraqi army to where it is so large, powerful, and well equipped it can crush any rebellion. Cede maximum autonomy to Kurds and Shi’ites. And head down the road to Kuwait.
But as the success or failure of the Bush presidency hangs on the outcome in Iraq, it is hard to believe Bush will not leave behind sufficient forces to prevent the loss of Iraq before brother Jeb runs in the primaries of 2008. Iraq is thus likely not only to be the issue in this election but the next as well.
posted on October 23, 2004 12:51:19 AM
And conservatives feel that he is not a conservative, too, and admit that he has harmed our country's standing in the world:
There is little in John Kerry’s persona or platform that appeals to conservatives. The flip-flopper charge—the centerpiece of the Republican campaign against Kerry—seems overdone, as Kerry’s contrasting votes are the sort of baggage any senator of long service is likely to pick up. (Bob Dole could tell you all about it.) But Kerry is plainly a conventional liberal and no candidate for a future edition of Profiles in Courage. In my view, he will always deserve censure for his vote in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.
But this election is not about John Kerry. If he were to win, his dearth of charisma would likely ensure him a single term. He would face challenges from within his own party and a thwarting of his most expensive initiatives by a Republican Congress. Much of his presidency would be absorbed by trying to clean up the mess left to him in Iraq. He would be constrained by the swollen deficits and a ripe target for the next Republican nominee.
It is, instead, an election about the presidency of George W. Bush. To the surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century. Because he is the leader of America’s conservative party, he has become the Left’s perfect foil—its dream candidate. The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia’s last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries’ budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks.
Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.
During the campaign, few have paid attention to how much the Bush presidency has degraded the image of the United States in the world. Of course there has always been “anti-Americanism.” After the Second World War many European intellectuals argued for a “Third Way” between American-style capitalism and Soviet communism, and a generation later Europe’s radicals embraced every ragged “anti-imperialist” cause that came along. In South America, defiance of “the Yanqui” always draws a crowd. But Bush has somehow managed to take all these sentiments and turbo-charge them. In Europe and indeed all over the world, he has made the United States despised by people who used to be its friends, by businessmen and the middle classes, by moderate and sensible liberals. Never before have democratic foreign governments needed to demonstrate disdain for Washington to their own electorates in order to survive in office. The poll numbers are shocking. In countries like Norway, Germany, France, and Spain, Bush is liked by about seven percent of the populace. In Egypt, recipient of huge piles of American aid in the past two decades, some 98 percent have an unfavorable view of the United States. It’s the same throughout the Middle East.
Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants if it feels threatened. It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, but the latter was at least confined to Eastern Europe. If the analogy seems extreme, what is an appropriate comparison when a country manufactures falsehoods about a foreign government, disseminates them widely, and invades the country on the basis of those falsehoods? It is not an action that any American president has ever taken before. It is not something that “good” countries do. It is the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the United States a reliable and necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a menace to their own peace and security.
These sentiments mean that as long as Bush is president, we have no real allies in the world, no friends to help us dig out from the Iraq quagmire. More tragically, they mean that if terrorists succeed in striking at the United States in another 9/11-type attack, many in the world will not only think of the American victims but also of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and maimed by American armed forces. The hatred Bush has generated has helped immeasurably those trying to recruit anti-American terrorists—indeed his policies are the gift to terrorism that keeps on giving, as the sons and brothers of slain Iraqis think how they may eventually take their own revenge. Only the seriously deluded could fail to see that a policy so central to America’s survival as a free country as getting hold of loose nuclear materials and controlling nuclear proliferation requires the willingness of foreign countries to provide full, 100 percent co-operation. Making yourself into the world’s most hated country is not an obvious way to secure that help.
I’ve heard people who have known George W. Bush for decades and served prominently in his father’s administration say that he could not possibly have conceived of the doctrine of pre-emptive war by himself, that he was essentially taken for a ride by people with a pre-existing agenda to overturn Saddam Hussein. Bush’s public performances plainly show him to be a man who has never read or thought much about foreign policy. So the inevitable questions are: who makes the key foreign-policy decisions in the Bush presidency, who controls the information flow to the president, how are various options are presented?
