But he would have done it at a slightly different time. Which would have made it the wrong war in the wrong place at the right time, which would have been okay.

Now let's get out the vote, people!

Dude, that was August. This is SEPTEMBER!!!! Get on the trolley.

Yes, but were you aware that Sen. Kerry is a decorated Vietnam veteran? Yesiree, got himself 3 purple hearts!

Tex Tom - hilarious.

And Karol - want to hear you weigh in on this: the ado w. Dennis Hastert a few weeks back; b/c he said NYC was all $ focused. Remember? Well, Jeb Bush declared that the damage in FL after 2 hurricanes was estimated at 2 billion.

Is he going to flip out on Florida now or not so much b/c they vote Republican?

What do you think?

I'm more concerned about when Hastert implied, on national television, that George Soros made his money from drug cartels. Not even FNC let him get away with that one...

Don't give up that Senate Seat.

Bleh. You're being silly again. I've read your blog. I know your smart enough to make sense of this.

Mr. Kerry said that he believes that it was appropriate for Congress (in general) to give the President (in general) the *authority* to use force, because it provides the necessary leverage for DIPLOMACY. As a president, nobody's going to listen to you when they know any threats may be vetoed by 535 beaurocrats. The extension of authority is an action of principle.

However, he thinks that the President (in particular) abused that authority in this instance.

In other words: Mr. Kerry's position is that an approved threat of force was useful and necessary, but that the exercise of said force was hasty and perhaps unnecessary.

It's really not that complicated. All you need to do is realize that the threat of force and the use of force are distinct actions with distinct repurcussions.

You can disagree that the threat of force was sufficient, but please don't play dumb and pretend that there's no principle behind Kerry's statements. That's as bad as the lefties who play dumb and pretend that Bush is a moron.

Andrew,

I've been through this argument. It's all fine and good for Kerry to talk in theoretical terms about what power his vote actually granted but seeing as he's now talking in retrospect, he can't say that he would've done what he did (seeing as he knows the outcome) while at the same time saying he was misled or that the war was a mistake. Since he knows how this all played out (Bush used the authority to go to war with Iraq) his saying that he would've done it the same way means that he would've gone to war anyway.

Ari, I don't doubt that Hillary and Chuck pushed for more funding than NY actually needed to rebuild, but hey, it's considered a plus for both of them that they bring the pork home. I don't think the Senators from Florida will be as effective because, well, they live in the path of hurricanes, what do they expect?

Karol, read your own link...Kerry said he would have voted for authorizing the war even if, when the vote had come up, it was known that there were no WMDs and the reason for the threats were just Saddam's a bad man. That is hardly the same thing as saying that he would have followed, or even advocated, the same course that Bush did.

The question was not, as you seem to be rephrasing it, Senator Kerry, if you had known (using a crystal ball) that President Bush would enter the war in Iraq essentially alone, without there being any WMDs and then mishandle the occupation, would you have felt it correct to launch a preemptive vote against him.

Andrew has it dead on, but it is the same thing Dawn and I have been saying, so I am sure you will continue to play dumb, even though it takes away a great deal of your credibility as being someone series, rather than just being someone who reiterates conservative/pro-Bush soundbites.

Oy folks... why does it matter what the heck Kerry has said? Give him a week and it'll be the opposite. Maybe that's his biggest problem.

He's barely said a word and when he does, he takes it right back.

Signor, I love that when you disagree with me you tell me how I'm so serious and how my credibility is damaged by my not agreeing with you but actually, again, Kerry doesn't need a crystal ball to look back at what just happened and judge it. That's the beauty of speaking in hindsight.

Karol,

Kerry never addressed the the situation you're proposing as he was never asked to. He wasn't asked to consider it given everything we now know; he was asked to consider it knowing one thing--that there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found. And given what he was actually asked, he answered forthrightly and with a principle wholly consistent with every other statement he's made.

And when someone, like yourself, wittingly mischaracterizes the question that was posed to him, they damage their credibility. Credibility is born of being honest and forthright. It's damaged by using questionable wordplay and mischaracterization.

There's substantive issues to debate, and you're harping on misrepresentations. If you you roll your eyes when someone ridicules Bush's speaking skills, or treats Bush like Cheney's puppet, you should take the time to stop yourself from making comparable statements about the other side.

It's lazy and it damages your credibility. You seem to have the intelligence and wit to address real issues, and sometimes even put a humorous spin on them. So stand out and take advantage of those skills rather than parrotting baseless talking points. It'll reflect much better on you.

