Will Dean Lose To Bush?

[jku]

Will Dean lose to Bush? Political Analyst and Turncoat-telling-State-secrets-to-A-hooker Dick "The DIck" Morris says YES!

What do you guys think? I support anyone running against Bush, but the GOP are so quiet about DEAN, they only bash Kerry. Something is telling me the Republicans have something on Dean - maybe that he was skiing in Vail during the Vietnam War? Maybe worse? But they think they can beat him no problem.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/5261.htm

[cheetah]

Yes, the repubs really want to run Bush against Dean because they think it'll be like shooting fish in a barrel. They are doing a really good job of making Dean out to be a far left liberal right now, and only time will tell if Dean works hard enough to combat that image. If he wins the nom, he'll need to really hammer home his conservative qualities. The question is, is a fairly liberal social ideology enough to turn off the southern voters who are suffering the more crippling effects of Bush's poor domestic policy? His disaster of a war? I cannot believe that people would vote to keep that just because they SO BADLY don't want gays to be able to get married, but IMO, some people have f'd up priorities. However, if just a small percentage of southern voters are turned off by Bush's disasters, that'll turn several key souther states to the Dems and Bush'll be out. I think the biggest question about Bush v. any Dem is what will matter most to voters: social policies like gay marriage and abortion or the fact that they and half the people they know have been out of work for a year.

[tmodelford]

Cheetah:

Americans have an uncanny way of voting against thier own interests. Southern conservatism is perhaps the best case in point. It is, after all, based on rhetoric and ideology, rather than practicalities. Southerners care less about thier own unemployment and welfare than they do about issues of morality, such as homosexuality and abortion. A president who creates jobs but allows gays into the military is unthinkable to southern conservatives. Unions are weaker in the South and so is activism, generally speaking. Bush will again carry the South, but hopefully that's about all. He's such a terrible president that the rest of the country will soon abandon him, and the South by itself is not enough to carry the day.

[seren1411]

don't forget the inertia factor. A frighteningly large number of people simply take the 'better the devil you know' attitude towards leadership. A second term from Bush is a serious (albeit less than desirable) possibility.

BTW (tangent here) - can anyone tell me if the story that, before moving out of the White House, employees from the Clinton administration removed the 'W' keys from their computer keyboards in a petty strike against George W.'s presidency, has any basis in reality? That's what was reported in the British press and, what can I say, I'm weak and I WANT to believe! :D

[cheetah]

Yes, that was the report. However, later reports I read did a little more thorough job and reported that it is actually typical for incoming administrations of the opposite party to find damage like that. Like children, I swear!

[lostindc]

Seren,

I believe the story about the W keys is true along with a bunch of other alterations to signs around the white house. I recall hearing this on the DC radio stations a couple of times after the election. Although petty I guess it is not uncommon for one administration to play 'practical jokes' on next one.

[KyFeller]

Thanks for the what-turned-out-to-be true story. I never heard that one before. Check out

http://www.officemax.com/press/keyboard.html

[pisces2473]

That is too funny!

[bumper3]

The current situation with terrorism and the war was initiated by the weak foreign policy of Slick Willy Clinton. Clinton had the chance to have bin Laden extradited from Sudan and failed to act on it. In terms of Iraq, this is an unsolved problem since 1990. Remember, Iraq did a king of pseudo-surrender and we left Hussein in power (like morons.) Since then Hussein did not comply with the inspectors and started up all over again. It turns out that the second Bush had the cajones to finally remove Hussein from power and try to solve the problem.

In terms of the economy, it runs in cycles people. There are periods of ups and periods of downs. We just so happen to be in a period of down and combined with the one sided trade policy with China that Clinton enacted which allows Chines goods to be cheaper than everywhere else (if anyone is curious, I will explain it to you on another post) and allows jobs to be shipped overseas the jobless situation would correct itself.

