Iraqi Liberation

As of 9:00 pm, EST,

15 Republicans
6 Democrats
2 Independents

have taken the poll.

 

I am one of the few...

to vote "not sure."

I agree with many statements above.

First, let me say that I am glad I have not had the responsibility of the President, Congress and the US military.

Second, I doubt if WMD was THE most important reason for the war - even though it was the reason most often raised prior it. The most important reason is (a) to establish an open society among peoples who have none (except Israel - which, sadly "doesn't count" because of religious bigotry: Israeli Arabs enjoy longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality than any other Arab people); (b) turn externalizing Islam inward - toward civil war if necessary.

In other words, the point of the war in Iraq was more about the war on terrorism and its origins than WMDs.

The war is a HUGE gamble for Bush, as Thomas Friedman has argued; we really won't know whether it was worth it for another 5 to 10 years.

the counter argument is that no open society can be self-sustaining without a civil society to support it. That's why our (US) continued efforts to transform, educate, nurture compromise, and push these peoples towards democracy are so
crucial - if the experiment in liberation and democratization in the Muslim world , and the transformation of radical Islamofascism is to suceed.

So - was the war, despite failing to find WMDs, worth it in the cause of shortening the War on Terror? Probably, perhaps.

Probably only because serious alternatives are in such short supply. (The only significant statement engaging this issue to emerge from the Dems primary season was Wesley Clark's at the CFR in November; it's available online!
http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=6545) This is the best thought out pro-peace statement yet - but who will capitalize upon it?

What a Dean candidacy most promised was a genuine debate over foreign policy in the US - a rare event. Now, I fear, with Kerry, we have a waffler of championship caliber, and a real debate is unlikely to materialize. By summer Kerry will get behind the "US occupation" - just as it officially (if temporarily) ends.

Kerry is a great political opportunist - not a great leader.

--Orson

 

Re: I am one of the few...

My new CCHS course has yet to arrive so I continue to spend some extra time here. Hopefully it will arrive today.

I think the Democrats lost their best opportunity to defeat President Bush by snubbing Senator Lieberman, a most respected and most decent man.

I don't think, however, anyone will defeat Bush. Kerry will do much better than most think. He is a pretty good fighter and debater. But, as you say, he waffles on most of the important issues of the day.

His initials might be JFK, but he is no JFK!

 

Re: I am one of the few...

That sums him up perfectly.

 

Re: I am one of the few...

I'm a Kerry supporter, but I have to agree with this statement.

Bush, on the other hand, has been a GREAT leader in some situations, and a HORRIBLE leader in others. However, Bush is undoubtedly the greatest political opportunist in American history.

 

I think the question for the Democratic Party is...can he beat Bush in November. By the time the primary hits us (Texas), the race will be all but decided( March 9...Early voting.....February 23). Is Kerry electable? Who will be his running mate? All questions my party must answer.

 

Re: Re: I am one of the few...

I'll agree with your first sentence - but challenge you to document the second!

On the contrary, a letter writer to andrewsulivan.com insightfully stated last month that both Bushes make their re-election campaigns closer than need be.

"How" you ask? George Herbert Walker Bush pushed and signed civil rights act, environmental protections, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Did this win him votes? No. Then he alienated his base with tax increases and lost the campaign!

His son follows in the same risible footsteps: he's more the environmental prez than Clinton, spends much much more on education, transpotation, cities - but will it win votes from the natural constituency of the Dems? No. Plus - his policy immigration reform (although the moral one in my view), and high-spending ways aleinates his base!!Will it cost him the election? Stay tuned.

Perhaps, Jeff, you are confusing pandering with opportunism?

--Orson

 

Re: Re: I am one of the few...

This is a bold statement considering the antics of LBJ and Richard Nixon!

 

Re: Re: Re: I am one of the few...

All goes to show Bush is not so conservative as people think but that he is really a moderate.

Show me one politician who does not pander! Even the decent Joe Lieberman panders at times.