The record, from published administration memoirs and in-depth reporting, is one of an administration with a very small group of six or eight real decision-makers, who were set on war from the beginning and who took great pains to shut out arguments from professionals in the CIA and State Department and the U.S. armed forces that contradicted their rosy scenarios about easy victory. Much has been written about the neoconservative hand guiding the Bush presidency—and it is peculiar that one who was fired from the National Security Council in the Reagan administration for suspicion of passing classified material to the Israeli embassy and another who has written position papers for an Israeli Likud Party leader have become key players in the making of American foreign policy.
But neoconservatism now encompasses much more than Israel-obsessed intellectuals and policy insiders. The Bush foreign policy also surfs on deep currents within the Christian Right, some of which see unqualified support of Israel as part of a godly plan to bring about Armageddon and the future kingdom of Christ. These two strands of Jewish and Christian extremism build on one another in the Bush presidency—and President Bush has given not the slightest indication he would restrain either in a second term. With Colin Powell’s departure from the State Department looming, Bush is more than ever the “neoconian candidate.” The only way Americans will have a presidency in which neoconservatives and the Christian Armageddon set are not holding the reins of power is if Kerry is elected.
If Kerry wins, this magazine will be in opposition from Inauguration Day forward. But the most important battles will take place within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. A Bush defeat will ignite a huge soul-searching within the rank-and-file of Republicandom: a quest to find out how and where the Bush presidency went wrong. And it is then that more traditional conservatives will have an audience to argue for a conservatism informed by the lessons of history, based in prudence and a sense of continuity with the American past—and to make that case without a powerful White House pulling in the opposite direction.
George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies—temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election—are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans “won’t do.” This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
A FORMER REPUBLICAN SENATOR FOR KERRY
'Frightened to death' of Bush
By Marlow W. Cook
Special to The Courier-Journal
I shall cast my vote for John Kerry come Nov 2.
I have been, and will continue to be, a Republican. But when we as a party send the wrong person to the White House, then it is our responsibility to send him home if our nation suffers as a result of his actions. I fall in the category of good conservative thinkers, like George F. Will, for instance, who wrote: "This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and having thought, to have second thoughts."
I say, well done George Will, or, even better, from the mouth of the numero uno of conservatives, William F. Buckley Jr.: "If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."
First, let's talk about George Bush's moral standards.
In 2000, to defeat Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — a man who was shot down in Vietnam and imprisoned for over five years — they used Carl Rove's "East Texas special." They started the rumor that he was gay, saying he had spent too much time in the Hanoi Hilton. They said he was crazy. They said his wife was on drugs. Then, to top it off, they spread pictures of his adopted daughter, who was born in Bangladesh and thus dark skinned, to the sons and daughters of the Confederacy in rural South Carolina.
To show he was not just picking on Republicans, he went after Sen. Max Cleland from Georgia, a Democrat seeking re-election. Bush henchmen said he wasn't patriotic because Cleland did not agree 100 percent on how to handle homeland security. They published his picture along with Cuba's Castro, questioning Cleland's patriotism and commitment to America's security. Never mind that his Republican challenger was a Vietnam deferment case and Cleland, who had served in Vietnam, came home in a wheel chair having lost three limbs fighting for his country. Anyone who wants to win an election and control of the legislative body that badly has no moral character at all.
We know his father got him in the Texas Air National Guard so he would not have to go to Vietnam. The religious right can have him with those moral standards. We also have Vice President Dick Cheney, who deferred his way out of Vietnam because, as he says, he "had more important things to do."
I have just turned 78. During my lifetime, we have sent 31,377,741 Americans to war, not including whatever will be the final figures for the Iraq fiasco. Of those, 502,722 died and 928,980 came home without legs, arms or what have you.
Those wars were to defend freedom throughout the free world from communism, dictators and tyrants. Now Americans are the aggressors — we start the wars, we blow up all the infrastructure in those countries, and then turn around and spend tax dollars denying our nation an excellent education system, medical and drug programs, and the list goes on. ...
I hope you all have noticed the Bush administration's style in the campaign so far. All negative, trashing Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards and Democrats in general. Not once have they said what they have done right, what they have done wrong or what they have not done at all.