Andrew, Kerry didn't need to be told 'with everything we know now' for that to be the implication. Why ask at all if you're going to pretend that you learned nothing new since authorizing the war? If he's supposed to go on his pre-war knowledge, why would anything change at all? I'm not mischaracterizing anything and I stand by this completely. It is not I who is engaging in 'questionable wordplay'.

I don't understand how you can sit there and pretend that a man with a 30-year career in politics would make the kind of folly your implying when there's a much more reasonable interpretation sitting in front of your face.

If Kerry was such a 'flip-flop'er that he can't even avoid it during the biggest questions in the national spotlight, how the hell do you think he could have won his terms in the Senate? Does that really make sense to you? Is the Massachusetts Republican party so inept that they couldn't even raise this oh-so-obvious issue about Kerry during any of their prior races against him? Glossing over such a clear character issue must make them the laughing stock of the GOP, in your eyes. Is that true?

Karol, the big question is this: Since you know it to be the case that Kerry disagrees with the way the war was conducted, why would you continue to pretend that Kerry claims he would have done the same thing.

The contrast you set up doesn't make Kerry a flip-flopper, it would make him borderline retarded. Feel free to claim that is what you think of him for the humorous effect, but I know that isn't what you think. You are trying to score political points, not seriously summarize Kerry's position.

Fine, for the sake of argument let's say that Kerry's position on Iraq has been completely consistent, and that we're all just too dim or biased or dishonest to see it.

So what exactly would Kerry have done differently? Build a larger/different coalition. Ok, including which countries, and for what reasons? More "troops on the ground"? From where? Additional negiotiations? For what purpose?

At one time I was willing to grant that Kerry might have some kind of rational policy in mind that he would have exersized. But he has no details to offer, and no answers to the valid objections to his stale talking points. Meanwhile he demonstrates his masterful negotiating skills by insulting and dismissing our current allies.

Kerry has had months and months in the national spotlight to explain himself and has not been able to do so. It's pretty clear to me that he has no idea what he would have done or what he will do when faced with an actual situation like Bush had to handle. He doesn't want to talk about it or think about it. He just insists that he'd have Done It Better. Somehow.

The irony of all of this, of course, is that this is an exact paradigm demonstrating that Kerry is not a "flip-flopper", but someone who takes nuanced positions. The flip-flopper would have come out and said "no, I wouldn't have voted to give the President the authorization", knowing that the small percentage of people in the country who would (a) know that this was bullshit or (b) be willing and able to take the time to comprehend why this was bullshit would be way to minimal to matter and that it would have given him a "less complicated" way of attacking Bush on the Iraq war.

Instead, Kerry stuck to the honest and truthful answer, which is not a flip-flop for all the reasons I, Andrew, Ugarte and Dawn in other posts have indicated.

Now, if you want to argue that Kerry is a horrible campaigner. I agree. If you want to argue that he does a horrible job commuincating his position, his message and continuely sets himself up for these flip-flop attacks by making comments that, on the surface, may appear contradictory, I agree.

But, the Republican mouthpieces who keep parroting the points that you try to make here Karol are simply wrong and they know it and you know it.

*p.s. The reason why it would have been bullshit was because the question was would he have voted to authorize, knowing there were no WMDs. That is a War Powers Act question (I am pretty sure) and goes to the heart of separation of powers issues between Congress and the Presidency and it would be extreme (and I think unprecedented) for Congress to actually deny a president the authorization to make the decision on where and when to use force/go to war.

All of this debate means little in the face of Sen. Kerry's sterling Vietnam record, which in and of itself makes him qualified to be President. You guys are aware that he served, right? I mean, God, he must have served for like, what, 30 years? Hmmm, does anyone know what he did aftern 'Nam? I know, there must be a big evil media blackout regarding those years Why even bother with an election? We need this guy in right away.

Actually, Bryan C., he has said what would have been different. He has said that the war would not have been necessary to learn that there were no WMDs because the threat of war would have allowed the inspections to find all of that out without the spilling of so much blood.

"Saddam Hussein terrorized his own people" is an insufficient rationale FOR BUSH for two reasons: (1) it was not a politically viable reason when the war started - it is an escape hatch now that the situation is arguably FUBAR; Bush specifically campaigned against war for humanitarian purposes and (2) Iraq wasn't the worst offender along those lines, but I don't see Bush leading a charge into Myanmar or Sudan.

There is a flip-flopper on the Iraq question, but he's running for REelection.

Texas Tom - "I served in Vietnam" is still a better reason than "I was annointed by God."

"I served in Vietnam"

-You did? By God, then maybe YOU should be running! The key is, make sure you remind people of your service as much as humanly possible. Also, remember that 200+ former compatriots speaking against you means NOTHING!!!!

