Redstate

We had the 'flip-flop', the 'which way the wind blows', and next we'll have the 'Kerry contradictions.'

I've never had much time for disecting campaign speeches and debates for factual missteps and misrepresentations; they all have the intellectual consistency of a freshman philosophy paper -- lousy but usually not criminally dishonest. Let me know if you find something truly damning from either man.

As far as the outcome of the debate, I think it was a guarded victory for Kerry. Bush certainly has had stronger performances; hopefully he'll show his stuff next time. Kerry, while no rhetorical worldbeater, was concise (for him) and stayed relatively on message. All things being even, I'm not sure we could say he won. But all things were not even -- the Bush campaign did such a fabulous job painting Kerry a flip-flopper that it blotted out everything else, including their belated attempts to rehabilitate him as a champion debater. I was aware of the manipulation, and even I was expecting some sort of shambling doubletalker. Instead we got a bland but solid senator.

It's not over yet. Bush must hold his own on the economy and avoid any self-inflicted wounds. A little fiscal conservatism wouldn't hurt either.

--klepto

I wouldn't say the dynamic hasn't been changed - it's far too early to tell. Keep in mind that foreign policy was supposed to be Bush's strong suit, and this evening he came out looking unprepared and even flustered at times, struggling until he found a comfortable talking point to retreat to (even if it had nothing to do with the question asked, but that is de rigeur, I suppose).

Kerry had a chance to define himself, and so he did. The consensus among pundits was a Kerry win on Bush's strong suit, with Kerry coming off as a clear and decisive leader.

Re. the third exchange snippet:

The contradiction you appear to see is simply not there. Kerry's stance on this is perfectly clear: he thinks Bush should have had the authorization to use force and therefore voted for that authorization.

And he thinks Bush subsequently didn't use that authorization wisely, which he makes clear in the quote you posted:

"But what he has said is that, even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection with Al Qaida, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words.

Now, I would not."

Kerry is saying, in pretty plain words, that he would not have done everything the same way after getting that authorization. A very different thing from saying he would still have voted to give the president that authorization.

If the war was a "mistake," and if the justification for the war turned out to be wrong (no WMD), and given hindsight (the question posed to Kerry previously), why would Kerry say he would still authorize the power to go to war? Under all those conditions, authorizing the President to have needless authority to invade a country needlessly, makes zero sense. Secondly, Kerry must have been the only person in the Senate that thought the President wouldn't use force if granted the power. What, is he an idiot or did he contradict himself? You pick.

The consensus among pundits was that Kerry hit his acceptance speech out of the park.

Er, how'd that turn out?

The consensus was also that Zell Miller was to angry . . .

should I go on . . .

Kerry believed that in order for Bush to be able to negotiate with Saddam effectively, he needed the authorization to use force if need be.

Keep in mind that this authorization was used in the first instance to get the inspectors into Iraq.

If there were no weapons, what negotiations needed to take place? Why are inspectors needed when there are no weapons? The question was answered in hindsight with what we know today, and that is that no WMD means no need for war, no need for posturing, no need for forced inspections.

Good analysis - thanks, Pejman. (I'd like to add more but it's 2am at the moment, so I'll just leave it at 'thanks' for now.)

...it would be a split decision, with Kerry ahead on points, but the promoters busy making a rematch.

It disappoints me to say that, considering I'm a strong supporter of the president.

Initially, I was at best a lukewarm supporter of Bush.  My initial response to the policy of pre-emption was negative.  But more reading and research convinced me that this operation in Iraq is the right move.  Combine that, and my disgust for leftist politics, and I have no choice to support Bush.  

The problem Bush has is that he really is afraid to call Kerry what he truly is--a lying traitor.

Bush seems to go out of his way to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, when deep down, I'm sure Bush knows this guy doesn't deserve it for what he has done.

I'm sure Bush's advisors tell him to avoid attacking Kerry's Vietnam record.  If it were me advising Bush, I'd have recommended something like this:

"Since the Vietnam war, this country has been divided over America's role in the world. The liberal democrats, LIKE SENATOR KERRY, believe any American military action is tainted by the ulterior motives of profit or power.  They believe ANY AMERICAN ACTION, regardless of how justifiable it is, is a "war crime", especially if other nations  (who have ulterior motives of their own) fail to legitimize it.