Lyndon Johnson said America could have guns and butter at the same time. This administration says you can have guns, butter and no taxes at the same time. God help us if we are not smart enough to know that is wrong, and we live by it to our peril. We in this nation have a serious problem. Its almost worse than terrorism: We are broke. Our government is borrowing a billion dollars a day. They are now borrowing from the government pension program, for apparently they have gotten as much out of the Social Security Trust as it can take. Our House and Senate announce weekly grants for every kind of favorite local programs to save legislative seats, and it's all borrowed money.
If you listened to the President confirming the value of our war with Iraq, you heard him say, "If no weapons of mass destruction were found, at least we know we have stopped his future distribution of same to terrorists." If that is his justification, then, if he is re-elected our next war will be against Iran and at the same time North Korea, for indeed they have weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, which they have readily admitted. Those wars will require a draft of men and women. ...
I am not enamored with John Kerry, but I am frightened to death of George Bush. I fear a secret government. I abhor a government that refuses to supply the Congress with requested information. I am against a government that refuses to tell the country with whom the leaders of our country sat down and determined our energy policy, and to prove how much they want to keep that secret, they took it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Those of you who are fiscal conservatives and abhor our staggering debt, tell your conservative friends, "Vote for Kerry," because without Bush to control the Congress, the first thing lawmakers will demand Kerry do is balance the budget.
The wonderful thing about this country is its gift of citizenship, then it's freedom to register as one sees fit. For me, as a Republican, I feel that when my party gives me a dangerous leader who flouts the truth, takes the country into an undeclared war and then adds a war on terrorism to it without debate by the Congress, we have a duty to rid ourselves of those who are taking our country on a perilous ride in the wrong direction.
If we are indeed the party of Lincoln (I paraphrase his words), a president who deems to have the right to declare war at will without the consent of the Congress is a president who far exceeds his power under our Constitution.
I will take John Kerry for four years to put our country on the right path.
The writer, a Republican formerly of Louisville, was Jefferson County judge from 1962-1968 and U.S. senator from Kentucky from 1968-1975.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on October 23, 2004 07:59:44 AM
Excellent reading, Bunni. Thanks. I hope everyone takes time to read it.
If anyone can't see how dangerous the world is now because of what the Bush government has done they must be blind and clueless to everything going on around them and worldwide.
posted on October 23, 2004 08:18:15 AM
And then there are all the democrats who will be voting for President Bush because while they don't agree with him on any other issues, they support the way he's handled the war on terrorism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And they, the interrogator went through all of these statements from John Kerry. He starts pounding on the table. 'See here, this naval officer, he admits that you are a criminal.'" Excerpt from "Stolen Honor"
- James H. Warner Former Vietnam POW
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 23, 2004 08:27:06 AM
You are right Kiara it is more dangerous for terrorists and anti-americans...
President Bush is the strong leader the US continues to need right now... not some lying traitor... even people that half way support him are noticing how everything he does is "following" the President's lead...
posted on October 23, 2004 08:34:19 AMYou are right Kiara it is more dangerous for terrorists and anti-americans...
Obviously you are unaware of what is happening. Read about the increase in insurgency and how America is losing this war and what the rest of the world thinks and then come back and talk to me about Bush's plan to "stay the course".
posted on October 23, 2004 08:40:12 AM
He is the best leader for the US, I could care less what the rest of the world thinks... WE are the only SUPERPOWER on this planet... lest they forget we will be happy to show them.
I know it is something people of the world are not used to seeing, a leader that does what he says... but hey they are not lucky enough to live here.
posted on October 23, 2004 08:51:53 AMI could care less what the rest of the world thinks... WE are the only SUPERPOWER on this planet... lest they forget we will be happy to show them.
Bush and his buds all think like you. A disastrous way of thinking in this day and age......... look at the damage done in such a very short period of time and you may get a reality check once you become aware.
The US cannot take on the world, they can't even manage to do in "a handful of thugs" as Bush so fondly calls the insurgents. Clue in.... he stirred up a huge hornet's nest and it's your/mine/everyone's future at stake.
posted on October 23, 2004 08:54:03 AM
America is NOT losing the war. No matter how a Canadian sees it.
It's this mindset of when things get tough...the ultra left's first thought is to RUN...RUN....RUN.