Lastly, make sure you don't confuse anyone by mentioning your post-Vietnam career, or having a platform other than knee-jerk reactions to whatever the President says! YOU WILL FARE WELL FOR SURE!!!

"He has said that the war would not have been necessary to learn that there were no WMDs because the threat of war would have allowed the inspections to find all of that out without the spilling of so much blood."

We tried that. Sadaam didn't come to the table. We spanked him.

"Saddam Hussein terrorized his own people"----Yes, with mustard gas and other wmd's...hmmm no basis for suspicion, right?

"Iraq wasn't the worst offender along those lines, but I don't see Bush leading a charge into Myanmar or Sudan." Hmmm...when was the last time either of them had a nuclear reator go hot? Oh I forgot...it slipped my mind!

TT - Nobody questions whether there was a basis for suspicion, only whether Bush ever really cared about allaying that suspicion. A review of his first term makes it clear that he didn't.

You seem to be confusing the presidency of Bush 41, when he had WMDs, with the presidency of Bush 43, when he didn't. You also seem to be confusing "slow progress conducting inspections of a reluctant regime" with "no progress." Hans Blix was apparently right and that doesn't seem to bother you at all. Saying "we tried it" implies that we did as much as we could before invading and it is clear - both at the time and certainly in hindsight - that we didn't.

Iraq simply wasn't the danger we were told it was.

"You seem to be confusing the presidency of Bush 41, when he had WMDs, with the presidency of Bush 43, when he didn't."

No---Sadaam's own people have indicated that, left unchecked, he was 2-5 years from a nuclear program.

"slow progress conducting inspections of a reluctant regime"

This phrase is as hollow as "a trucker's picnic"----coined by A French official who viewed surveillance footage of truck after truck speeding away from suspected WMD sites.

"Iraq simply wasn't the danger we were told it was."

I'm sure waiting around for it to become that very threat woulda worked out just fine. Maybe we should have held on for the next Democrat internationalist in the White House to do something. Hell, even Clinton wanted regime change over there, but unfortuantely, was a little too believing in the legitimacy of the UN.

I thank you, at least, for not having thrown in the maddening phrase "rush to war." Though the "slow progress" bit was almost as nauseating. This action was anything but rushed...we gave this guy 3 months to come to the table, with a clear deadline.

Of course, against all that, I guess the war for oil theory is still a wonderful option.

No---Sadaam's own people have indicated that, left unchecked, he was 2-5 years from a nuclear program.

Can you provide a quick cite for that? I don't mean to be personally suspect, but I've never heard that.

I'm sure waiting around for it to become that very threat woulda worked out just fine.

Well... here's the thing. There were a few looming threats at the time: al-Qaeda itself, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. We had been vigilantly fighting the prior, and successfully practicing a containment policy of the last three for a good 20 years by constantly posturing our available force as a threat to keep them in line.

No single one of those states could make a move because we'd obviously destroy it within months of such action. That's how containment works, and its an absolutely great policy when dealing with recognized governments. So we were able to wage a significant effort against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan, while still holding back enough force to keep Khomeni, Hussein, and il-Sun in line.

Hell, evidence seems to show that our posturing against Saddam in the run-up to the war was meeting a great deal of success. It's now believed that what WMD's may have remained were dismantled at that time, and Saddam even offered to have UN inspectors return to make sure of it. Not only was the heightened threat of force cheap, it was effective.

But then Bush took a good situation:
*heightened pressure against Iraq
*return of UN inspections
*the world's eyes on Saddam Hussein

and turned it into a bad situation:
*reduced pressure againt al-Qaeda, Iran, and North Korea
*reduced strategic alliances with major powers like Germany, France, and Russia; offset by near-useless hardening of alliances with places like Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania
*domestic discord because of an unconvincing argument for necessity
*destabilization of the balance of power between Sunnis, Shi'ite's and Kurds in Iraq
*the death of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians (Saddam has been known to do that himself, but our threat of force made that unlikely).

The only things that really remain to justify the situation are:
*Iraq may become a seed for Arabian democracies
*Iraq acts as a lightning rod for anti-American violence, far from the American homeland
*Once we regain our military availability, our threats of force will be more believable

That's how I see the situation. There's some good to be seen in the Iraq invasion and some bad. The war-moderates (like Kerry) believed that heightened threats against Saddam were useful, but that those threats could have continued for longer before actually engaging in war. This would have permitted more time for deal-making with bigger allies, and for further evaluating the effectiveness of the new threats before incurring all the consequences mentioned above.

TT--knowing what we know now, what do you think Saddam would have done given another six months of pressure, especially if we continued to expand our alliances against him? What do you think would be happening in the fight against al-Qaeda had we remained focused against them for another three months?