They will, WITHOUT ANY FACTS, accuse our troops and their leaders of all sorts of atrocities, from torture and rape, to and to quote my opponent tonight: "razing villages reminicent of Genghis Khan."

As I stand behind this podium tonight, my opponent is a person, who after his removal from Vietanm, while an inactive member of the naval reserves:

1. accused his FELLOW sailors, soldiers, and marines STILL IN HARMS WAY, of horrible atrocities--WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE--before the U.S. Senate.
   
2. His FALSE TESTIMONY was used against U.S. servicemen being held by the enemy.  

I hope the American people can forgive me for getting a bit emotional tonight, but I cannot help but have strong emotions toward those who would slander the honorable men and women of our armed forces, even if it is for the ostensibly noble goal to end war.

John Kerry's record on foreign policy has been one of continual support for the interests of those who would do the U.S. harm.  But don't take my word for it, look at the record:

1. Advocated an unconditional withdrawl from Vietman--same goal as the North Vietnamese
   
2. Opposed Regan's fight against the Soviets
   
3. Now opposes our military support for a more moderate regime in Iraq.  He would like to withdraw our troops ASAP.  Funny, isn't that the SAME THING terrorists such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi want?

These are harsh things to say about a combat veteran.  I wish I didn't have to.  But unfortunately the truth hurts, and the American people need to know."

Now, if Bush did that tonight, Kerry would have been knocked out.

You sound like a smart man so you understand fully well that this is beside the point.  Bush - remember, he came in saying he was a "realist" - should never have gone to war in Iraq.  The father of contemporary Realism, Kenneth Waltz (he's still alive) says plainly that Saddam Hussein was not the primary threat; Al Qaeda was, and there's a difference.  (checkout this interview where he explains his position: http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Waltz/waltz-con6.html; also, the most important living American International Relations scholars were against going to war too: http://www.geocities.com/tom_slouck/iraq/scholars_against_iraq_war.html)  

But lest you answer that Im undermining the current mission in Iraq (and our attitude towards the mission is *very* important), Im not. And neither is Kerry.  He said very plainly that we have to win this war.  President Bush made a mistake going in, and he's screwing it up now: He "broke" it.  But its still not too late. Because when Kerry wins in November, hes gonna come in and clean it up.

You sound like a smart man so you understand fully well that this is beside the point.  Bush - remember, he came in saying he was a "realist" - should never have gone to war in Iraq.  The father of contemporary Realism, Kenneth Waltz (he's still alive) says plainly that Saddam Hussein was not the primary threat; Al Qaeda was, and there's a difference.  (checkout this interview where Waltz explains his position: http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Waltz/waltz-con6.html; also, the most important living American International Relations scholars were against going to war too: http://www.geocities.com/tom_slouck/iraq/scholars_against_iraq_war.html)  

But lest you answer that Im undermining the current mission in Iraq (and our attitude towards the mission is *very* important), Im not. And neither is Kerry.  He said very plainly that we have to win this war.  President Bush made a mistake going in, and he's screwing it up now: He "broke" it.  But its still not too late. Because when Kerry wins in November, hes gonna come in and clean it up.

Anyone who claims to be a realist must agree with Waltz? Some other really educated people were also against Iraq? If we're not careful you might bring out the big guns and tell us Barbara Streisand was also against the war. Or maybe you'll make the always unimpeachable appeal to demogoguery.

If Kerry does win, I just hope he does a better job than the last time he tried to clean up a mess...

Waltz uses MAD as the paradigm for the solution to the Iraqi question?  Ok, maybe appeal to authority was a bit much.

The point is that again you are avoiding the point.  Bush made a mistake going to war in Iraq; that wasnt the threat that the US needed to focus on; Al QAEDA was.  And Kerry called him on it.  I bring up Waltz because he makes a very strong argument to this effect.  Did you read the interview with him? You should read it; it's interesting.  In addition, Waltz is one of the most important thinkers concerning international relations of our time (unlike Barbara Streisand, as far as I know; unless she's been publishing articles in International Security recently...)

If you disagree with Waltz' substantive point, Id be interested in hearing it.  In other words, Im looking for an argument showing in what way going after Saddam was part of the war on Al Qaeda and Osama, the ones that attacked this country on Sept 11th.

