Why Bush Must be Re-elected

[loseyourname]

By former New York City mayor Ed Koch:

I support the re-election of President George W. Bush. Why? Because I believe one issue overwhelms all others: the president’s strong commitment to fight the forces of international terrorism regardless of the cost or how long it takes to achieve victory.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/21/152331.shtml

[selfAdjoint]

And the way he goes about it means it'll take forever. The US is less safe than it was on 9/11; al Qaeda has metastatized in Iraq into a lot of fresh well organized terrorist groups. Just wait.

[loseyourname]

This could spell a lot of trouble for Kerry if his opposition to Bush's middle east policy means that more prominent Jews, like Koch, turn their support to Bush.

[russ_watters]

And the way he goes about it means it'll take forever. The US is less safe than it was on 9/11; al Qaeda has metastatized in Iraq into a lot of fresh well organized terrorist groups. Just wait. Unless being in Iraq means Al Queda isn't here. Being former military, I can assure you that the members of our armed forces would rather die in Iraq than have our civilians dying here. I still consider that "safer."

Also, Iraq wasn't it for the "war on terrorism." It started with Afghanistan and that part definitely left us safer.

Terrorism is a double-edge sword for Bush. If another 9/11 happened a month before the election, would it help or hurt? Most of my friends who didn't vote for Bush said after 9/11 they were glad he was in office rather than Gore. When times call for war, the vast majority of Americans want a gun-toting-Texan-Republican in office. So would another 9/11 mean we still need him or mean he didn't do his job in preventing it? I honestly don't know.

[JohnDubYa]

And the way he goes about it means it'll take forever. The US is less safe than it was on 9/11; al Qaeda has metastatized in Iraq into a lot of fresh well organized terrorist groups. Just wait.

They call this "Truth by Prophecy."

No one knows if we are safer or not. Although there are possibly more people who want to hurt the US, we have effectively knocked off many opportunities for them to find state sponsorship. And without major bucks they will have a hard time doing significant damage.

IMO, it is better to take away state sponsorship opportunities at the expense of angering individuals.

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think the war was wrong in principle so much as in method. Based on many interpretations I hear from Middle East experts, the war in Iraq helped terrorism. I don't know if I buy this, but I doubt the war really helped other than to divert attention from the real issues like securing our harbors, making aircraft truly safe, coordinating intelligence information effectively, tracking down the gazillion aliens in violation of their Visa's in one way or another, fund local law enforcement and FBI operations that surveilled suspected terrorists but who were never paid, and who were forced to cancel the anti-terror activities, for starters. We hunt down this guy or that guy, giving Bush a clear political focal point, but we allow 95% of all cargo to enter the US without inspection. Sure, that makes sense. I think the prioreties were all wrong. First we secure the borders, then we can take on the rest of the world. These guys were chomping at the bit to get Saddam and at the least, they lost perpsective.

Now Bush wants to blame faulty intelligence for the errors. I guess someone forgot to tell him how it works when you're the CNC: You are responsible President Bush. To claim any less shows a complete lack of character. A true leader would assume responsibility and still expect loyalty. It is beyond him to handle this in a dignified manner. This is exactly the kind of behavior that I expect from a Bush. Clinton was a scoundrel. Bush is transparent. Don’t know about Kerry yet but I’ll take my chances. I consider Bush nearly a worst case scenario.

[Gokul43201]

The US (to be fair, this is true of many countries) doesn't really fight the forces of international terrorism, unless these forces try to "mess with the United States of America".

Until 9/11, the US was writing out paychecks to members of the Taliban - in gratitude to kicking the Soviets out, I guess. In the early 80's the US was a strong "supporter" of Saddam Hussein. Even today, the closest Asian allies of the US are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, two hotbeds of terrorist recruitment and proliferation.

[Dissident Dan]

I support the re-election of President George W. Bush. Why? Because I believe one issue overwhelms all others: the president’s strong commitment to fight the forces of international terrorism regardless of the cost or how long it takes to achieve victory.