It is so sad when a bunch of democrats, who stand for nothing and only against everything get together.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by bumper3
The current situation with terrorism and the war was initiated by the weak foreign policy of Slick Willy Clinton. Clinton had the chance to have bin Laden extradited from Sudan and failed to act on it. In terms of Iraq, this is an unsolved problem since 1990. Remember, Iraq did a king of pseudo-surrender and we left Hussein in power (like morons.) Since then Hussein did not comply with the inspectors and started up all over again. It turns out that the second Bush had the cajones to finally remove Hussein from power and try to solve the problem.

In terms of the economy, it runs in cycles people. There are periods of ups and periods of downs. We just so happen to be in a period of down and combined with the one sided trade policy with China that Clinton enacted which allows Chines goods to be cheaper than everywhere else (if anyone is curious, I will explain it to you on another post) and allows jobs to be shipped overseas the jobless situation would correct itself.

It is so sad when a bunch of democrats, who stand for nothing and only against everything get together.

This is laughable. First, Hussein actually let the inspectors ni and they were actually AT WORK inspecting when Dubya got all huffy and decided to invade another country UNPROVOKED and without international support, and in violation of UN policies on not invading countries that have not attacked you. And now Bush is expecting them to come to his aid? I would laugh at him too, for his arrogant treatment of the other citizens of this planet.

Secondly, one may not put all the blame of the economy on Dubya's administration, but his tax cuts to his cronies coupled with massive increases in spending and increases in government in general (did someone say Republicans were in favor of reduced government? not the case anymore apparently) is just embarrassing. He is fiscally irresponsible, had and has no exit strategy for Iraq, which is one reason we got into this fiscal mess and his administraton is more replete with neoptism than any other I have ever known of (witness the awarding of oil contracts to Halliburton before the war even started). To indicate that he was brave for invading this country is not only disingenuous, but disgusting.

[lostindc]

Originally posted by bumper3
In terms of Iraq, this is an unsolved problem since 1990. Remember, Iraq did a king of pseudo-surrender and we left Hussein in power (like morons.)



I think this critisism of bush 1 in unwarranted. He laid out a clear objective for gulf war I and he met it thus achieving victory. The objective in this war is not clear, changes by the week, and thus makes achieving victory incredible difficult since victory is all about meeting the objective.

[bumper3]

I was not criticizing Bush I, but he whole policy of the United Nations in creating an objective of just removing Iraq from Kuwait and not removing Saddam from Iraq. Bush I did a great job leading during the Gulf War with his hands tied.

In terms of Saddam Hussein, he is a lunatic along the same lines at Adolf Hitler. He slaughters his own people and whether we find them or not was creating weapons of mass destruction. The weapons inspectors sent in by the UN were doing there job, but were so slow in doing it, they proved ineffective.

I have to hand it to Bush, I dont exactly agree with everything the man is doing, but at least he is doing something. All Clinton did when our embassies were blown up in Africa was lob some cruise missiles at some camels in the desert. This did nothing as evident by the events of 9/11.

The tax cuts were long overdue, and our government does not pay any interest to us on the surplus that existed, that we paid for with taxes. The events of 9/11 were not foreseen, I am sure that taxes would not have been cut if they were.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by bumper3

In terms of Saddam Hussein, he is a lunatic along the same lines at Adolf Hitler. He slaughters his own people and whether we find them or not was creating weapons of mass destruction.


This is the fallacy of invincible ignorance, and a totally ineffective argument. Here is the definition and other examples:

Invincible Ignorance
Classification: A deductive fallacy of circularity.



Description: The argument defends a position by simply refusing to acknowledge the force of the arguments used against it. In effect, the argument says, "If your arguments are sound, then my position is false. But my position isn't false, so your arguments can't be sound." This is a fallacy of circularity because it assumes what is in question, namely the truth of the position being defended.



Examples:


"I don't care what the studies say. Smoking hasn't killed me yet."


"I accept on faith that the earth is flat. The evidence for a round earth must have been faked."


So, basically what you are saying is that no matter the evidence, you are going to believe what you believe and that's that. Well, why bother debating then? It's kinda useles debating a person with unfounded beliefs!

[bumper3]

So what you are saying is, gassing a few hundred thousand of your own countrymen, which Saddam did, does not make him a little crazy?

Wait a second, am I debating with Saddam? He has not been found yet, so maybe I am.