By the way, what is the point that you're trying to make concerning MAD?  It wasnt clear to me.

here is the link to Waltz's article.  http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Waltz/waltz-con6.html;

also, the most important living American International Relations scholars were against going to war too: http://www.geocities.com/tom_slouck/iraq/scholars_against_iraq_war.html)

Careful, Waltz is talking about deterrance, not MAD.  Of course the US could have deterred Iraq. The definition of deterrance is two fold:  to have the ability to destroy your adversary and to be able to threaten to do so credibly.  The logic is that if you are able to do both, he wont attack you because its not in his interest; an attack means he wont survive (both as leader and as a person). So the relevant question is did the United States have the ability and the credibility to destroy Saddam had he attacked us with nuclear weapons?  The answer is yes.

MAD (MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION) is irrelevant here.  It is a relic of the cold war when two countries, the US and the USSR, had arsenals that could completely destroy each other.  This is not the case today. The US is the only military superpower left in the world.  Russia is militarily weak.  Its true that they have a lot of nuclear weapons there but the problem is no longer that they'll use them against the US, but that the weapons are poorly maintained and not secure.  Something Kerry ALSO pointed out. Helping secure the Russian arsenal should have been a national security priority along with destroying the Al Qaeda network.  Instead, Bush made the mistake of going to war in Iraq, thereby diverting attention and resources away from the real threats, and consequently turning Iraq into what it is now: an extremely weakly governed country and a terrorist breeding ground.  And thats the mess that Bush is unable to deal with now (indeed, he doesnt even have the guts to admit he made a mistake) and that Kerry is going clean up when he gets elected.

OK gentlemen, it was a pleasure.  Good night, I have to teach tomorrow.

Careful, Waltz is talking about deterrance, not MAD.

MAD was the deterrence.  It's a distinction with no difference.

Of course the US could have deterred Iraq.

From strikes using trackable ballistic missiles, yes.  From trading knowledge, no.  

The definition of deterrance is two fold:  to have the ability to destroy your adversary and to be able to threaten to do so credibly.  The logic is that if you are able to do both, he wont attack you because its not in his interest; an attack means he wont survive (both as leader and as a person). So the relevant question is did the United States have the ability and the credibility to destroy Saddam had he attacked us with nuclear weapons?  The answer is yes.

Sitting here in Podunk, Texas I can order castor beans by the ton if I so wish.  Turning them into a useful poison in a safe and manageable way would require expert help.  Help in the form of, oh, maybe, Rihab Taha or Huddah Ammash.  Once that help is rendered and my stash of castor bean proteins are handed off to a surrogate where exactly is the value of deterrence?  Heard anything lately on the search for the anthrax mailer?  Neither have I.  Waltz's point that assistance won't be given because use of ABCs would ipso factor implicate Saddam is infantile at best.

MAD (MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION) is irrelevant here.  It is a relic of the cold war when two countries, the US and the USSR, had arsenals that could completely destroy each other.  This is not the case today. The US is the only military superpower left in the world.

Did you miss this part:

One of the striking things about nuclear deterrence is that it has worked, no matter what country we're talking about, no matter what kind of government the country has, no matter what kind of ruler the country has had.

Russia is militarily weak.  Its true that they have a lot of nuclear weapons there but the problem is no longer that they'll use them against the US, but that the weapons are poorly maintained and not secure.

That's been the problem for over a decade.

Something Kerry ALSO pointed out. Helping secure the Russian arsenal should have been a national security priority along with destroying the Al Qaeda network.

Yes, Kerry pointed out Nunn-Lugar.  But he didn't note Cliton almost cutting NL funding in half in '94.  Or Clinton doing the exact same thing in '99.  Nor did Kerry point out that Bush's budget numbers have steadily increased.  Kerry is comparing FY03 APPROPRIATED(read: year end) dollars with FY04 BUDGET(read: written mid-'03) dollars.  Obviously most of the fan club snoozes right past the point but it's worth noting.  Just as with most national security programs NL is supplemented in subsequent bills.

Instead, Bush made the mistake of going to war in Iraq, thereby diverting attention and resources away from the real threats...

Some of us don't see it as a mistake.  Indeed some of us see it as the single most important front.  Success in Afghanistan could actually be bad long-term for the U.S.(especially if Jammu-Kashmir isn't handled promptly...India's Singh gives one hope but who knows).  Success in Iraq could be monumentally good long-term for the U.S.

...and consequently turning Iraq into what it is now: an extremely weakly governed country and a terrorist breeding ground.

