JK Speech

[once a runner]

JK will have to be more moderate if he becomes president. He can't pass laws by himself. Remind me again, who controls the house and senate? It's amazing that Bush hasn't done much considering the republicans control everything these days. Oh yeah, there was that tax cut....which helps us afford gas these days.

Analyst, to answer your questions.... if I had proof that we were to be attacked, I would take action. However, I don't believe (and it's just my opinion) that we ever had proof. I just don't think GW was satisfied with just bombing Afghanistan. And no, I don't have proof that he lied. But we also don't have proof that he told the truth. When someone makes an accusation, they should be able to back it up. Maybe Iraq did get rid of the weapons before the UN inspectors found them. But wasn't that the objective? To get them to get rid of the weapons? We didn't need to start a full scale war to get the job done. Would someone please tell me why Saddam would risk his wealth and power to get into it with the US all over again? Even for a madman and tyrant that makes no sense.

As for N. Korea, this whole situation could have been averted a couple of years ago. I think the timeline went something like this....US goes to war with Iraq, Bush called Iraq, Iran and N. Korea the axis of evil, N. Korea admitted it will start its nuclear program back up. I think they are doing it as a self-defense mechanism since we bombed Iraq and they are lumped in with them as the axis of evil. So they must be thinking they are going to get attacked sooner or later, so they better re-arm themselves.

And now, in a very recent speech, Bush is "calling upon the world to help confront these dangers". Does that mean he's going to enlist the help of the UN?

[TheAnalyst]

Oncearunner. Here is my take on things. The president has access to a vast amount of intel, much more than you or I ever hear about, or that becomes public knowledge. I have always felt, if it was Clinton, or Bush, or whoever, that they would make the best decisions based on the info they had at hand. So in my mind Bush must have had intel that told him we needed to be there. You said it best when you stated that people should have proof when they make an accusation. Many have accused Bush of lying, but where's the proof? He knew he would be putting thousands of soldiers lives at stake. I don't think that is a decision that any president takes lightly. Some presidents are afraid to make that decision, and it's a tough one no matter what is decided.

Now, was their plan of action well thought out once they got there. Personally, I think the admin has failed somewhat on this part. The days of conventional warfare are gone and they need to think beyond that.

If Saddam destroyed the weapons, he was supposed to document it and allow the inspectors to see it. He didn't do that, which leads to all kinds of speculation as to what actually happened to them. Saddam loved to play a game of chicken with the US. He never in his mind thought we would actually come. He wanted to embarass us on the international stage. In the first Gulf War, he had actually invaded another country and we didn't go after him, so he put up a big bluff and was called on it this time. He was/is a very evil, arrogant man. He even went so far as to try to have the first President Bush assassinated.

And why go to Iraq in the first place if their is no threat? Oil? There are a thousand other places in the world to get oil. I have never bought into that argument for one second. All of the money that has been spent on this war could have bought alot of oil or been used to develop alternative fuels. Maybe someone else has other ideas why we are there.

I think Kerry has some good ideas, and Bush has some bad ones. In the end, it is an individual decision on who to vote for. I think each of us vote for different reasons. Some are concerned about abortion, others the economy, or the war, and some people just don't like Bush, just like some couldn't stand Clinton.

[LionPride]

Here is a quote from Paul Galanti that sums it up. This is regarding JK's anti-war activities DURING the Vietnam war. Mr. Galanti was a POW for almost 7 years in Vietnam. Keep in mind that Mr. Galanti is a non-partisan person, having been an active member of Veterans for Mark Warner, the Democratic governer of Virginia. He also served as the Virginia campaign chair for John McCain.

"John Kerry gave the enemy, for free, what I and many of my comrades in North Vietnam, in the prison camps, took torture to avoid saying," says Galanti, who was held prisoner for seven years in the prison camps of North Vietnam. Referring to John Kerry's Senate testimony of April 22, 1971, Galanti continues: "It demoralized us. He dishonored his country and, more importantly, the people he served with. He sold them out."