And look at kerry's multiple positions on just what he'll do....even HE doesn't know. But by taking at least 7-8 different positions on what he'll do ...he probably has pleased most on the left with at least one of them.
GREAT accomplishments are being made. We have Afghanistan who just recently held their FIRST election. WOMEN voted too.
And come January 2005 the same thing will happen in Iraq.
posted on October 23, 2004 09:11:28 AM
Linda_k, once again I will go on record and say that I've NEVER said that they should "run". Please get that straight so you know what you're talking about when you try to discuss these matters.
Perhaps Canada has a more realistic view of the war because they have reporters over there and their news is real news and isn't as slanted as your uninformed Faux news. You keep calling me a Canadian like it's a bad thing. Trust me, it's not.......... it's a compliment worldwide. Canadians are very knowledgeable about the war in Iraq and other world affairs.
If you take time to read about Afghanistan you will see the true picture. Take time to read about the increasing insurgency in Iraq. Be informed and never fear seeking the truth.
And once again anybody reading the US DoD website can get a very clear picture of what's going on over there. We don't need a pacifist Canadian telling us her opinion of what's happening.
posted on October 23, 2004 10:35:10 AM
I don't see it that way, what is a shame is that there are people in this world who seem to think that America actually gives a rats ass what they think...
President Bush is elected to protect Americans, not some global wussy community afraid to do what needs to be done...
We don't need a "global test" to do what needs to be done... some countries know who to side with... you seem to think it is a bad thing to be an American... I assure you it is not.
posted on October 23, 2004 11:08:03 AM
Linda_k, I wasn't trying to be funny. My point is that I meet people from all over the world and I listen to them and I judge them on what they say and do, not from the country they live in. I don't talk to people and say "You're Swedish" or "You're Irish" and label them when we discuss topics. Same as I don’t bastardize their given names and find humor in doing so or in comments about body waste. Perhaps it was my upbringing, and even though I don’t fault others on their upbringing, they should know better in adulthood. Then again it may just be a neocon thing when I hear it from you.
Anyone can google a few good stories on Iraq and television has also shown some. How many times have they taken Fallujah now? You were telling me this story back in April too. But I am discussing the total picture of Iraq, the Middle East and the rest of the world and the damage the Bush regime has caused. I disagree with what he's done and will continue to do so.
The other day I spent about half my day with a journalist who had just travelled the world....... very interesting to hear what they had to say and they are truly one of the most open-minded people I've ever known and our relationship goes back awhile.
posted on October 23, 2004 11:30:52 AM
Twelve gets it...you don't kiara - this is NOT a popularity contest. This is a war for our survival. Better get spending some money repairing your own military forces.
U.S. Arrests Senior Al-Zarqawi Leader
By Associated Press
October 23, 2004, 1:39 AM EDT
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The U.S. military has arrested a "senior leader" in the network run by Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, along with five others during overnight raids in the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, officials said Saturday.
American forces have stepped up operations in Fallujah in a bid to root out al-Zarqawi's terror group, Tawhid and Jihad, which is believed to operate from there. The group has been blamed in numerous suicide bombings and beheadings of foreign hostages, including recent twin blasts inside Baghdad's Green Zone, which houses the U.S and Iraqi leadership.
The 1:30 a.m. raid in southern Fallujah targeted a site being used as a safe haven by al-Zarqawi's inner circle, according to a military statement.
Intelligence sources said the man captured was previously thought to be a relatively minor member of the terror network. But because so many of al-Zarqawi's associates have been captured or killed, he moved up to take a more important role.
It is the critics themselves who are suffering from pseudo-religious certainty and superstition. Isn't there something self-righteous, slightly crazed, about directing such overwhelming anger at the man whose job it is to pick up the pieces of September 11 on behalf of the free world?
George W Bush as we see him today is a response to disorder, not its cause. Four years ago, he was the same as 99.9 per cent of Western politicians. He inherited the economic health and mental torpor of the Clinton years, when many people really had come to believe that the Western way of life was like a children's slide magically moving upwards towards ever greater pleasure and peace, in permanent defiance of the laws of political gravity. To the extent that Bush campaigned on foreign policy at all in 2000, his selling-point was that he didn't have one.