Am I the only one who finds the highlighted disturbing? At all costs?!. To think that there is no cost too high is irrational. The fact that he's talking about not caring "how long it takes" just makes me think of 1984. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about resolve, but this sounds like rhetoric to accomplish an erosion to a police state.

Bush is horrible for national security. It befuddles me how people can think that being a world-class (literally) jerk makes a good leader or will help prevent future terrorism. He is just aggravating the problem. The USA and the world do not need a knee-jerk cowboy. They need an intellectual--someone who will think about the problem and calmly and rationally decide on a wise course of action.

I'm sure that bin laden will be happy if bush somehow manages to remain in Washington--we'll be that much closer to holy wars.

[Gokul43201]

Most of my friends who didn't vote for Bush said after 9/11 they were glad he was in office rather than Gore.

I tend to think that Gore would have taken a lot less than 7 minutes (or whatever it was) to realize that he should probably stop reading "My Pet Goat" and start figuring out what needs to be done next.

I tend to believe that Gore would also have called for the invasion of Afghanistan and the ousting of the Taliban. However, he probably would NOT have decided to go after Iraq before completing the job at home and in Afghanistan.

[the number 42]

Most of my friends who didn't vote for Bush said after 9/11 they were glad he was in office rather than Gore. When times call for war, the vast majority of Americans want a gun-toting-Texan-Republican in office

I have to admit that Gore didn't put up too much of a fight over Florida, but I am pretty certain that treating the world like a shoot-'em-up doesn't make anyone any safer either. The 'war on terrorism' isn't a 'hot war' as such; it requires a lot more cunning and patience to defeat. Overkill just creates sympathy for the terrorists, if not more terrorists.

'You pays your money' etc. but please remember: the forthcoming elections are going to effect people all over the world. We can only afford a wise and level-headed choice.

[JD]

I just wish he would stop grinning (even when he isn't he is) - I doubt whether he could care less but it presents a rather unpleasant aspect. Trust and respect are made harder.

[Marijn]

'You pays your money' etc. but please remember: the forthcoming elections are going to effect people all over the world. We can only afford a wise and level-headed choice.

Then don't alow the Us to have a president.
All of those presidents have "conflict of interest" written all over their head. :surprise: :yuck:

[Adam]

Woohoo! Holy war! Righteous wrath! Manifest destiny!

[Njorl]

I have never heard any Gore supporter say they were glad Bush was in office for 9/11. I think he has done a terrible job, and I think most Americans are starting to catch on.

I think this sums it up well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/opinion/20krug.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20O p%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman

The only things that he has done right are the things that could not possibly have been done another way.

Njorl

[JD]

I have never heard any Gore supporter say they were glad Bush was in office for 9/11. I think he has done a terrible job, and I think most Americans are starting to catch on.

Well it would be about time - the rest of the world has been hollering for ages. Mind you, there's always a lot of that.


I think this sums it up well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/opinion/20krug.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20O p%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman


It does - we can only get in by providing personal details


The only things that he has done right are the things that could not possibly have been done another way.
Njorl

He once said that he was a follower of American politics

[phatmonky]

I just wish he would stop grinning (even when he isn't he is) - I doubt whether he could care less but it presents a rather unpleasant aspect. Trust and respect are made harder.

Wow, you English sure do get your feathers ruffled over nothing. :wink:

[phatmonky]

I have never heard any Gore supporter say they were glad Bush was in office for 9/11. I think he has done a terrible job, and I think most Americans are starting to catch on.

I think this sums it up well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/opinion/20krug.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20O p%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman

The only things that he has done right are the things that could not possibly have been done another way.

Njorl

I wouldn't imagine you would. Let's be honest - you run with a very far left crowd.



Anyway around registration?



Opinon stated as fact without examples. Not a way to debate.

[JD]

Wow, you English sure do get your feathers ruffled over nothing. :wink:

Wouldn't be proper old bean without the old rigmarole. I say, dapper shooting jacket.

