Kerry has the power, why do you defend him so?

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Scribbler1, As for WMD's, a lot of people miss the plain fact that even if Hussein HAD WMD's, he didn't use them against us. He was a scumbag to be sure, but he was NO THREAT TO US as the Bush fanatics would have you believe. Having a weapon and using it are two different things, and Bush is clearly trying to combine the two distinct situations into one.

No, this isn't true. Bush wasn't trying to say Saddam had ICBMs with nuclear warheads. If he did, he would already be an immediate threat and all the complaining about pre-emption wouldn't hold water, but internal consistency for Bush haters isn't a requirement.
What Bush is "clearly" trying to do or what you've decided he's doing?

No threat to the US, maybe. We believed he had WMDs at the time, and he certainly wasn't doing much to discredit it, and he did have programs, but this also makes the assumption that I keep arguing with, that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. You really don't think a democratic Iraq will affect the fundamentalist regimes on its borders?

[Howard Roarke]

John Kerry could put most of the issue to rest if he would just do as he promised and release all of his records.

To date he has not and the liberal media has not pressed him on the matter.

Among many documents that he has not turned over, like his fitness reports for that period of time, his journal reports have not been turned over.

"The Kerry campaign has refused to make available Kerry's journals and other writings to The Post"

And

"Although Kerry campaign officials insist that they have published Kerry's full military records on their Web site (with the exception of medical records shown briefly to reporters earlier this year), they have not permitted independent access to his original Navy records. A Freedom of Information Act request by The Post for Kerry's records produced six pages of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which consists of at least a hundred pages. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Aug21.html


Yes indeed. Kerry still has some explaining to do.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have already exposed Kerry in 2 absolute lies, perhaps more. Why does it not matter to Democrats if Kerry has fabricated much of his war record?

The big question is, Why won't Kerry release all of his records?

Instead they've resorted to personal smears against the Swift Boat Veterans and have resorted to distractions like these "ties" to Bush.

Kerry is bleeding, he's in trouble and they know it, hence all the hostility from Kerry and his goons.

Just release the records!
Prove the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth wrong.

Obviously he's hiding something in those records.

[Compugasm]

Has the commercial come out yet? All I hear about is people talking about it, but I don't know if anyone has seen it or read the book. I mean, like where is it running, CNN, FOX?

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Comrade,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Comrade,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Scribbler1, As for WMD's, a lot of people miss the plain fact that even if Hussein HAD WMD's, he didn't use them against us.  He was a scumbag to be sure, but he was NO THREAT TO US as the Bush fanatics would have you believe.  Having a weapon and using it are two different things, and Bush is clearly trying to combine the two distinct situations into one.

No, this isn't true. Bush wasn't trying to say Saddam had ICBMs with nuclear warheads. If he did, he would already be an immediate threat and all the complaining about pre-emption wouldn't hold water, but internal consistency for Bush haters isn't a requirement.
What Bush is "clearly" trying to do or what you've decided he's doing?[/b][/quote]

I didn't say Bush even mentioned ICBM's, you did. Let's get that straight OK? What Bush DID do is try to raise the fear of imminenent danger in the American people. Back in Oct. 2002 he said "America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

True, it was said to support his point, but it was also said to scare the people, and he wanted public support for going in. What can the reference to "mushroom cloud" be other than nuclear weapons.

What Bush is "clearly" trying to do or what you've decided he's doing?

I don't understand the meaning of that.

No threat to the US, maybe. We believed he had WMDs at the time, and he certainly wasn't doing much to discredit it, and he did have programs, but this also makes the assumption that I keep arguing with, that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. You really don't think a democratic Iraq will affect the fundamentalist regimes on its borders?

Point by point.

Considering the region, and the fact that Saddam was far from a religious man, I think even if you had ZERO weapons you sure as hell wouldn't admit it to the world, which includes your neighbors, who aren't in love with you in the first place. It was bad enough that we totally trashed their fabled army and made the "feared" Republican Guard disappear in Desert Storm. I'm surprised his neighbors didn't see that as a good reason to attack Iraq THEN.
And yes, it appears he did have programs, but so do a lot of other countries which are just as capable of launching an attack on us if they wanted to. They just haven't done that, and neither did Iraq. Having weapons or having the ability to make weapons is not a justification for war, especially when there was no imminenent threat to the country starting the war. Even Bush later denied saying "imminent threat" to our country, so if HE says it wasn't there, where is the justification for war?