After some 2,500 Americans died in a day, he had to get one fast, so fast that he made some big mistakes. He resisted the idea of "nation-building", even as his policies of military intervention made it inevitable. Having had the maturity to choose able lieutenants, probably more intelligent than himself, in Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, he did not clearly adjudicate between their different versions of what ought to be done in post-war Iraq.
Understandably exasperated by the feeble multilateralism that had permitted genocide in Bosnia in the 1990s and hampered effective war in Kosovo, he did not see that determined unilateralism requires more, not less diplomacy. And whereas some conservative leaders resonate internationally (Margaret Thatcher was the patron saint of taxi drivers in six continents), George W Bush doesn't travel, literally or metaphorically.
But he has got the big idea. There is a global problem with Islamism.
There is a problem of alliances between bad states and terror organisations that reach beyond state boundaries. There is an almost universal rottenness in the politics of the Arab world. There is an atrocious weakness or, as the UN oil-for-food scandal shows, worse than weakness, in many of the Western nations and international organisations that are supposed to help guarantee our security. And it is the duty of the most powerful nation on earth to do something about it.
The only big free country that has retained the untrammelled capacity to decide for itself has been decisive. The greatest terrorist hope about America - that it was not serious - has gone. And a huge, partly covert programme has begun to catch our foes and make us safer. It tempts fate to say it, but it is not mere chance that neither Britain nor America has suffered terrorist attack since 2001.
I don't understand what John Kerry or Jacques Chirac think should be done about terrorism. Or rather, I think they think nothing much should be done. Kerry compares terrorism to prostitution - a permanent affliction that can be mitigated, but no more. You can move a few tarts off the street, introduce more clap clinics, insist on curtains in the red light district, but in the end, the oldest profession regroups. It's a very French attitude, and it reflects a truth about human nature. But prostitutes, unlike Islamist terrorists, are not determined to destroy our way of life (in fact, they have strong conservative motives for keeping it ticking along). You can't say to Osama bin Laden, as you might to Madame Claude: "You're entitled to your little ways, but just be discreet about it, will you?" His little ways are death, our death. It's him or us.
So who gains if Bush loses? The Labour Left, of course, and the political power of the European Union, the Guardian readers who have been writing magnificently counterproductive anti-Bush letters to the voters of Clark County, Ohio, and every twerp who says with a trembling lip that Mr Bush and Mr Blair have "blood on their hands"; not to mention every corrupt, undemocratic, "pragmatic" government in the Middle East that longs for a return to stasis.
But some rather more fearsome people gain too, such as the man who said of Americans in a document discovered earlier this year "these are the biggest cowards of the lot, and we ask God to allow us to kill, and detain them, so that we can exchange them with our arrested sheikhs and brothers". He is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and it is probably he who killed Ken Bigley. Such men believe they have already changed the government in Spain; they will claim at once that they have done the same in the United States. They will be right.
And who loses? Iraqis about to have real elections of their own for the first time, Afghans who have already voted with more than expected success, Iranians trying to assert their own democracy against its clerical corruptions. And us. What one can see in each twist of the Iraq story - don't send the US Marines into Fallujah, don't send the Black Watch to help the Americans, do give in to Ken Bigley's kidnappers - is exactly what is meant by defeatism, an actual longing to lose. Whatever you think of the war, why would you want that?
John Howard, who joined in the war, won again in Australia this month. I think that Tony Blair will do the same. And I suspect, though it is close, that George W Bush will win, too. Like them or not, all three have put themselves on the right side of a battle that has to be won.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And they, the interrogator went through all of these statements from John Kerry. He starts pounding on the table. 'See here, this naval officer, he admits that you are a criminal.'" Excerpt from "Stolen Honor"
- James H. Warner
Former Vietnam POW
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll--the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Re-elect President Bush
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 23, 2004 11:52 AM ]
posted on October 23, 2004 11:43:25 AM
Who the heck is discussing a 'popularity' contest?? You just don't see my point at all, Linda_k.... talk about close-minded.
It's a war for everyone's survival, not just yours and not just mine. The whole wide world matters, not just your corner of it.