[russ_watters]

I think this sums it up well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/opinion/20krug.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20O p%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman For those who didn't want to register, its an op-ed piece - not a news article. think the prioreties were all wrong. First we secure the borders, then we can take on the rest of the world. Like a conservative, I see it exactly the opposite: the US is a free country and to do those things, while making us more secure, they make us lose part of what it means to be an American. Better to go out and meet the threat to eliminate it than perpetually defend our borders against it - while disrupting the lives of our citizens.

edit: ironically, this is very similar to the argument made by liberals against the Patriot Act, which does not affect the daily lives of law-abiding citizens. This strengthens my opinion that liberals are more concerned with ideals than with realities. Am I the only one who finds the highlighted disturbing? At all costs?!. To think that there is no cost too high is irrational. Its a catchphrase meant to highlight the contrast between Democrats and Republicans on the issue. The Clinton-era mantra was 'any cost is too high (unless spent on social programs).' I tend to think that Gore would have taken a lot less than 7 minutes (or whatever it was) to realize that he should probably stop reading "My Pet Goat" and start figuring out what needs to be done next. I don't. And regardless, those 7 minutes didn't matter at all. The immediate problem was an inadequate repsponse system in place to handle such a threat. I have never heard any Gore supporter say they were glad Bush was in office for 9/11. I think he has done a terrible job, and I think most Americans are starting to catch on. Being a liberal, you likely never thought to ask the question that October. Being a conservative, I did.

[Gokul43201]

Njorl,

You're not going to sway the Right by throwing Krugman at them. They all despise Krugman and will not accept any of his arguments...especially not one titled "The Arabian Candidate".

[russ_watters]

Njorl,

You're not going to sway the Right by throwing Krugman at them. They all despise Krugman and will not accept any of his arguments...especially not one titled "The Arabian Candidate". It really is a beautiful article. Even better than "Farenheit 9/11," the beauty is that by framing it as a hypothetical, he's completely eliminated the need for any of it to be factual, despite the obvious insinuations he's making.

But then, since he hasn't made any arguments, disagreeing with him is easy! :rofl:

[selfAdjoint]

Unless being in Iraq means Al Queda isn't here. Being former military, I can assure you that the members of our armed forces would rather die in Iraq than have our civilians dying here. I still consider that "safer."

There's a thread on straw man arguments on the Logic forum. Perhaps you might want to contribute this as an example?

[Dissident Dan]

For those who didn't want to register, its an op-ed piece - not a news article. Like a conservative, I see it exactly the opposite: the US is a free country and to do those things, while making us more secure, they make us lose part of what it means to be an American. Better to go out and meet the threat to eliminate it than perpetually defend our borders against it - while disrupting the lives of our citizens.





edit: ironically, this is very similar to the argument made by liberals against the Patriot Act, which does not affect the daily lives of law-abiding citizens. This strengthens my opinion that liberals are more concerned with ideals than with realities.


How does securing ports interfere with typical Americans' lives? The PATRIOT Act has already been used to illegally detain people, and it is just one more step towards a police state. It is a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights, and when it is considered acceptable to discard the Constitution, what protections do we have?

If you want to talk about ideals and realities, liberals aren't the ones who believe in an "invisible hand" that will solve all economic problems and lead to a just system of trade. We don't hear the phrase "free trade" and automatically think that it must be god's gift to the world.


Its a catchphrase meant to highlight the contrast between Democrats and Republicans on the issue. The Clinton-era mantra was 'any cost is too high (unless spent on social programs).'


What? Where do you get this from? Clinton and his administration went after terrorists many times. But, anyway, this is not about Clinton. It annoys me how republicans will bring up irrelevant Clinton to bash in order to have a counter-argument. The choice is between bush and Kerry.


And regardless, those 7 minutes didn't matter at all. The immediate problem was an inadequate repsponse system in place to handle such a threat.


They might not have mattered in that particular situation. What that episode clearly demonstrates is that bush lacks leadership and ability to take swift, decisive action. It shows that he is a puppet who needs people to tell him what to say and do.

[the number 42]

The PATRIOT Act has already been used to illegally detain people, and it is just one more step towards a police state. It is a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights, and when it is considered acceptable to discard the Constitution, what protections do we have?