The evidence showing Iraq in bed with terrorists has been proven almost nonexistent, it just wasn't there.

I don't think (even if it is possible) a "democratic" Iraq will have any effect on neighboring countries. At least not in a positive way. One of the reason the hyper-religious Arabs hate us is that we are "infidels" and our government is not totally based on religion. If Iraq is to become "democratic" it can't be run from a mosque and this will give the fanatics the same reason to hate Iraq as they use to hate US.

If it affects the fundie regimes on Iraqs borders, I fear the net effect will be to UNITE them against a country with a form of government they despise. Iraq could possible be the next Israel, and THEN they had better make sure their army is better then it was 14 years ago.

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Scribbler1, [b] Considering the region, and the fact that Saddam was far from a religious man, I think even if you had ZERO weapons you sure as hell wouldn't admit it to the world, which includes your neighbors, who aren't in love with you in the first place. It was bad enough that we totally trashed their fabled army and made the "feared" Republican Guard disappear in Desert Storm. I'm surprised his neighbors didn't see that as a good reason to attack Iraq THEN. Oh poor Saddam! That is a perfectly reasonable excuse! And yes, it appears he did have programs, but so do a lot of other countries which are just as capable of launching an attack on us if they wanted to. Well, you get into capability vs. intent there. Britain could give nukes to terrorists or bomb us, but they won't. Secondly, I have no doubt we are going to deal with those countries of have the intent and are developing the capability. They just haven't done that, and neither did Iraq. Having weapons or having the ability to make weapons is not a justification for war, Sure it is. especially when there was no imminenent threat to the country starting the war. Yeah, you're assuming I agree with "Just War" nonsense, and you are also assuming that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Even Bush later denied saying "imminent threat" to our country, so if HE says it wasn't there, where is the justification for war? Haven't we been over this? What is you peoples' hard-on for "imminent threat." Since it seems I have to repeat myself again, I'll be brief. The point of the war was to: 1) Remove a dictator who had WMD weapons programs and was widely believed to have WMDs already in stock. 2) Create a democracy in the Middle East, starting the snowball. Excluding Israel, there were NO democracies in the Middle East before Iraq. 3) Create a friendly base in the Middle East to exert influence over those regimes like Iran who are a danger to America. 4) We had "legal" justification in the UN, no matter how much France and Germany deny it, and authorization from Congress. 5) It would be easier to accomplish these things in relatively secular Iraq. Also, I'm sure Bush didn't think that people here and abroad would support Saddam over democracy (which is something I'm a bit confused about as well. Do you people really hate Bush (or Republican presidents in general, remember Reagan?) so much you would rather support Saddam? There's no way to have it both ways), he probably expected support. I guess it's too much to ask that people believe in what this country is about. What is our justification for getting involved in the Middle East? 9-11 is. National security is the foremost concern of the presidency, and Iraq is the second stop towards ending the threat from the fundamental Islam. The evidence showing Iraq in bed with terrorists has been proven almost nonexistent, it just wasn't there. Yeah, except the Al Qaida intelligence officers, the money send to Palestinian terrorists, the meetings in Sudan, and the Ansar al-Islam (which, by the way, is an arm of Al Qaida) training camps west and north of Baghdad. I don't think (even if it is possible) a "democratic" Iraq will have any effect on neighboring countries. Well, that's your own failing. If you don't think democracy in the traditional center of the Arab world, a country with tens of millions of people, is going to change the Arab world, then you might want to rethink. At least not in a positive way. One of the reason the hyper-religious Arabs hate us is that we are "infidels" and our government is not totally based on religion. If Iraq is to become "democratic" it can't be run from a mosque and this will give the fanatics the same reason to hate Iraq as they use to hate US. Fanatics hating us and people like us is perfectly fine with me. This isn't a war to live in harmony with the people who hate freedom and democracy. This is a war to remove such people from the playing field. This is a war to CHANGE the Middle East, for the better. "America is safer when freedom and democracy are on the march, America is less safe when the principles freedom are in retreat." It will also gives Arabs an example of what a free society is, an ARAB free society. Do you really think most people in the Middle East are extremists? If it affects the fundie regimes on Iraqs borders, I fear the net effect will be to UNITE them against a country with a form of government they despise. Iraq could possible be the next Israel, and THEN they had better make sure their army is better then it was 14 years ago. Well, those are nice fears, but I don't think so. It sounds more to me like you are afraid of changing the status quo, thus the arguement to fear of consequences, "unseen side effects." Neighboring regimes will never attack so long as there are American bases in the area (remember those whenever whichever loony was talking about puppet states?) The whole thing is, this IS a conflict between ideals. The status quo right now SUCKS in the Middle East. I don't think Bush is Hitler for trying to change it for the better.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Comrade, [deleted for brevity]