Bush told the rest of the world to screw off. Now he can't go it alone because of the mess he's caused. He can't even take on one "handful of thugs" yet he continues to piss off the rest of the world. How stupid is that?
posted on October 23, 2004 12:11:37 PMStupid? What is stupid is his reluctance to level some of those cities and just rebuild them...
twelvepole, this was supposed to be a "liberation" of Iraq, not a total invasion where they level cities and kill all the people. Remember?
Don't you think it would be easier to defend yourself from an enemy if you had more people on your side? This neocon view that you can piss off the whole world and take them all on is a joke. Bush can't handle a "handful of thugs" as he calls them. He looks like a joke to the world everytime he says that.
On your other note, there are people that travel the world with eyes wide shut.
posted on October 23, 2004 12:46:05 PM
Yes, reamond. I've listened to I don't know how many democratic leaders who've said we can't lose this war. They, too agree we will fight to win.
They see clearly what the US is up against. I'm glad there are dems that do see the threats we face, rather than those dems who fail to see it at all. They think we'll just go back to the clinton era and continue to ignore the growing threat. NOT if President Bush is re-elected. He's not jumping from one position to several others as kerry does...he KNOWS what has to be done. As does Ed Koch.
--------------
kiara - I challenge you to prove your untruthful statement - Bush told the rest of the world to screw off. YOU CAN'T because he never said any such thing. You're either lying again or using your twisted logic to draw that VERY FALSE conclusion.
This President told the world what he felt we were facing - this threat from terrorists. He then called on THE WORLD to join the 'coalition of the willing'. Of course, your country was one of several supposed allies who weren't willing. But he did get support from many....just not those like Russia, Germany and France who were enjoying the benefits/payoffs coming from saddam in the 0il-for-food-program.
Because it was more advantagous for them to side with a corrupt, terrorist supporter, long-term thread to the world...is NOT this President's fault. And anyone who thinks that it was..is blind as a bat to why they wouldn't join us.
That's why I fully believe this President is going to be re-elected....because I have faith the American people will see that this President acted in OUR best interests. Took the support that was freely given from close to 40 countries and went in.
But he did NOT tell the rest of the world to screw off...as you falsely stated.
posted on October 23, 2004 01:00:28 PM
And who were the coalition of the willing? At least those that were willing to say so pubically?
Forty-eight countries are publicly committed to the Coalition, including:
Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
.....it is no accident that many member nations of the Coalition recently escaped from the boot of a tyrant or have felt the scourge of terrorism. All Coalition member nations understand the threat Saddam Hussein's weapons pose to the world and the devastation his regime has wreaked on the Iraqi people.
The population of Coalition countries is approximately 1.23 billion people.
Coalition countries have a combined GDP of approximately $22 trillion.
Every major race, religion, ethnicity in the world is represented.
The Coalition includes nations from every continent on the globe.
--------------
And in other reports this is the 25,000 troops kerry insults and continues to discount. THEY were willing to do something. And kerry's sister traveled to Australia to try and convince their people to STOP being our ally. What kind of American would support this action? KERRY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And they, the interrogator went through all of these statements from John Kerry. He starts pounding on the table. 'See here, this naval officer, he admits that you are a criminal.'" Excerpt from "Stolen Honor"
- James H. Warner Former Vietnam POW
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 23, 2004 01:11:45 PMAt least those that were willing to say so pubically?
Pubically?? LOL
How many of those countries are in IRAQ??
Of course, your country was one of several supposed allies who weren't willing.
If you mean Canada, yes Canada knew there were no WOMD and that the war was a lie so of course they didn't send troops or support it. They sent their troops to Afghanistan where the real terrorists were and the troops are still there. (My apologies to others, but Linda_k is slow and doesn't grasp some things even though I repeat them.)
Linda_k, I believe it was Trai that asked you to prove where Germany was involved or named in the oil-for-food program and you couldn't do it. He also told you why Germany did not go to war..... in fact he told you several times but you keep spouting your propaganda.
Now...... about the oil-for-food...... did you read about the Texan involved in that? The American companies too? Many companies from all over the world were named.
But he did NOT tell the rest of the world to screw off
In essence, he said go in under our command and give up your rights to how your troops are used and if you don't follow our lead only our friends will share in the looting... err........ 'reconstruction' of the country and if not we will go it alone ...... in other words, screw off.
