Not only that, Kerry would have gone to Iraq and found those WMD because he served 4 months in Vietnam.

The whole WMD debate has rather bugged me from the beginning. It took us months to find the jets they had burried in the desert after we arrived. Did they think that 55-gallon drums of sarin were going to by labeled and marked by gps? We have already found some, and I haven't given up on the idea that there is more out here.

Iraq is roughly the size of France, or for our American friends, about the size of Texas. That is a lot of sand to sift, and we really haven't devoted the kind of manpower that sweeping the region requires, since there are still anti-iraq forces (as they are now termed) with which to deal.

Yeah, but this was said on August 10.

Just wait to see what he says on August 20.

What to say? What to say? I wish someone could help us silly little Republicans understand.

I don't know what your problem is.From a British perspective, I thought Blair was right in what he did (ie supporting the war), but was pretty stupid in the way that he built up the WMD argument as one of the main reasons for toppling Saddam. There were many better cases for going to war, but WMDs, and genrally building Saddam up as a direct threat was the easiest and most populist course at the time. Bush I believe punted the same crap.
At least Kerry is not taking the same route as the British Conservative leader, Michael Howard, who said he would not have voted for the war knowing what he knows now. A blatant piece of opportunism.

Urbane, that makes even less sense. If you're going to criticize going into Iraq, you can only do it under the pretext of 'where are the WMDs?' Otherwise, you're left arguing, as Michael Moore did, that Iraq was a tranquil society before us with no links to terrorists and all the children were flying kites against bright sunny skies. Kerry rails against Bush's policy in Iraq. But when all is said and done (and the nomination is locked up) then he decides he would've followed the same path as the president? That's a lackey, my friend, a follower. I'm voting for the leader.

When it comes to foreign policy, the Democrats are simply pushing a Republican Lite agenda. There is no substantial difference in how Democrats and Republicans view the world. Both believe that America has an imperial role to play as policeman to the world. They just argue over details like how much should other countries be involved and which countries to bomb.

I thought that was a very weak and disappointing response from Kerry. A good move by Bush, though it does not seem to be getting much press (though before you throw a "liberal media" hissy fit, I heard it on NPR, which provided Kerry's actual words in response).

I'll be the first to admit, that Kerry's best qualities are that: he's not Bush, he's not a conservative Republican and he's not controlled by the far right. I wish I could say a lot more about him, but beyond that I just view him as relatively "safe". However, those three qualities go a long way...a long way.

"Both believe that America has an imperial role to play as policeman to the world."

Well actually the UN has that responsiblity, but since they really suck, it kinda falls on us by default.

this is a parapharse from "The Day The World Stood Still".

"A security threat for one means their is not security for all"

And to answer your already forming questions...yes, an incontinent donkey shares those same three qualities. But I'd vote for Kerry over the donkey.

This is so typical of his that by now I am not even moved to emotion. I think, however, that it is a shame that no one will hear about this because the facts of the election aren't as important as the lies and flip/flops that he and Edwards perpetuate.....sigh.

At this point it seems that Kerry views any inconsistencies in his position as assets. Remember how some guy at the bar said that to him, Kerry's marriage to a rich widow was an indication that he's smart? I think a lot of what Kerry does is just promotion of his lying skills (since that's what Democrats believe make a successful polititian, never tiring of accusing Bush of what they do best)
To the "we know, we don't care" crowd, it doesn't matter how confusing or contradicting Kerry gets - it only makes them more indignated about how bad Bush is.
P.S. Dan, please come up with something new. It's disrespectful to be so boring.

Signor, There is a hardly a position in which Kerry differs from Bush. So, if Bush is controlled by the far right (and seriously, I wish) then Kerry is even dumber, controlled by the man who is controlled by the far right. You know it's the (D) after his name that makes him appealing to you, nothing more. If you're voting on issues and you're a liberal, you're voting for Nader. 'He's not Bush' makes no sense when he acts and thinks just as Bush does.

Ummm...Karol:

(1) I don't consider myself a Democrat. I have plenty of issues with the Democratic party. But the Republican party scares me a lot more. Before Bush, that fear was of moving us closer to a Big Brother type of society, trashing the environment in exchange for campaign money from big business (yes, I know "D's" do this too, but not to the same degree), crumbling the wall of separation between church and state, and packing the federal courts with extreme conservatives. After Bush, those same fears, but I am worried Bush is making America less safe and the world less safe through his idiotic and polarizing foreign policy.