I guess some people would rather fight the good fight than be free.

[Njorl]

I wouldn't imagine you would. Let's be honest - you run with a very far left crowd.



Anyway around registration?



Opinon stated as fact without examples. Not a way to debate.

I really don't run with a far left crowd. I voted 3 times for a Republican for my representitive in congress. My two closest friends are an ex-JAG prosecuter who now is a patent attorney and an economist for an energy trader. I work, proudly, for the US Army.

I really don't understand the premise. Unlike Bush, Gore was not afraid to go to Vietnam. If he wasn't afraid to go himself, he certainly wouldn't be timid about waging a necessary war.

Njorl

[Njorl]

It really is a beautiful article. Even better than "Farenheit 9/11," the beauty is that by framing it as a hypothetical, he's completely eliminated the need for any of it to be factual, despite the obvious insinuations he's making.

But then, since he hasn't made any arguments, disagreeing with him is easy! :rofl:

It was designed to be thought provoking, not an ironclad arguement. I found it so.

Other than overthrowing the Taliban, which anyone but Dennis Kucinich would have done, Bush has screwed up at every step.

He squandered bipartisan support for anti-terrorist actions in the elections of 2002.

He pulled vital special forces out of Afghanistan prematurely to chase imaginary scud missile launchers in the deserts of western Iraq.

He alienated most of our allies with a war based on false claims of WMDs.

He allowed the occupation of Iraq to devolve into chaos, a breeding ground for new terrorists, not a battleground for old ones.

He has allowed the nation to be tarred with the label of "Torturer".

Njorl

[Njorl]

This could spell a lot of trouble for Kerry if his opposition to Bush's middle east policy means that more prominent Jews, like Koch, turn their support to Bush.

I don't think of Ed Koch so much as a prominent Jew. I think of him more as a media-circus clown. It could hurt Kerry as far as garnering the clown vote though. I think the clown vote becomes more significant every election.

http://www.salon.com/media/1998/01/13media.html

Njorl

[russ_watters]

There's a thread on straw man arguments on the Logic forum. Perhaps you might want to contribute this as an example? Boy, did I strike a nerve! The "Unless" means that what follows is my opinion, not a critique of yours. Like someone else said, we won't really know if the country is safer now until we look back on this time period and see if there were any attacks. So far so good, though.

But if you want a critique of your opinion: The US is less safe than it was on 9/11; al Qaeda has metastatized in Iraq into a lot of fresh well organized terrorist groups. Just wait. The first part of your reason "al Qaeda has metastatized in Iraq into a lot of fresh well organized terrorist groups," I haven't seen any evidence for. There are a lot of insurgents, and they are arguably terrorists, but the types of things they are doing can't reach here. It doesn't appear to me to be their goal. I'd be very interested in seeing evidence of new plots planned for the US, who exactly planned them, and where they are operating out of. It is certainly possible that some groups moved form Afghanistan to Iraq in order to train for operations in the US - but I haven't seen any real evidence for it. Most seem to be going to Iraq because there are Americans there to fight.

The second part of your argument, "Just wait," was exactly my point. I don't think we have the evidence, nor the history to say with any veracity that we are significantly more or less safe due to our presence in Iraq. We'll just have to wait and see. Besides that, we're still working there. Other than overthrowing the Taliban, which anyone but Dennis Kucinich would have done, Bush has screwed up at every step. I don't agree with either part (absolutes are a b!tch to prove), and I've never heard of Dennis Kucinich.

[rick1138]

...ironically, this is very similar to the argument made by liberals against the Patriot Act, which does not affect the daily lives of law-abiding citizens.

Tell that to my friend whose house was stormed by machine gun toting federal agents in order to arrest him for a misdemeanor drug charge. He was held and questioned for hours at gunpoint without access to a lawer, or even any information on what he was being charged with.

[Robert Zaleski]

Wouldn't be proper old bean without the old rigmarole. I say, dapper shooting jacket.
Egad, Terry Thomas has resurrected.

[JohnDubYa]

The problem with Americans is that they are fixated on busoms.