You can tell others to screw off in many ways without using the exact wording. I've been able to do that too.
posted on October 23, 2004 01:28:25 PM
kiara - So you were lying. figures....no surprise there.
[i]kiara - I challenge you to prove your untruthful statement - Bush told the rest of the world to screw off. YOU CAN'T because he never said any such thing. You're either lying again or using your twisted logic to draw that VERY FALSE conclusion.
--------
And you're also wrong on my conversation with Trai. I told him neither would Japan...but they were still contributing 1.5 BILLION dollars towards the cause. So, again you don't know what you're talking about.
posted on October 23, 2004 01:40:46 PM
LOL @ Canada knew there were no womd. right...but Russia and Germany thought there were..as did many other countries.
And then lets look at ONE of the positions kerry's taken on Iraq. That was to recruit 40,000 more US troops and train them. Send 20,000 of them to Iraq. So...we had a coalition of the willing which gave us 25,000 troops in Iraq. But kerry'd rather send our own boys and girls rather than praise our allies who ARE helping us out. That's real stupid thinking on his part.
And then we have the countries that have withdrawn their troops. WHY? Because the terrorists kidnapped there people and threatened them IF they didn't leave they'd pay the price. So...many left. Including Spain. Spain followed the terrorists instructions AFTER their train was blown up and many of their people were killed.
If this what the left wants US to give into. Those who would go into schools and take women and children hostage and murder them? Those who would blow up parts of countries to make a point 'quit supporting the US in Iraq'?
And even though Spain did give into the terrorists demands, and did put the socialist party into lead their government. Is this what American's would want for our country? I don't think so.
And then if kerry keeps insulting the allies we do have left, and his sister does manage to convince Australia to STOP HELPING US....the ultra-left/progressives/socialists will have won. But at such a tremendous cost to our country.
The terrorists aren't going away, nor is kerry going to be able to ignore them. They've already stated their plans for us many times...to ignore they mean it is suicidal.
posted on October 23, 2004 01:47:16 PM
Please remember I am talking in my quiet and calm manner, linda.
Linda_k, I believe it was Trai that asked you to prove where Germany was involved or named in the oil-for-food program and you couldn't do it. He also told you why Germany did not go to war..... in fact he told you several times but you keep spouting your propaganda.
Linda says:
And you're also wrong on my conversation with Trai.
One of your discussions with Trai was on this thread and it looks like he had to repeat it to you. So I'm not wrong and don't change it to another spin about Japan.
posted on October 23, 2004 03:54:31 PM
No changing the subject kiara. You lied. President Bush NEVER said what you claim he did. PERIOD!!!!!
And since you are trying to change the subject of your false statement from being discussed...because you know he never said that....and while you bring up a discussion that TRAI and I had...not you and I....TRAI and I....maybe you might ask him yourself, if his position is that Germany didn't support the Iraq war we are now involved in, BECAUSE as he states, they're pacifists.....then what reason does he or you give for the FACT that Germany did go into the first Iraq war in 1991....with BOTH troops and materials?
The reason Canada didn't give the US support in this war is because they said they'd only do so with UN approval. So...we're right back to the issue that the MAJORITY of American's do NOT want to be required to get UN approval to protect ourselves.
posted on October 23, 2004 04:54:27 PM
Linda_k, I'm not trying to change the discussion but I am taking time to correct propaganda that you are spouting. But he did get support from many....just not those like Russia, Germany and France who were enjoying the benefits/payoffs coming from saddam in the 0il-for-food-program.
I brought up the discussion that you and Trai had because you have again named Germany in the oil-for-food scam like it was a major player in the fraud, just as you had been naming Canada (and I corrected you then) and I remembered Trai saying there was no proof in the investigation reports.
As far as Germany's role in Iraq during the Gulf War, I was not aware of Germany having troops right in Iraq. I'm sure you can google more info on that but it's not relevant to Bunni's topic about how this war in Iraq is being lost. You are trying to change the subject because you can't deal with the truth and want to divert attention away from her topic.
Yes, I do know Canada said they would go into Iraq this time with UN approval ........ they did so in 1991.
Excerpt from "Stolen Honor"