Wow, a weakly-governed country 3+ months before it has its first elections.  Damn that Bush!

And thats the mess that Bush is unable to deal with now (indeed, he doesnt even have the guts to admit he made a mistake) and that Kerry is going clean up when he gets elected.

It seems those Iraqi troops that don't exist are helping to "deal with" Samarrah as I type this.  I know the Kerry groupies just love bad news from Iraq since it helps their myopic goals but just because you and Herr Schadenfreude say it's a "mess" doesn't make it so.  

Oh lookie...more bad news.

Now put away those "Bush is letting the insurgency run rampant" talking points and dig out those Jack-Straw-memo "Bush is creating more insurgents with his heavy-handed tactics" that your side was pimping back in April/May.

OK gentlemen, it was a pleasure.  Good night, I have to teach tomorrow.

Yes, always a pleasure.  Keep in touch and say 'hi' to the kids.

You sound like a smart man so you understand fully well that this is beside the point.  Bush -remember, he came in saying he was a "realist" - should never have gone to war in Iraq,

I can't see how it is beside the point to bring up the shameful record of a presidential hopeful.

Kerry lied when he returned from Vietnam, and he gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the U.S.  I wish someone aside from the Swiftvets would call him on it.

Bottomline--Kerry's position on foreign policy, for the past 20 years, like most of the left wing, has opposed the best interests of America at every step of the way.

 

The father of contemporary Realism, Kenneth Waltz (he's still alive) says plainly that Saddam Hussein was not the primary threat; Al Qaeda was, and there's a difference.

For 12 long years, Hussein flouted the ceacefire agreement.  The U.S. has been in a low intensity conflict with him during that entire time.  He shoots at our planes over the no-fly zones, he certainly acted like a man who had WMD's he shouldn't have had, and he attempted to kill a former president.  He should have been taken out long ago.  

Diplomacy is the Left's codeword for weakness and waffling.  You can only reason with those who act in good faith.  Bush is right in this.  You cannot reason with terrorists, or dictators like Hussein.  You can only defeat them through force.  I just wish he could express it more eloquently.

The pundits (or 98% of them) are in the tank for Kerry. Of course they say that he came off as a clear and decisive leader --- they focus on style over substance (shall we review the Clinton years?)

The question is --- will any of the folks who are supporting Bush be convinced that Kerry is suddenly a clear and decisive leader? --- will some huge number of the "undecideds" be converted to Kerry supporters based on this clear, decisive performance?

I think most Americans have written off the pundits --- their views are so obviously agenda driven that they don't command respect.

Funny, his definition still looks pretty quantum to me. Quick:

• Does he want more or fewer troops in Iraq?
  
• Does he plan to pull them out in six months or leave them in longer?
  
• Will he do what is best for America without bowing to international opinion, or will he make sure that American actions pass "the global test"?
  
• Does he support multilateral or unilateral action?

Kerry spoke very well. What was it he had to say?

don't necessarily see the forest for the trees.

I doubt that they agree that there is such a thing a evil in this world, much less an "axis of evil." But, like it or not, President Bush sees the world this way and accurately reflects the beliefs of "Red State" America (and Zell Miller Democrats) after 9/11.

There were links between terrorism, OBL and Iraq (see the 9/11 Commission report) --- President Bush smashed those links and is hunting and killing terrorists in the remaining pockets of resistence.

If we had followed the path of scholarship (rather than the path of action), we would still have Lybia developing WMDs, still have Saddam running the oil for food scam and murdering his people by the thousands, still have the French, Germans and Russians building up his arsenal, and still have terrorists using Iraq as an unfettered training facility.

Kerry is not a man of action (even in the Senate). Why should we "Red State" Americans trust our future --- our lives and the lives of our children --- to a convoluted thinker / talker during wartime?

You know, the subject of WMD in Iraq doesn't come up nearly as often as it used to, but it still pops up as the old anti-war standby:

"We didn't find WMD in Iraq (read: we didn't find warehouses full of sarin, VX, and mustard gas artillery shells in neatly labeled rows to be paraded before the CNN cameras); therefore, we shouldn't have rushed to war.  We should have let the inspectors keep working."

Um, inspecting for what?