[Robert Zaleski]

The problem with Americans is that they are fixated on busoms.
Excellent DubYa. From the movie Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. Wait a second....Dudya. ummmmmmm, buried under the big W, ummmmm.

[JohnDubYa]

That's right, just don't let the bulls catch you.

[loseyourname]

What the hell are the two of you talking about?

[JohnDubYa]

loseyourname takes after his father, a big fat stupid-headed moron!!!

(Just kiddin'. It's part of the gag, loseyourname.)

[the number 42]

The problem with Americans is that they are fixated on busoms.

Isn't that a quote from Sigmund Freud?

JUST KIDDING! DON'T SHOOT! MY HANDS ARE IN THE AIR!!!! :biggrin:

[JohnDubYa]

Go ahead and shoot him.

[flippy]

Bush may be a poor public speaker, and he may not be the Great Communicator or the Abe Lincoln of our time, but whether u like him or not, if you are in your right mind you would vote for him. Why? Well whether u support his policies or not, at least the guy has policies. The facts are blatant and in your face if you look. John Kerry continually contradicts himself. His voting records compared to what he says make him seem schizo. He obviously has no skill in convincing the public that his ideas are beneficial to the country so he goes out trying to buy the whole country by promoting everyones opinion thereby contradicting himself. If you dont see this then you are not following the election closely enough. No matter what bush is, he aint dangerous, hes no schizo and he's only one person with his own policies...doesnt the constitution call for a one man exec?!?!?

[the number 42]

No matter what bush is, he aint dangerous, hes no schizo

:rofl:

Compared to who - Caligula?

[Robert Zaleski]

:rofl:

Compared to who - Caligula?
I think your getting Bush mixed up with Clinton. Clinton was the debaucher.

[Prometheus]

if you are in your right mind you would vote for him.

Very cute double entendre.

Other than this one play on words, your ability with the English language shows why you look to Bush with such admiration.

[Gza]

[John Kerry] obviously has no skill in convincing the public that his ideas are beneficial to the country so he goes out trying to buy the whole country by promoting everyones opinion thereby contradicting himself.

And you think Bush has skills in convincing anyone of anything now? He is a proven liar that managed to get us involved in a war that has destroyed our worldwide standing with pretty much every other nation, as well as claimed countless lives for no point. The thing i'm curious about is the fact that Clinton was on the verge of impeachment for lying (about something that is none of the public's business anyway), and Bush who built up an entire case of lies to take us to Iraq is off scott free.

No matter what bush is, he aint dangerous, hes no schizo

You're right, Bush isn't dangerous or a schizo. He's a f**king maniac.

[amp]

John Kerry is wise, he can and does adapt to changing situations. He has an open mind and will listen to dissenting views. If he he sees that his platform isn't correct he seeks to correct it. What about Bush? Static, closed minded and dosen't like to be disagreed with, not good qualities in a CNC. Clinton highlighted the problems with Bush in his speech at the Dem convention.

[JohnDubYa]

That isn't the type of "open-mindedness" that people accuse John Kerry of possessing. Instead, he is said to pick and choose solutions according to popular whim, and quick to abandon stances when he discovers them to be unpopular.

[kat]

And you think Bush has skills in convincing anyone of anything now? He seems to be convincing to a large portion of the population, in fact he has the highest low point of any president since..what eisenhower maybe?
He is a proven liar that managed to get us involved in a war that has destroyed our worldwide standing with pretty much every other nation, as well as claimed countless lives for no point. No point?
The thing i'm curious about is the fact that Clinton was on the verge of impeachment for lying (about something that is none of the public's business anyway), and Bush who built up an entire case of lies to take us to Iraq is off scott free. 2 things strike me about this. 1. Martha Stewart is going to prison, then house arrest and then probation for the exact same crime as Clinton was found guilty of. How is that for justice? and 2. If Bush is guilty of so much lying (must be intentional to be lying) then why hasn't there been any prosecution..maybe it's a case of more smoke then fire eh?
[/QUOTE]

[russ_watters]

John Kerry is wise, he can and does adapt to changing situations. Indeed, he can hold opposing views simultaneously. An impressive skill. Orwell called it "doublethink."