 

Electability, Michael? When Bush stole the election, lied to us about Saddam? Why does "electability" matter when Dean has truth, justice, and more socialized medicine on the way?

Oops. That was one month ago!

But seriously, my hope WAS that Clark's intellectual contribution to foreign policy (see link above) would be embraced. That would set up a debate about effectiveness and defuse the Dems anti-militarism in war-time - needed steps towards the center where elections are won.

Edwards appeals to me as more authentic than Kerry. But can he sell a policy of protectionism when 20% of GDP depends on world trade? - double of a decade ago.

--Orson

 

Please explain to me EXACTLY HOW Bush "stole" the election? Other than being a Governor he had no authority, power, or pull to do so.

Did he bribe the Justices?

Edwards is a trial lawyer who never, ever, did ANY pro bono work according to many, many sources and yet he has the audacity to talk about "two America's" when the poor don't get any help! I am sure many poor could have used some pro bono work!

He also talks about Bush and the lobbyists and special interests. Have you see HIS record when it comes to special interests and lobbyists?

All these guy slam one another about special interests and lobbyists yet EVERYONE has taken money and gifts from many, many sources.

 

I dont believe IRAQ is the number one issue of this campaign, its the economy - JOBS. Then the rising cost of health care and then education. Bush will have to face some real angry people in Ohio, Mich, Penn, Ill, Wisc when he campaigns there - they flat out dont like him. Prepare for some social unrest this summer, the conditions are right.

 

I dont believe IRAQ is the number one issue of this campaign, its the economy - JOBS. Then the rising cost of health care and then education. Bush will have to face some real angry people in Ohio, Mich, Penn, Ill, Wisc when he campaigns there - they flat out dont like him. Prepare for some social unrest this summer, the conditions are right.

 

I agree - but surely Iraq and the war is number two - and depending on events, #1.

And the business cycle is likely to molify the certainty that jobs and the economy are issue #1 in nine months....

So - how do you select the most "electable" candidate?

--Orson
PS Jimmy: "...When Bush stole the election..."- it was a tongue in cheek remark! (Something too many over educated idiots in university towns like Boulder, CO don't know, either.)

 

I agree - but surely Iraq and the war is number two - and depending on events, #1.

And the business cycle is likely to molify the certainty that jobs and the economy are issue #1 in nine months....

So - how do you select the most "electable" candidate?

--Orson
PS Jimmy: "...When Bush stole the election..."- it was a tongue in cheek remark! (Something too many over educated idiots in university towns like Boulder, CO don't know, either.)

 

Dont forget that the Supreme Court Justices were the ONLY people in the country to vote twice for president in 2000.

 

"Tongue in cheek" or not, I am so tired of hearing "Bush stole the election."

Granted, some shenanigans may have taken place in Florida but we don't know that for certain, do we?

The economy is not Bush's fault! An American President has little control over the economy otherwise Hoover, Bush 41, and Jimmy Carter would have been reelected.

We were attacked on 9/11 which had a huge effect on the economy. We're fighting terrorism also and this affects the economy.

Some mention jobs. Well, it was Clinton-Gore who got us into NAFTA, not Bush. Remember Ross Perot's warning about the "giant sucking sound" of jobs going to Mexico and other countries due to NAFTA?

I do not endorse everything Bush stands for--capital punishment, the environment (better than under Slick Willy, though), gay marriage, the Mars mission, etc.

But, he is the best President in my lifetime in my opinion!

 

What makes Bush a better President than Ronald Reagan?

 

Compare the Civil Rights records of both. Compare the number of blacks and other minorities in both administrations. Compare the responses to the AIDS epidemic, etc., etc., etc. Plus Reagan was a warmonger who sent American troops to several foreign lands.

No, Bush is not a warmonger. We were attacked! We have every right to defend ourselves.

 

Dear Jimmy,


Howard Dean has backed out of the race. Now, you realize that your opinion, Bush ( the son, right?, or father) is the greatest president of your lifetime. I, of course, respectfully disagree. You also realize that I respect your opinion and will die respecting it. This is from a Roosevelt Democrat.