If the Democrats want to keep teeing this one up, I think--risky as it sounds--President Bush could at least hit it for a triple.  Here's a rough sketch:

"After 9/11, I felt we could no longer wait until horrific terrorist attacks happened, and that al Qaeda would want to trump the WTC/Pentagon moment.  How would they do that?  In my estimation, the belief of the previous administration, and that of allied leaders and intelligence services all over the world, they would try to set off a nuclear, biological, or chemical device in a major U.S. city."

"Where would they get such a device?  Well, except the case of Egypt in Yemen in 1960, only one nation since World War I has openly used chemical weapons against armed combatants (Iranians) and its own people (Kurds), to devastating effect:  Saddam Hussein's Iraq.  Hence, the 17 U.N. resolutions since 1991 regarding Saddam's disarmament and disclosure.  I find it funny how many people the world over believed Iraq was armed to the teeth with WMD right up until midnight March 19, 2003, but that is a moot point now."

"My opponents like to say that I used WMD as the sole rationale for going to war with Saddam.  That is simply untrue.  I am as willing to admit that I put excessive emphasis on it at some point (it seemed to be the prevailing wisdom at the time), but I also spoke time and time again about Iraq being an opportunity to change the dismal status quo in the Middle East...not to mention an opportunity to bring to an end what has essentially been a 14 year war (those no-fly zones have cost the U.S. taxpayer a pretty penny while essentialyl changing nothing).  As any general can tell you, you don't win a war until you put boots on the ground."

"My opponents like to say that we needn't have worried about Saddam passing WMD to Islamic terrorists--secular Ba'athists and fundamentalist al-Qaeda would not willingly cooperate.  That is simply untrue, and my critics have willfully ignored the connection between Iraq and terrorism at their own peril [perhaps strong words, but you get the point].  I consider harboring Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas a connection to terrorism.  I consider $25,000 checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers a connection to terrorism.  I consider a training camp at Lake Tharthar with airplane fuselages a connection to terrorism.  I consider video of terrorists in Iraq testing poison gas on caged dogs a connection to terrorism.  And I consider the presence of Ansar al-Islam, a Kurdish terror group existing in Saddam's Iraq more than enough proof that he was willing to make unlikely allies in the interest of supporting terrorism. Most importantly, I consider it likely that a regime that throws children out of helicopters and rapes women for any infraction is a likely place for terrorists to make a comfortable home."

"So now to the issue at hand:  finding Saddam's WMD.  My opponents like to state flatly that he simply didn't have them.  I think thousands of maimed Iranian veterans and Kurds in Halabja would beg to differ.  Did he use them all up in the 80's?  'Ooops, all out of sarin and VX...guess I'll have to stick with conventional weapons from now on.' Are we really willing to believe that?  Sure, I would love to find that neatly-organized warehouse, but since my responsibility is the safety and security of American people and its troops overseas, two ineffective IEDs containing sarin is evidence enough for me.  I personally did not miss the reports, buried in the A sections of newspapers [a subtle dig at the media], when inspectors found 500 tons of uranium outside Baghdad, no doubt for the construction of playgrounds for children."

"But for all those who have consciously missed the forest for the WMD trees, let me propose something that will make you truly uncomfortable.  It is no historical coincidence that the ruling regime in Syria is Ba'athist--the same Arab socialist movement that ruled Iraq for most of the last four decades.  Though they have had their differences, there is no mistaking that the Husseins and the Assads have long shared common interests, and it seems unlikely that Saddam had any less of a penchant for supporting and supplying terrorists than do his counterparts.  So for those who are so intent on finding these stockpiles of WMD to validate the Iraq invasion, I ask:  who is willing to bring to bear the diplomatic pressure and threat of force to allow inspectors into Syria?  Who is willing to cooperate to ensure that the ruling mullahs NEVER have the controls of a nuclear weapon that they can test on Tel Aviv?  I see few hands raised, and yet it is precisely the strength and diplomacy we have showed in Iraq and Afghanistan that have helped reduce the WMD threat from sources like Pakistan, Libya, and the former Asian Soviet republics."

"In short, I have been accused of 'rushing to war' to find WMD which do not exist.  I roundly reject [classic Bush word, 'reject'] both these ideas in spite of all we have learned, because I believe--no, I KNOW--there is still much to be learned on this subject....."....and on and on...

