Connecticutter said:
I don't understand what there is to explain. Of course the handling of the Iraq was was used by the Kerry campaign against Bush. Where's the argument?
I have my own view, I just wanted to know the details of what you base your statement on.
John Kerry himself said that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed with force. John Edwards called Saddam an "imminent threat" which goes beyond what the Bush administration said. Kerry had criticized the government during the 90s for not doing enough on Saddam, so why not criticize Bush if Saddam was still in power in 2004?
When are you referring to Kerry's comment to use force... before or after the vote for war? We now know the intel Congress got wasn't complete, and that they were basically spoon-fed what the Bush administration wanted them to know.
Given the "facts" spouted by Mr. Bush at the time, who led us all to believe we were in
iminent danger when he knew otherwise, many on both sides thought going to Iraq was the thing to do. I'm also troubled because the reasons for going to war went from keeping Saddam from building and using nukes, to the incredible task of spreading democracy -- to a nation thousands of years older than ours. If they wanted a western kind of democracy, other attempts before us would have worked just as well, but didn't. What's the next reason? Kerry's 90s criticism was also valid, but he wanted more done
politically, not militarily.
It's naive to think that bending to the pressures of the world community is somehow in our best interests, or even in the interests of the world. When we talk about the world community, we're talking specifically about France and Germany. If not, then who else are we talking about?
I said nothing about bending to the pressures of the world community. That is not my meaning, only your interpretation. This administration seems to only want other involvement from other nations when it comes to commerce, and if this was a monopoly game, we'd always want to be the banker. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but times change, and we have to look at the global picture.
We are vulnerable now. We are dependent on countries such as China to pay our bills and supply our stores; we are reliant on foreign oil and natural gas; the EU is an influence whether we like it or not; we have North Korea and Iran to deal with, as well as trying to finish up in Iraq and Afganistan; Osama is still out there; but most of all we've been weakened from within. Our borders aren't safe yet, cargo on most planes still isn't checked, private planes and cargo go unchecked, money for ports and railroads has not been allocated - in fact the Reps voted down funding for it; and most of all our country is divided and our elected officials have created the division, starting at the top. Mr. Bush, the "uniter not a divider" president goes out on his tour now being nothing but partisan, blasting the Dems, and insulting Congress. He thinks he's above our own laws and our own constitution. Under this administration, we are in no position at this time to snub our noses at the rest of the world. When we regain our strength, it's a different story. But we, the people, need to decide what that story is, not the likes of the current and corrupt Republican majority.
We now know that France, Germany, and UN officials were financially involved with the regime of Saddam Hussein. They aren't interested in protecting us.
Money talks. The United States illegally sold arms to Iran to then be sent to the Contras to fulfill our own political plans. In fact, we are still the number 1 arms dealer in the world. If we get into a situation with Iran, how many of our soldiers will be shot with American weapons? Look back... at one time, the former Soviet Union was our friend to help defeat the Germans, and yet we spent decades in a Cold War with them. They also supply oil and natural gas... hey buddy! Realisitically, it's all a political and world game, and it changes constantly. The UN is going through a much-needed cleaning, though I doubt we can accomplish that with Bolton there -- the man had to be a recess appointment to get him the job as it is. Plus, we gave the UN the finger because they wouldn't do what we wanted, when we wanted. In spite of that, they have offered assistance in Iraq, but we won't take it.
It's not our job to police the world, or to tell other countries how they need to conduct themselves. However, if we are faced with a threat, such as the one that comes from Terrorist Organizations or Saddam Hussein's expansionist and irrational regime, then we need to protect ourselves. Remember that all throughout the 90s, Saddam would shoot at planes, and occationally he would march his army to the border of Kuwait until we resumed bombing or mobilizing. How could we continue to simply babysit Saddam Hussein while the Iraq people have no freedom nor hope for the future?
I agree, if we are truly and honestly faced with a threat, we do need to protect ourselves. The question is, what the best way to do that is. That is where the conflict comes in, and given our vulnerability I just can't see us going it alone again -- we just can't afford it. We're more in debt now than we have ever been in the entire history of our country. We need to build and unify back at home, before we can hope to be the example to the world. What would they be following now? With the Christian right agenda so deeply embedded in the Republican majority party, it seems we're not that much different than Iraq.
I don't really know about the neo-cons, but I'd like to see a Republican Party that actually stands for smaller government.
I AGREE!
You really have to read between the lines. At the federal level, they say they won't raise taxes, and they also cut state funding. States suddenly have a HUGE drop in federal dollars, so they have to make up for it by cutting services and RAISING TAXES. So, what really is the truth, and are we purposely being misled? It's a way to force federal government to become smaller and put more responsibility on the states, which I'm not necessarily against, but personally I think there is a better and gradual way to do it so people don't get hurt and states can benefit and be stronger in the process. Unfortunately, the current theme is to "starve the beast."