(2) I don't consider myself a "liberal" (or, more accurately, I'm sure real liberals would not consider me one). First, I am very liberal and librertarian (in the John Stuart Mill sense) when it comes to social issues, freedoms, etc. I am also very pro-environment. However, regarding economic issues, I believe in the free market, I believe in globalization, etc. However, I do think the roll of governments is to account for externalities (something neither party ever talks about) and the ignoring of externalities is the biggest crock of shit perpetrated by our lobbyest dependent system. Hence, many "true" liberals, in the sense in which you use the word, would not label me a liberal.

(3) I do think that America desperately needs a third, or ideally a fourth party. However, the way our political system is set-up makes that virtual impossible (when third parties emerge they are either flash in the pans or they destroy and replace one of the "two") for a third party to exist. I would vote third party (and might since NY will be a Kerry lock) to foster third parties, but not when it really matters. This election really matters. Bush is a nightmare on so many levels. Seriously, why couldn't you guys have nominated McCain?!? He would have won easily and I firmly believe things would not be as crappy as they are with Bush (referring mostly to foreign policy here, not domestic).

Oh, and Karol, to address your prime point, there are plenty of issues Kerry differs from Bush on. The gradations may not be extreme, but they are there.

Also, while I again find Kerry's response to Bush's challenge disappointing and weak (especially from a campaign strategy perspective), I do believe that if Kerry had been President, he would not have led us down the path of war with Iraq, or, if he had, it would have been with a REAL international coalition--a combined effort of the Western powers.

Signor, you've got to be kidding about 'not to the same degree' in terms of contributions. Kerry is going to win 6 of the top ten richest zip codes in the country. Those people aren't heads of industry? They don't run 'corporations'?

You can 'believe' whatever you want about Kerry but he is telling you plainly that he would've gone into Iraq. You not believing him is called denial.

What issues of importance to you does Kerry differ from Bush?

And as far as the 'international coalition', Russia, France and Germany were not, under any circumstances, going to be with us in going into Iraq. They had way too much money to lose. They wouldn't have gone with a president Gore, Clinton or Kerry. Wake up.

Saying he would have voted the President authority requested is a far cry from saying I would have led the country to war as President...again a lot of this goes to all the evidence that Bush was gunning for Iraq, and essentially looking for an excuse, from the beginning of his term.

Democrats generally do a better (poor, but still better) job than Republicans in terms of regulating big business. Neither party looks at it directly and upfront in the way it should be (free market, fix externalities), but Democrats are generally less likely to just turn a blind eye and allow things like unsustainable logging just to line the pockets of rich logging companies (repeat with oil and all sorts of other companies).

Issues (not necessarily in order of importance):
1. Separation of church and state
2. Abortion
3. Ideology of judical appointees (extremely important to me).
4. Stem cell research.
5. Energy policy.
6. Gay rights.
7. Approach to foreign policy.
8. Environment.
9. Won't have Cheney, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld in cabinet.

Do I need to go on?

France would have gone in with a second UN Resolution once Blix had finished his work. Chirac said this and i was in France at the time. i don't give a damn what lies FOX came up with to claim the contrary I was in the country and can speak french well enough to understand what chiraq was saying.

Germany did not go in because most of the german people are pacifistic, something they get castigated for when it suits American interests, yet when they are more aggressive we get crap about a rebirth of german militarism. Schroeder won re-election on a peace platform and chose to actually behave in a democratic way unlike tosspost tony.

Signor,
I agree with you on one point. I consider myself a moderate and think Bush spends money like a democrat. I agree and believe strongly in cutting taxes but also believe you have to use your VETO power to keep spending in check where appropriate.

I voted for McCain in 00 during the primaries and am hoping he will run again in 08. I am a NYC republican and anywhere else in the country would be blasted as a liberal same as Guiliani and Schwartzenegger. In NYC I am considered part of the "right wing conspiracy".

If McCain runs in 08 and gets the party nod he will beat Hillary if it is against her. If Kerry wins then McCain will beat him in 08. Kerry if he wins will only be because he is not Bush which is not saying he has a lot of support for himself but only that he is not Bush. I don't think that will build a two term president.