I know this is a long screed, perhaps incoherent and Kerry-ish at times, but as a new Republican, I get enthusiastic about important topics.  I know we have tried to minimize WMD in favor of a broader purpose for Iraq, but the fact is, the Democrats keep pitching it, and voters continue to believe it.  If President Bush could cogently and succinctly make any of the points I made above (with the force of personal belief), and then tie it in to the greater purpose, and the connection of Iran and Syria to the difficulties in Iraq today, he would have an extra base hit.  Sure, the scheduled debate on foreign policy is over, but the general debate on foreign policy most certainly is not.  

Thanks for reading.  Criticism is allowed, but go easy on the rookie.

READ IN CAPS BELOW

MAD was the deterrence.  It's a distinction with no difference.

MAD WAS A FORM OF DETERRENCE THAT OPERATED DURING THE COLD WAR. BUT NOT ALL DETERRENCE IS MAD.  THE DISTINCTION MAY NOT BE IMPORTANT IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN SPIN, HOWEVER IT IS IMPORTANT IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND US SECURITY.

Of course the US could have deterred Iraq.

IM GLAD WE AGREE. LETS NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THIS POINT.

From strikes using trackable ballistic missiles, yes.  From trading knowledge, no.  

FIRST OF ALL YOU DONT HAVE TO GO TO IRAQ TO GET KNOWLEDGE TO MAKE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.  YOU CAN GET KNOWLEDGE FROM ROGUES WITHIN THE PAKISTANI GOVT, YOU CAN GET THEM FROM NKOREA,...YOU CAN GET THEM ON THE INTERNET!! INFORMATION IS NOT THE ISSUE AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION NEVER SAID IT WAS.    

SECOND, GIVEN THE CHARACTER OF TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS, THEY ARENT INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING A NUCLEAR PROGRAM; ITS TOO EXPENSIVE AND TOO EASY TO TRACK. FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, ITS EASIER TO JUST GET A FINISHED PRODUCT.  THATS WHAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WAS SAYING WHEN THEY CONFLATED SADDAM WITH AL QAEDA. BUT THERE WAS NO CONNECTION.  

Sitting here in Podunk, Texas I can order castor beans by the ton if I so wish.  Turning them into a useful poison in a safe and manageable way would require expert help.  Help in the form of, oh, maybe, Rihab Taha or Huddah Ammash.  Once that help is rendered and my stash of castor bean proteins are handed off to a surrogate where exactly is the value of deterrence?  Heard anything lately on the search for the anthrax mailer?  Neither have I.  Waltz's point that assistance won't be given because use of ABCs would ipso factor implicate Saddam is infantile at best.

NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE. THE KEY QUESTION IS HOW TO FIGHT THE WAR ON TERRORISM? BEFORE I ANSWER, LET ME SUMMARIZE SO FAR:

1. IRAQ COULD HAVE BEEN DETERRED AS YOU SAID YOURSELF.
   
   
2. IRAQ, EVEN IF IT HAD WEAPONS (WHICH IT DIDNT), STILL DID NOT HAVE AN INTEREST IN GIVING NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO TERRORISTS. (SEE WALTZ INTERVIEW)
   
   
3. TERRORISTS NEITHER HAVE TO RELY ON INFORMATION FROM IRAQ (ITS AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE) NOR DO THEY NECESSARILY WANT THIS INFORMATION (GIVING THE NATURE OF THEIR ORGANIZATIONS, THERE ARE BETTER STRATEGIES FOR THEM)

SO IRAQ, THOUGH NASTY, UNDEMOCRATIC (YOU NAME IT) WASNT THE GRAVE IMMINENT DANGER TO THE US THAT BUSH SAID IT WAS.  BUT TERRORISTS ARE.  HOW DO WE FIGHT TERRORISM? BY INVADING IRAQ? NO!!!  

THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO FIGHT TERRORISTS IS THROUGH A STRONG STATE.  A STATE THAT CAN GUARD ITS BORDERS, MONITOR BLACK MARKET TRANSACTIONS, MONITOR SUSPICIOUS FINANCIAL FLOWS, GATHER INTELLIGENCE EFFECTIVELY, ARREST, TRY, EMPRISON....  THIS HAS BEEN WHAT THE US HAS BEEN TRYING TO DO (UNDER BUSH) WITH PAKISTAN, THE PHILIPPINES. (THOUGH NOT VERY EFFECTIVELY I ARGUE BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN DISTRACTED BY IRAQ)  

THE REASON IM NOT TOO WORRIED ABOUT YOUR BEANS IN TEXAS IS BECAUSE THE US IS HOPEFULLY DEALING WITH TERRORISM AT HOME. (THE US WOULD BE BETTER AT FIGHTING TERRORISM AT HOME IF BUSH HADNT CUT FUNDING FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIRE DEPT, OTHER FIRST RESPONDERS, AND HAD SPENT IRAQ WAR MONEY ON HOMELAND DEFENSE INSTEAD. AND KERRY POINTED THAT OUT AS WELL.)