[once a runner]

LP, considering that you don't even believe that JK's war record should be an issue, why keep bringing it up? It's entirely possible to protest the war, but support those fighting it. Lots of people disagreed about that war. It did take a lot of courage on his part to speak against it.

Analyst, I agree we did not go to Iraq for oil. But at least under George Bush, that money would never, ever be spent on creating alternative energy means. He has way too many oil buddies in Texas to let that happen. I believe Bush's strategy for going into Iraq was that the US needed a target to show the world we went meant business. Apparently leveling Afghanistan was to quick and easy. All US citizens believed the Iraqi regime was evil, and they were an easy target. The trouble is, as you pointed out, is their plan after attacking seems somewhat muddled.

I certainly agree with taking out terror cells where ever they exist, but I still don't see where the Iraqi regime was a threat to anyone outside of their own country. Apparently the administration thought it was important to flex our muscles to the rest of the world. I thought we did that in Afghanistan and that should have been the end of it.

[TheAnalyst]

Maybe this will help shed some light:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/ ... am.terror/

I also saw on TLC or the Discovery Channel a few months a tv show about the CIA and terrorism. One of the episodes dealt with Iraqi leaders meeting with members of al Queda (sp) in a third country. Russian intelligence had made the US aware of the meeting and special forces went in and killed everyone at the meeting. They were discussing plans to attack the US. I know it was a tv show, but in my mind, along with Putin's statement, seemed to give some creedence to the fact that Iraq was becoming a danger. It may be years until we know the full truth.

[LionPride]

JK's war record and anti-war activities are 2 different things. Try to imagine yourself in a POW camp, being tortured because you refuse to admit that you're a war criminal, and have a Naval officer on the radio telling the world (and it being broadcast in your cell), that you are indeed a war criminal instead of a prisoner of war. Don't you think that would be demoralizing? Don't you think that it would embolden the north Koreans? Don't you think that many, many American GI's were further tortured/killed because of a military officer going on record saying atrocities were the norm and not the exception? I don't doubt there were probably atrocities that happened at some of military personnel's hands, however, I seriously doubt it was as widespread as Kerry made it sound in his speech to the Senate that day. Have you heard the words in this speech? To listen to it, you would have thought that every soldier went into every village and committed these acts.

To say Kerry was courageous to do this is absurd. It wasn't courageous, it was selfish - because he only did it to advance a starting political career. He did that on the backs of courageous American soldiers that were being tortured and killed in POW camps. These guys were fighting for their lives in those camps, and Kerry made it much, much worse for them. Those are the facts. But, everyone on the left has put the blinders on to this.

Would you vote for a Republican that admitting to committing war atrocities? If not, why would you vote for Kerry. When asked if he committed any of these atrocities, he said that he did. Again, another fact.

[foghorn]

More than a few people have made the point that people like John Kerry who had the courage to speak out against the war and influence policy so that the US had no choice but to get out of Nam might have helped save thousands of lives of solidiers who would have died over there had the war continued.

For you NYT hating people out there, the op-ed page today has two pieces, one pro-Kerry and one anti-Kerry. Just thoght I'd point that out.

Good old Scarborough has turned loose Pat Buchanan in this Kerry Swiftboat controversy. Of course, Pat has his own agenda, to prop up the evil Nixon administration. He's like a dog with a bone: entertaining for a while but then has to be kicked out of the house.

[CRLionDawg]

Where is it documented that Pat Buchanans agenda is to prop up the Nixon Admin?

[foghorn]

It's documented in my brain when I see and hear this old Nixon speechwriter and political advisor take every opportunity he can to put a positive spin on that administration and defend it like a guard dog. Of course, he would deny it. Kerry's protests when he came back from Nam were directed at the Nixon administration's management of the war. In a way, I don't blame PC for reacting this way -- it just compromises his role in discussing this particular issue. Personally, in the past few years I've come to like Buchanan despite some of his views -- he just needs to sit this one out.

[CRLionDawg]

If he sits much longer he wont be able to crawl out of his chair.

Without him on the ballot who will the little old ladies in Florida have to vote for?

By the way, what happenned to the Independent/Ross Perot party?