[the number 42]

I think your getting Bush mixed up with Clinton. Clinton was the debaucher.

:biggrin: Can't argue with that. Must be getting Bush mixed up with some other megalomaniac.

[Robert Zaleski]

John Kerry is wise, he can and does adapt to changing situations. He has an open mind and will listen to dissenting views. If he he sees that his platform isn't correct he seeks to correct it. What about Bush? Static, closed minded and dosen't like to be disagreed with, not good qualities in a CNC. Clinton highlighted the problems with Bush in his speech at the Dem convention.
This sounds like a dog chasing his tail. If you have to keep changing your position, you have no vision. The only thing I get from this guy is that he wants to play kiss my ring with the French and Germans and we'd be the one's genuflecting.

[Gza]

If Bush is guilty of so much lying (must be intentional to be lying) then why hasn't there been any prosecution..maybe it's a case of more smoke then fire eh?

I guess that really depends on your definition of "intentional" (man, i'm starting to sound like Clinton during his impeachment trials :smile: ) Bush being the chief in command, should should have the mental faculties to be able to screen what is probable information, from what is improbable. I'm tired of him never taking responsibility for anything he does. The lack of WMDs in Iraq was blamed on the CIA for "faulty information." He even went as far as to blame the US NAVY for putting up the "mission accomplished" banner without his knowledge on the carrier that staged the now infamous, Bush in a flightsuit fiasco. I really dislike Kerry, but I care about my future, and with Bush in office for another four years, I doubt we'll have one.

[JohnDubYa]

The lack of WMDs in Iraq was blamed on the CIA for "faulty information."

First, we have no way of knowing if WMDs are still located in Iraq.

Second, the faulty information sucked in the British too. So the idea that Bush was the only one misled is, well, misleading. As a President, you have to have a certain level of faith in information provided by your intelligence services. Sometimes they can let you down.

[Prometheus]

As a President, you have to have a certain level of faith in information provided by your intelligence services. Sometimes they can let you down.

I will grant you this. Still, Bush was very gung ho in maximizing all evidence that points to Iraq as justification for the invasion that he personally felt was important. As a result of his attitude, in conjunction with the intelligence that he received, filtered as it was to select that which supported his goals, he conducted actions with significant global implications.

Do you think that Bush is exonerated completely due to the errors in the intelligence that he received? Or, do you think that he should take responsibility for the errors that he made, even though it was not 100% his fault? By taking responsbility, I mean more than uttering the words "I take responsibility." By taking responsbility, I also mean more than contending that although all of his primary justifications for the war turn out to have been based on faulty or misleading information, all this goes to prove that the war was the correct move in the first place.

[kat]

I will grant you this. Still, Bush was very gung ho in maximizing all evidence that points to Iraq as justification for the invasion that he personally felt was important. I'm not sure that he was as "gung ho" as your suggesting. In fact, I personally think that weaponry was moved/hidden as a result of the time lapse between mentioning attacking and giving the many "chances" that were given.
As a result of his attitude, in conjunction with the intelligence that he received, filtered as it was to select that which supported his goals, he conducted actions with significant global implications. does the 9-11 report suppost that it was filtered to "select that which supported his goals"? Despite the repeated crime of "global implications" it appears to be less global and more regional.

Do you think that Bush is exonerated completely due to the errors in the intelligence that he received? Or, do you think that he should take responsibility for the errors that he made, even though it was not 100% his fault? By taking responsbility, I mean more than uttering the words "I take responsibility." By taking responsbility, I also mean more than contending that although all of his primary justifications for the war turn out to have been based on faulty or misleading information, all this goes to prove that the war was the correct move in the first place. ALL of his primary justifications? Why don't you list what you think they are and we can go line by line to see if the basis for your question is correct before we answer it.

[Gza]

I'm not sure that he was as "gung ho" as your suggesting. In fact, I personally think that weaponry was moved/hidden as a result of the time lapse between mentioning attacking and giving the many "chances" that were given.