Dude, I went and read the article you link to. Kerry says he still would have authorized the President to go to war because it is a good authority for the President to have. He, though would have used it differently. Furthermore, Kerry has always praised the military strategy that was employed in Iraq, his complaint is with the the strategy for "peace."
So, to answer your question the only person I want to smack in the head is you.

Signor,
I think if you look at the track record "Activist" judges generally are not the conservative ones. The activism comes from the left wing judges. The right wing judges believe in the law that has been set forth by the legislature and that their job is to interpret it and not to create new laws from the bench.

Nick, Schroeder won on a platform of anti-Americanism. And France had way too much invested in Iraq to turn against it. I too can understand what Chirac is saying, it's just that I don't believe him.

Anti-Liberal, there is no chance in hell that McCain would win the presidency (and unlikely that he would even take the nomination). McCain is not a liberal but his views on abortion are malleable. I can not stress how important abortion is as an issue to Republicans across the country. It is the reason that Giuliani will never be VP.

Signor,
1. Separation of church and state- find me one instance where Kerry talks about this.
2. Abortion- He believes (today anyway) in life from conception.
3. Ideology of judical appointees (extremely important to me)- JFK appointed a pro-life justice, Reagan a pro-choice one. And if Kerry believes in life from conception, how do you know who he will ultimately choose?
4. Stem cell research- I don't even get why this is an issue. Why can't stem cell research be privately funded like everything else?
5. Energy policy- give me any proof that Kerry's policies would be one iota different from Bush's.
6. Gay rights- Kerry is against gay marriage and too chicken to take a stand one way or the other on the amendment.
7. Approach to foreign policy- again, Kerry would have gone into Iraq KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW NOW. How can that be ok with those of you who were against the war?
8. Environment- Give me one example of what Kerry would do differently from Bush.
9. Won't have Cheney, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld in cabinet- You're right. We'd have a bunch of followers with no clear ideas on what they believe in. Fantastic.

Dawn, do you believe it's a 'good authority for the president to have' (whatever the hell that means)?

Anti, that is a debate way too long for this forum. Let me be clear, I am against the Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas types. Many, many decisions in the courts are made with the influence of political bias. As one who has clerked for judges and studied their decisions for many years, this really is not a debatable point. The phrase "activist" judge, is a political sound bite term. You really have to go into a much deeper level of analysis to intelligently discuss legal theory and philosophy as it relates to appointing judges to the bench. But, as extreme as the most "activist" judge you can find may be (by which I assume you just mean liberal), the judges at the far right end of the spectrum are just as extreme...I don't think either extreme should be populating the courts in fairly large degrees.

1. Kerry's silence on it is good enough to me compared to Bush who takes many opportunities to mix religion and politics AND the political spectrum of the nation that wants to mix religion and politics more resides in Bush's party not Kerry's.

2. Karol, if you seriously think that Kerry is just as likely to appoint a Supreme who might overturn Roe v. Wade as Bush, then you need your head examined.

3. See #2 and my last comment. Come on, you don't seriously expect Kerry to appoint conservative judges of the same nature as Bush?!? Are you that naive?

4. Keeping America at the for front technologically is a good thing and worth some government money.

5. See #2 and #3. Proof? How about what Kerry says vs. what Bush says. Is Kerry lying...well I guess I can't prove that he is not, but I'll take his word for now. Again, if you really think they are going to come out the same, you really are naive.

6. I am semi-ambivalent on the marriage point (though ultimately for it)...Bush is very anti when it comes to gay rights, Kerry is not. That is a significant difference. Also, the extremely anti-gay segment of this population is the far right of the Republican party, not the Democratic party. Bush may walk a tight rope, but the gay bashers are mostly in his party, not Kerry's.

7. Jesus, see Dawn's comment. You cannot be this simplistic and naive. But, yes, I have said many times now, I am disappointed with Kerry's stance on this. I still don't think he would have acted with the polarizing idiocy of Bush. Not because Kerry is so great, but b/c Bush is incompetent. I'll roll the dice on a new guy, any new guy, not being this bad.