If you think that the status quo was good enough, and that it was possible to maintain it indefinitely then I suppose we'll disagree on everything else. North Korea already had nukes and was regularly making threats. Saddam was working on his own programs and trying hard to get nukes too. Pakistan was a only halfheardely pursuing al-Queada and was distracted by their own ongoing feud with India. Meanwhile Libya was busy working on their own WMD programs. All of those situations have since changed for the better, and it wasn't due to the threat of force. It was due to the targeted use of force.

But then Bush took a good situation:
*heightened pressure against Iraq
*return of UN inspections
*the world's eyes on Saddam Hussein

You're assuming goodwill and competence on the part of the UN, its other members, and their inspectors, which I think is somewhat questionable given the WMD info and the web of financial connections revealed since Saddam was deposed. Granting even that, I suspect it would have worked out pretty much like it had for the previous 14 years. Or like right now in Darfur, where there's lots of international pressure, the world's eyes, etc. But where innocent people are still being slaughtered by genocidal maniacs. Even sincere threats of force aren't much good when no one believes them, and it's clear that Saddam didn't really believe we'd attack until we did.

Your list of good and bad outcomes seems about right to me. But the bad things are generally transient problems, while the good things are lasting advantages that could not have come about in any other way. I guess we differ there.

What do you think would be happening in the fight against al-Qaeda had we remained focused against them for another three months?

That's a false dilemma. We did remain focused on al-Qaeda. And Iraq. And North Korea too, for that matter. Because it is actually possible for the military to walk and chew gum at the same time. Particularly when the forces and mission required to succeed in Iraq are entirely different from those needed in, say, the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.

I'm sorry Ugarte, but I disagree.

Actually, Bryan C., he has said what would have been different. He has said that the war would not have been necessary to learn that there were no WMDs because the threat of war would have allowed the inspections to find all of that out without the spilling of so much blood.

But he's also said that he'd have gone to war even knowing that Saddam did not have an active WMD program.

"Saddam Hussein terrorized his own people" is an insufficient rationale FOR BUSH for two reasons: (1) it was not a politically viable reason when the war started - it is an escape hatch now that the situation is arguably FUBAR;

Nope. The WMD justification was always one of a number of reasons. Recall that the most numerous victims of Saddams WMD programs were other Iraqis. WMD is to the invasion of Iraq what income tax evasion was to the arrest of Al Capone - a valid legal justiciation for doing what needed to be done.

Bush specifically campaigned against war for humanitarian purposes and

See above. I'd also argue that that was prior to 911, when Bush's entire foreign policy changed. And with good reason.

(2) Iraq wasn't the worst offender along those lines, but I don't see Bush leading a charge into Myanmar or Sudan.

So, we need to rank our genocidal maniacs and take them down in order of badness, or it's not fair and we have to stop? I think that there are other factors that come into play. (And FWIW, I think we should intervene in Sudan. Do you?)

I wish I knew the tags to use in the comments section to get italics.

"But he's also said that he'd have gone to war even knowing that Saddam did not have an active WMD program."
This has been done to death earlier in the comments section. No he didn't.

"Nope. The WMD justification was always one of a number of reasons."
I'm just calling bullshit on this. There were other reasons in the policy journals, maybe, but the only reasons given by the Administration were WMDs and support of AQ. There were no WMDs and the links to AQ are equally missing. The humanitarian rationale became the talking point once WMDs were no longer credible.

The Al Capone analogy is obscene. The Feds brought down Capone on a legal, if penny ante, charge. The administration's argument was to the world and, more importantly, its own citizens. A smokescreen of fear to cover for an inner desire to go to war for the sake of democracy is neither credible nor even remotely tolerable within the bounds of a vibrant democracy.

"I'd also argue that that was prior to 911, when Bush's entire foreign policy changed. And with good reason."
After 9/11 Bush became more concerned with war for humanitarian reasons? Try to read that to yourself without giggling, please. I'm surprised your hands weren't shaking so badly while typing that the sentence wasn't riddled with mistakes.

"I think we should intervene in Sudan. Do you?"
Yes, as a matter of fact. You'll probably be surprised to know that I supported the war when it started. Not fake-supported, actual supported. I thought the Bushies were full of shit, of course, on the connection between Iraq and AQ, but I also thought that the humanitarian mission was a valid one, and agreed that Hussein's intransigence on inspections was sufficient cause to invade.

I've changed my mind because I feel I was lied to. I'm content to just disagree about whether continued inspections would have worked. I didn't think so at the time; now I do. Hussein, to the extent that he was ever close to nuclear technology (post-Osirak) wasn't getting any closer with the inspectors up his ass.