Try to format your responses a bit better Comrade. I don't have all night to pick out the pieces of your rebuttal and I have no desire to repost my stuff as it can be seen above yours in its entirety. But I'll try to pick apart some of this mess and respond.

I'm surprised his neighbors didn't see that as a good reason to attack Iraq THEN.

Oh poor Saddam! That is a perfectly reasonable excuse!

It would have been, which is why I was surprised they DIDN'T. Don't you READ these things?

They just haven't done that, and neither did Iraq.  Having weapons or having the ability to make weapons is not a justification for war,

Sure it is.

In your isolationist world, perhaps. But even Bush does not favor isolationism. At best, Bush was given bad intel (A lot of which came from an international criminal. Who would have thought!) and we acted on erroneous information. At worst, Bush was determined to invade Iraq regardless of the intel suppled. Either way there were NO WMD's found. How many reports from our own government do you need to see before that sinks in? The whole world has seen this mess we got ourselves into. Right after 9/11, almost the whole planet was on our side (EVEN the french) and supported our motivation when we went into Afghanistan. Since then, Bush has minimized the actions in Afghanistan and shifted the focus to a country which was shown not to have the weapons you keep blathering about, which even Bush has dropped as a reason. In doing that, Bush has squandered the goodwill and support of much of the world. If you still maintain this is a good situation, then you ought to go buy a little island somewhere and let the rest of the world go by, because a lot of us realize the U.S. HAS TO live with the rest of the world.

Even Bush later denied saying "imminent threat" to our country, so if HE says it wasn't there, where is the justification for war?

Haven't we been over this? What is you peoples' hard-on for "imminent threat." Since it seems I have to repeat myself again, I'll be brief. The point of the war was to:
1) Remove a dictator who had WMD weapons programs and was widely believed to have WMDs already in stock.
2) Create a democracy in the Middle East, starting the snowball. Excluding Israel, there were NO democracies in the Middle East before Iraq.
3) Create a friendly base in the Middle East to exert influence over those regimes like Iran who are a danger to America.
4) We had "legal" justification in the UN, no matter how much France and Germany deny it, and authorization from Congress.
5) It would be easier to accomplish these things in relatively secular Iraq. Also, I'm sure Bush didn't think that people here and abroad would support Saddam over democracy (which is something I'm a bit confused about as well. Do you people really hate Bush (or Republican presidents in general, remember Reagan?) so much you would rather support Saddam? There's no way to have it both ways), he probably expected support. I guess it's too much to ask that people believe in what this country is about.


Yes, we have been over it.  "Imminenent Threat" is the justification for going to war, and Bush denies even saying it (regardless of his "mushroom cloud" analogy.  To continue:

1.  We removed the dictator.  He had no WMD's.
2.  You have no evidence whatsoever of any possibility of a snowball effect.  Israel has been there for 50+ years and is still under constant attack.  Your snowball melted a long time ago.
3. I can agree that creating a "friendly" base there was a motivation, but since the religious factions are exerting such a strong force over there, I don't see how you can blindly assume the country will eventually turn "friendly" enough to allow us to invade their neighbors whenever we see a threat, real or imagined.
4.  Agreed, we had "legal" justification, but it turns out there was no evidence of a "real" justification.

I'm a bit confused about as well. Do you people really hate Bush (or Republican presidents in general, remember Reagan?) so much you would rather support Saddam?

You know something, Comrade, I am sick of childish fools resorting to the "like" or "support" Saddam argument in response to legitimate criticism of our administration. It's the kind of slap in the face I have reached my limit with, as it is bullshit and it makes you look like an ignorant 12 year old. This will be my last response to you.