8. Karol, are you seriously going to suggest to me that a Republican administration is going to be as pro-environment (from an environmentalists point of view) than a Kerry led, Democratic one? Do you think it is coincidence that virtually, if not every, major enviromental organization is anti-Bush? Do you think Christine resigned because the Bushies were too liberal on environmental policy?

9. I disagree with your followers contention, but people who are morally certain of what they are doing is not necessarily a good thing. Let's examine history and examine those world leaders who acted with conviction and single minded confidence. A good leader is strong and firm, but willing to consider options, be flexible, open minded, introspective. The four horsemen I mentioned are not.

I can't believe I'm even bothering with this discussion. Honestly, I don't say this to be insulting like Rick likes to be, but the naive and simplistic responses with which you appear to be seriously advocating make me wonder. From the point of view of an anti-globalist, very liberal, semi-anarchist, sure Bush and Kerry are probably the same person. But from the view of someone as I have described myself in these comments, there are significant differences and the differences in who is in and influencing things within their parties is very important as well.

No, I don't think it's a good power for any President to have --I figure must be a reason the framers gave the power to Congress, don't know why Congress bends over backwards to give it away and I wish the Supreme Court would declare such resolutions unconstitutional. but i can't imagine the kind of lawsuit that would bring the issue up before tye supreme court, so there we are. But I don't like that you keep (intentionally or unintentionally) mischaracterizing Kerry's statement as "he would have gone into Iraq even knowing what we know now" He said he would vote for the President to have the authority to do so and there is a difference.

Karol:

A significant fraction of medical research is not privately funded but gets government grants. Therefore, it is incorrect to ask "Why can't stem cell research be privately funded like everything else?" With restrictions on the use of government funds, a significant amount of research may be halted.

Otherwise, I agree with you. As you point out, the Democrats seem to be immitating the Republicans. The Democrats seem to be nothing more than Republicans Lite.

Cube: Why does the world need a policeman? And why should the U.S. pay the cost of policing?

Dawn, if it makes you sleep better at night knowing that your candidate would still grant Bush the permission to go to war despite the lack of WMD, then I'm happy for you.

Signor, you can 'believe' whatever you want. If I'm naive because I take Kerry at his word, what does that make you?

Taking Kerry at his word about what? You don't seem to be taking him at his word about being different than Bush on all the things he says he is. As for the whole war thing, Dawn has done an excellent job of pointing out that you are blowing his statement out of proportion...but I have also said repeatedly I am disappointed by it.

BTW--would love to hear your answer to the student voucher policy question that you never addressed.

Signor Ferrari,

Sadly, it looks like Karol is not alone in this mischaracterization. I read an article that says that President Bush was crowing about Kerry's comment today at a rally in Florida. He was saying something like "even Kerry admits that it was important to get rid of Saddam even without finding weapons of mass destruction."
The only rationale I can find for this distortion is that President Bush (and I suppose Karol) is admitting that he planned to attack Iraq all along. And a vote to give him the authority was a vote for war. Kind of a big news story since Bush has claimed that he didn't make up his mind until Saddam and his sons ignored his call that they leave the country. Where's that wacky, wacky liberal press when you need it?

Here's the crowing link:
http://www.turkishpress.com/turkishpress/news.asp?ID=24191 (Karol, make it fancy and blue.)

what's the Turkish Press?

Dan,
Why does New York need NYPD? How is the situation in the world different?

And Dan,
The answer to your second question,
And why should the U.S. pay the cost of policing?
is because nobody else will.

Ivan:

I do not understand your analogy. The NYPD is not responsible for policing Chicago. Why should American taxpayers be responsible for policing the Middle East?

What do you have against the American taxpayer?

Dan

Dan,

Because WTC was not in the Middle East. Still don't understand the analogy?

I am an American taxpayer, and I'd much rather have less money to spend, than less time to live. And something is telling me that most people are like me in this respect.

Ok, Dawn and Signor, you're both talking around the subject. Kerry admitted that the war in Iraq was the right thing to do, with or without the WMD. Is this the position that both of you are looking for in your candidate of choice? You can pretend that a vote to 'grant authority for war' is different than 'approving of the war' but when you're talking in retrospect, isn't it the same thing? And Signor, I'm not sure which voucher question you're referring to.