Yes, I'm glad Hussein is gone. Yes, I think (absent a collapse into theocracy) the Iraqi people will, after the smoke clears, be better off. No, however, I don't think that Bush deserves reelection for stumbling into these results while starting a war under false pretenses.

You make zero sense, Ugarte. You write:

I supported the war when it started. Not fake-supported, actual supported. I thought the Bushies were full of shit, of course, on the connection between Iraq and AQ, but I also thought that the humanitarian mission was a valid one, and agreed that Hussein's intransigence on inspections was sufficient cause to invade.

So, you supported the war but thought Bush was lying. Ok. Then you write:

I've changed my mind because I feel I was lied to.

But, didn't you just say you never trusted them to begin with? And that your reasons for supporting this war were outside the terror connection/WMD reasons?

I now understand why you're so supportive of Kerry. You have the same non-understandable position as he does.

I supported the war for numerous reasons. I support the war for the same reasons still. So does Bush.

Fair point. I guess that is confusing. I don't mean that in a snarky way. I guess I was too brief. (Hard to believe.)

I thought that the humanitarian rationale was a valid one, though the Administration never gave any indication that he believed in it. I assumed that even though we had different reasons for going to war, regime change would be good for Iraq and therefore the war was worthwhile. I don't base my current anger on whether I was lied to about Iraq/AQ (though I clearly was) - I never believed that, so I only resent that the Administration continues to be dishonest about it.

I resent the following things:

(1) The Administration's unwillingness to follow up appropriately once the bombs start falling. If you are going to start something like this, you have to be willing to go all the way. You can't just pick up your toys and go home. The lack of funding for Afghan aid is and the resulting clusterfuck there is Exhibit A. The ongoing clusterfuck in Iraq is Exhibit B. Exhibit C coming soon, I am sure.

(2) The Administration's knowledge the intelligence from the Chalabi crew was BS AND that the inspections weren't turning up anything should have given them pause before screaming that Hussein was on the verge of acquiring WMDs. They knew he wasn't, but acted like he was. I had nothing to go by but Hussein's intransigence. They had a lot more info and were able to play on my reasonable fear to get my support.

(3) The establishment of a fake security regime here has led to real changes in our civil rights laws and the way we as citizens relate to our government.

(4) An atmosphere in which voicing any of these opinions is labeled "comfort to the enemy" as opposed to, say, "democracy in action." And can result in actual spying on you. See #3.

He's gotta go, and I hope I can help make it happen. See you in Florida on 11/2.

Iraq had no WMDs. If Hans Blix and co couldn't find them then i believe he had none. In addition if he HAD possessed WMDs why did he not use them against our troops to prevent their advance into iraq? note please do not insult my intelligence with the line "he was afraid of what we do if he did." it was blatantly clear to the whole world from 09/02 that you and we were going to invade and oust saddam. what did he have to lose by attacking American and UK troops with WMDs?

2. HE WAS CO-OPERATING. Did i imagine footage on BBC, CNN, SKY NEWS and French TV of conventional missiles that had a range in advance of UN Resolutions being destroyed?

3. Have never heard the 2-5 years claim either. Even if Iraqis had said such a thing, who are we talking about exactly? Ahmed Chalabi and other CIA friendly Iraqi exiles? how many of them had an agenda to match Chalabis?

4. Kerry's stance appears perfectly coherent. There is nothing flip floppy about holding the position that giving the US president the authorization to threaten or maybe use force to put diplomatic pressure on Saddam and then feeling that the USE of that force was wrong.

4882 You only get one set of teeth. Take care of them with a good
dental plan. Dental
insurance is
money well spent. I sleep better since I signed up for my new dental insurance
plan.
Get yours at: http://dental-insurance-plan.freeservers.com/
http://www.online-sports-betting-source.com

online sports betting
Sports Betting Odds
Sports Betting Line
Football Sports Betting
NCAA Sports Betting
NFL Football Betting Line
American Football Betting
Online American Football Betting
Online Football Betting Lines
Online Sports Book
NFL Football Odds
NCAA Football Odds
Las Vegas Football Odds
2004 Super Bowl Odds
Sports Book Betting
Las Vegas Sports Book
Sports Book Odds
Internet Sports Gambling
Sports Betting Information
College Football Betting Odds
College Betting Line
NFL Point Spread
NCAA Point Spread
Super Bowl Point Spread
Vegas Point Spread
Legal Sports Betting
Online Betting Odds
Online Sports Book Betting
Online Sports Betting Site
home based business
home based business
opportunity