SO NOT ONLY WAS IRAQ NOT THE GRAVE IMMINENT DANGER THAT BUSH SAID IT WAS IN MAKING HIS CASE FOR WAR, THERE WERE OTHER GRAVE CONCERNS THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED: BOLSTERING HOMELAND SECURITY, DISRUTPING AL QAEDA IN PAKISTAN, AFGHANISTAN (BOTH WEAK STATES THAT COULDNT DO IT THEMSELVES).  BUT BY GOING TO WAR IN IRAQ, THOSE ISSUES WERE NEGLECTED. INSTEAD OF FINISHING OFF AL QAEDA IN ARGHANISTAN AND INSTENSIFYING EFFORTS TO WORK WITH MUSHARRAF IN PAKISTAN, THE US WENT TO WAR IN IRAQ WHICH WAS NOT A DIRECT THREAT, WAS NOT COLLUDING WITH AL QAEDA, AND NOT HARBORING AL QAEDA. (SEE 9/11 COMMISSION)  IN THE MEANTIME, AL QAEDA HAS RECOVERED, ADAPTED, AND IS NOW IN IRAQ MAKING A MESS.

Some of us don't see it [THE WAR IN IRAQ] as a mistake.  Indeed some of us see it as the single most important front.  Success in Afghanistan could actually be bad long-term for the U.S.(especially if Jammu-Kashmir isn't handled promptly...India's Singh gives one hope but who knows).  Success in Iraq could be monumentally good long-term for the U.S.

THIS MAKES NO SENSE.  YOU DONT SEE IRAQ AS A MISTAKE AND YET ARENT ABLE TO MAKE ANY COHERENT ARGUMENT TO SUPPORT YOUR CASE FOR WHY WE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO WAR AGAISNT IRAQ.  WHAT WAS THE THREAT?  THAT SADDAM WAS BAD?  YES HE WAS VERY BAD, BUT SO WAS STALIN AND BREZHNEV.  AND THEY HAD A LOT MORE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND COULD ALSO HAVE PASSED THEM OFF TO NON-STATE ACTORS.  BUT THEY DIDNT BECAUSE STATES (ALL STATES: IRAQ, THE USSR) ARENT INTERESTED IN DOING THIS;  RELINQUISHING THE STATE'S MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE IS THE EQUIVALENT OF STATE SUICIDE.  DONT FORGET, OSAMA (AN ISLAMICIST) DOESNT REALLY LIKE HUSSEIN (HE'S A BAATHIST; HE HAD A SECULAR REGIME) SADDAM COULDNT EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY THAT OSAMA MIGHT USE AGAINST HUSSEIN'S REGIME.

MOREOVER, IM STUNNED THAT YOU DONT WANT THE US TO SUCCEED IN AFGHANISTAN.  MAYBE YOU SHOULD SEND A LETTER TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOR THEM TO HOLD A PRESS CONFERENCE CONCERNING THIS NEW POLICY.  

Wow, a weakly-governed country 3+ months before it has its first elections.  Damn that Bush!

IRAQ IS VERY WEAKLY GOVERNED COUNTRY RIGHT NOW. AND TRAGICALLY, ITS NOT GETTING BETTER UNDER BUSH.  IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHETHER AND WHAT KIND OF ELECTIONS WILL BE HELD.  MOREOVER, ELECTIONS ONLY WORK WHEN YOU HAVE A STATE THAT CAN (AT A MINIMUM) ENFORCE PROPERTY RIGHTS, KEEP ORDER, CONTROL ITS BORDERS, AND PREVENT TERRORISM.  RIGHT NOW IRAQ IS IN BAD SHAPE AND COULD GET WORSE; THE CIA SAYS THAT A CIVIL WAR IS POSSIBLE.

It seems those Iraqi troops that don't exist are helping to "deal with" Samarrah as I type this.  I know the Kerry groupies just love bad news from Iraq since it helps their myopic goals but just because you and Herr Schadenfreude say it's a "mess" doesn't make it so.  