Ivan:

No. Your so-called logic eludes me.

All I know is that Americans are being taxed (abd some sent to die) to fight wars that do not seem to bring any benefit to the American people.

Dan

No, it's not the same thing, see previous comments. Geez.

Dan,

The benefits to the American people is a separate topic that I will be happy to discuss with you. I see plenty of benefit to me and other Americans from both Afghan and Iraqi wars. This, however, is different from the world's policeman problem that you initially raised. It's an ethical issue also worth discussing, but you don't seem to be interested in having your views challenged. I mean, Pat's views. When I make an inconsistency in your position obvious, you make an upset face and jump to another topic.

I must say, I have been learning a lot from you, and the biggest lesson is, "Never underestimate the power of denial" If somebody thinks that we can stop jihadis by minding our own business, then I should figure that common sense is useless when talking to them. Yet I keep repeating my mistake. That's how much you mean to me, Dan!!! and that's how commited I am to entertainment at the expense of mental laziness.

The only thing I still wonder about is, why would sombody want to post if whatever other people say doesn't make a difference? Just to irritate them?

Dawn, it is the same thing since we already know the outcome.

Ivan:

You used an analogy earlier comparing the NYPD with America's role as policeman. However, we New Yorkers have a police department because it provides benefits to New Yorkers that outweigh its costs. We do not have a police force for ethical reasons.

My views on foreign policy are shared by many people on the Left and Right including Pat Buchanan. I am not sure why you bring up Buchanan (or are you referring to another Pat?)

I do not believe you can stop all jihadis by leaving the Middle East alone. But we certainly would have less of them than we do now. I would consider less jihadis an improvement over the status quo.

I am still unclear about any mistakes that I have made in my logic. You seem impervious to argument are committed to some idea of an Imperial America 'liberating' Iraqis and others. You somehow think that Iraqis are better off today than they were under Hussein. Yet, just this week in the news you could have read how the Iraqi Christians, who were free to practice their religion under the Hussein regime, are fleeing to Syria for protection. Maybe you are unaware of these developments. However, I really recommend reading the news before debating current affairs. There is hope for you Ivan. Ignorance is a curable disease.

as many of us said 4 years ago, "let's vote for the lesser of two evils," now i say, "nobody for president!"

as bush said earlier this year, "i'm a war president." now he says, "i want to be the peace president."

everybody hurts. everybody flip flops.

Mia, I don't see how that's flip-flopping. He is a war president. He wants to be a peace president.

Dan,

I brought up Buchanan because your view of American foreign policy seems to ditto his. It is a view that supposedly leans on American conservative ideals and values, forgetting that common sense is also an American value, and ignoring reality is not.

I do not believe you can stop all jihadis by leaving the Middle East alone. But we certainly would have less of them than we do now
I think the war in Iraq proved the opposite - and that's why Kerry changed his position to support it again. The war has been a success, and now he wants a little credit for it. People don't become terrorists because of indignation. They do it because they think that way they can win. If you follow the news from Iraq, you probably know about their disapointment, brought to them by US armed forces.

Maybe you are unaware of these developments. However, I really recommend reading the news before debating current affairs. There is hope for you Ivan. Ignorance is a curable disease.
Dan, calling your opponent ignorant because they haven't read a particular piece of news - that's low. Only pussies do that. To think that this piece of news proves your point - that's kinda dumb. I'm not sure if that's curable, but you're not giving me reasons to be optimistic.

You seem impervious to argument are committed to some idea of an Imperial America 'liberating' Iraqis and others.
This sounds like a broken quote from Buchanan, and has nothing to do with anything I said. American military is not there to liberate anyone. It is there to protect American national interest, which includes making sure people like Saddam don't help people like Osama kill people like you and me.

The War in Iraq has created MORE Jihadis as you call them. Which is something France, Germany and Russia said would happen.

Since the war in Iraq more and more American soldiers are being attacked and killed by the civilian population. It has got to the point that even WE are having to acknowledge British deaths, something our government and press like to try and tone down.

For someone who fervently hopes Bush loses in November Kerry is starting to irritate me immensely. He voted to give Bush the authority to go to war which was his choice as did Michael Howard over here so on that score he should just shut up and concentrate on soemthing else.

flip flopper is seeming like an understatement.