A unilateral action without the support of the UN (or any other major country aside from britain) seems pretty gung ho to me.

[Gza]

Second, the faulty information sucked in the British too. So the idea that Bush was the only one misled is, well, misleading. As a President, you have to have a certain level of faith in information provided by your intelligence services. Sometimes they can let you down.


I'm not sure if you were aware of this, but a large part of Britains case against Iraq involving the WMDs, came from a plagerized document of a graduate student in California. This wholesale plagiarism was one of the many desperate, shameless attempts at pushing the coalition into war, when it was realized that after 12 years of intelligence gathering by the CIA, NSA, DIA, NRO, Israel's Mossad, Turkeys MIT, Britain's MI6 and GCHQ, defectors,
Kurds and the like, we still had zero(0) information on the purported link.

[Prometheus]

In fact, I personally think that weaponry was moved/hidden ...


Why don't you list your reasons for what you think and we can go line by line to see if the basis for your thinking is correct before we respond to it.

[FZ+]

In any case, the jury is still out on whether the UK government was sucked in by the oh so evil intelligence services. I mean, there is a rather obvious question, isn't there? Why was it that before the war, when the invasion was deeply controversial, and it was apparent that this was a major decision with major reprecussions, the government chose to react not by looking over its data more carefully (which should immediately show up page after page of reservations, and dissenting opinions, and so on), but by brushing it all under the carpet so that later on, they can pretend that they accidentally failed to read it properly?

[Prometheus]

Why was it that before the war, when the invasion was deeply controversial, and it was apparent that this was a major decision with major reprecussions, the government chose to react not by looking over its data more carefully (which should immediately show up page after page of reservations, and dissenting opinions, and so on), but by brushing it all under the carpet so that later on, they can pretend that they accidentally failed to read it properly?

Very well put.

[JohnDubYa]

Do you think that Bush is exonerated completely due to the errors in the intelligence that he received? Or, do you think that he should take responsibility for the errors that he made, even though it was not 100% his fault? By taking responsbility, I mean more than uttering the words "I take responsibility."


What exactly do you want him to do?

Keep in mind that the President is not going to say anything damaging to the US. While it may serve some people's political interests for the President to skewer himself publically (rightfully or not), that doesn't make it wise.

[loseyourname]

A unilateral action without the support of the UN (or any other major country aside from britain) seems pretty gung ho to me.

Spain isn't a major country?

[Gza]

Spain isn't a major country?

It may be a major country, but answer me this: how many Spanish troops are/were fighting in Iraq? Vocal support and physical support are two different things.

[Elizabeth1405]

This could spell a lot of trouble for Kerry if his opposition to Bush's middle east policy means that more prominent Jews, like Koch, turn their support to Bush.

Since when does anyone listen to Ed Koch?

[Robert Zaleski]

Since when does anyone listen to Ed Koch?
Somebody must have listen to him, he was a three term Mayor of New York and a two term U. S. Congressman.

[Elizabeth1405]

Somebody must have listen to him, he was a three term Mayor of New York and a two term U. S. Congressman.

Uhh, when, 20 years ago? I just think it's funny that we're resorting to quotes from Ed Koch as a way to show support for Bush.

[Robert Zaleski]

Uhh, when, 20 years ago? I just think it's funny that we're resorting to quotes from Ed Koch as a way to show support for Bush.
Many of those same people that voted for him 20 years ago are now elder retirees living in South Florida.

[Elizabeth1405]

Many of those same people that voted for him 20 years ago are now elder retirees living in South Florida.

HUH? What does that have to do with anything? And I might add, many of those same retirees living in Florida who you refer to are the ones who didn't get their votes counted in the last election....

[Robert Zaleski]

Bush won Florida by about 500 votes during the 2000 election. Recent polls suggest that Florida will once again be up for grabs. A Koch endorsement of Bush could persuade some of these former New York democrats, now Florida democrats to vote for Bush. If Bush can garner just 250 of these votes, it would mean a 500 vote swing for the republicans.