Oh lookie...more bad news.

Now put away those "Bush is letting the insurgency run rampant" talking points and dig out those Jack-Straw-memo "Bush is creating more insurgents with his heavy-handed tactics" that your side was pimping back in April/May.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN 'MY SIDE?' MY SIDE IS AMERICA, RED AND BLUE STATES TOGETHER.  I LOVE THIS COUNTRY AND I THINK WE'RE IN A LOT OF TROUBLE.  I AM INSULTED THAT YOU THINK I ENJOY BAD NEWS OUT OF IRAQ.  YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF FOR IMPLYING THIS.  (AND IN CASE YOU HAVENT NOTICED, IVE BEEN MAKING A PURELY REALIST ARGUMENT; THAT HARDLY MAKES ME A LIBERAL)

BUSH HAS BEEN IN OFFICE FOR 4 YEARS AND WE'RE MORE UNSAFE NOW THAN WE WERE ON SEPT 12TH.  IF HE WERE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, HED BE FIRED FOR HIS MISTAKES, FOR HIS INABILITY TO ADMIT MISTAKES, AND HIS INABILITY TO LEARN FROM HIS MISTAKES.  SINCE HES PRESIDENT, THIS COUNTRY IS WAITING UNTIL ELECTION DAY TO SEND HIM PACKING SO THAT KERRY CAN CLEAN UP HIS MESS.

THIS IS MY LAST REPLY.  

IM NOT GOING TO CONTINUE THIS DEBATE HERE BECAUSE IM SATISFIED THAT I HAVE MADE MY CASE. ITS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN NOW SO PEOPLE CAN READ IT AND JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES.

ALSO IM OFFENDED THAT YOU DONT SEE ONE UNITED AMERICA AND ARE WILLING TO STOOP TO THE LOWEST DEPTHS TO SCORE A CHEAP BLOW.

Note to BBJ, this happens to me sometimes too...a small screwdriver can usually pop the CAPS LOCK key back up.  

It must have gotten stuck, because NONE OF YOUR POINTS WERE WORTHY OF ALL CAPS!!

Glad to be of help.  

The fundamental flaw with your argument is that it is pure conjecture.  There is no way you can prove that Bush having given the order to gone into Iraq resulted in Bin Laden not being captured.  Likewise, there is no way you can prove that Bush having given the order to go into Iraq has resulted in us not being safer.  All of this is Monday-morning quarterbacking -- if we had only not done X, then Y would not have happened.  We can only deal with what we know, and what we know is that this country has not suffered another terrorist attack since 9/11.  That alone is testament to the fact that Bush has made us safer.

MAD WAS A FORM OF DETERRENCE THAT OPERATED DURING THE COLD WAR. BUT NOT ALL DETERRENCE IS MAD.  THE DISTINCTION MAY NOT BE IMPORTANT IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN SPIN, HOWEVER IT IS IMPORTANT IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND US SECURITY.

Nuclear deterrence is MAD.  MAD doesn't cease simply because small nuclear nations have no hope of obliterating the U.S.  From their point of view it is MAD in that any use would result in an overwhelming response.

IM GLAD WE AGREE.

Did you not notice the italics?  I was quoting you, Einstein.

FIRST OF ALL YOU DONT HAVE TO GO TO IRAQ TO GET KNOWLEDGE TO MAKE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

What do I care about what the Bush administration says?  I said specifically that we could deter Iraq from a trackable attack not from sharing knowledge(which includes expertise).  I can get information on orbital dynamics online too but that doesn't mean I'll be in the running for the X Prize.

1. IRAQ COULD HAVE BEEN DETERRED AS YOU SAID YOURSELF.

2. IRAQ, EVEN IF IT HAD WEAPONS (WHICH IT DIDNT), STILL DID NOT HAVE AN INTEREST IN GIVING NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO TERRORISTS. (SEE WALTZ INTERVIEW)
   
   
3. TERRORISTS NEITHER HAVE TO RELY ON INFORMATION FROM IRAQ (ITS AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE) NOR DO THEY NECESSARILY WANT THIS INFORMATION (GIVING THE NATURE OF THEIR ORGANIZATIONS, THERE ARE BETTER STRATEGIES FOR THEM)

IT'S DIFFICULT TO READ TEXT THAT'S ALL UPPERCASE, so thanks for the translation.