[lostindc]

Originally posted by bumper3


The tax cuts were long overdue, and our government does not pay any interest to us on the surplus that existed, that we paid for with taxes. The events of 9/11 were not foreseen, I am sure that taxes would not have been cut if they were.

Bush has been cutting taxes since 9/11 so that statement is not true.

What surplus? We have half trillion dollar deficits for the next several years? Where's the surplus? Maybe it is next to saddam's wmd . . .

[bumper3]

Were you not awake during the Clinton administration? The country was running a 500 billion dollar surplus. Where do you think that money came from? From the tax payers who were not recieving any interest on that moeny. To think any sane person would cut taxes when we were running a deficit is moronic. There was a surplus, and instead of having that money sit in government coffers, a decision was made to return that money to the people, directly in the from of cash. It is typical of a democrat to think that the money would be better spent on "programs" like welfare that only benifit people who dont work and contribute nothing to society. I think it is a shame that so called "rich" people pay for programs that they get no benifit from. If you feel the need to pay more taxes, than by all means go for it, just dont include all the other hard WORKING Americans that pay taxes for programs that benefit people who dont work.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by bumper3
So what you are saying is, gassing a few hundred thousand of your own countrymen, which Saddam did, does not make him a little crazy?


Nope, just that we are not SUPPOSED to, allowed to, nor should we invade every country with a crazy dictator. Are you now abandoning your argument of WMD? It appears so, because you knew it was flimsy, I would guess. So, not only was it wrong to go to war on a false pretense, but if we are now going to go to war with every country that is having political strife or a crazy dictator, why aren't we in NK, or many of the African countries, or China? Because Bush wants oil money, that's why! That's what I am against: false pretenses, lies about motivations, inconsistencies with how foreign policy is applied, lack of international support, and of course, the bumbling way the aftermath is being addressed. Apparently, you think all these things make Bush heroic.

[bumper3]

I dont think Bush is heroic, he was not carrying a weapon into Baghdad. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, the were developing them and actively searching for materials and expertise to make more. They were doing this, not in defiance of the US, but in defiance of all countries. Look what happened before WWII, Germany was banned from building up an army and producing offensive weapons. Most of the countries did nothing while this was happening, and look what happened. Is this what has to happen before someone steps in and does something? Do I think the US should go around and invade countries with brutal dictators? No, I dont and if we did, how come we are not in North Korea, or better yet, why have we not squashed Fidel Castro down in Cuba? There was probable cause for the invasion of Iraq. Oh, and by the way, Bush is not looking for oil money, Iraq was not discriminating who they were selling their oil too, and they were selling it for cheap. This was about safety. I am sure you would be the first person to stand up and scream when a NY city subway gets gassed by a weapon smuggled out of Iraq. Such a small thinker......

[cheetah]

Originally posted by bumper3
I dont think Bush is heroic, he was not carrying a weapon into Baghdad. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, the were developing them and actively searching for materials and expertise to make more. They were doing this, not in defiance of the US, but in defiance of all countries. Look what happened before WWII, Germany was banned from building up an army and producing offensive weapons. Most of the countries did nothing while this was happening, and look what happened. Is this what has to happen before someone steps in and does something? Do I think the US should go around and invade countries with brutal dictators? No, I dont and if we did, how come we are not in North Korea, or better yet, why have we not squashed Fidel Castro down in Cuba? There was probable cause for the invasion of Iraq. Really? Pray tell, what was it? Our own intelligence agencies did not feel the evidence was good enough and yet the Bush admin presented it as true regardless. You're not relying on that are you?
Originally posted by bumper3

Oh, and by the way, Bush is not looking for oil money, Iraq was not discriminating who they were selling their oil too, and they were selling it for cheap. False. Many European countires had oil contracts there and were benfitting in some ways more than us. Now who has big contracts? halliburton. Do you know anything abuot Halliburton?
Originally posted by bumper3

Such a small thinker...... Ad hominem attacks like these are both unwarranted and against forum rules. Please discontinue.

[jku]

I am concerned that in this debate, BUMPER from outside Chicago, has relied too much on the talking points of the Bush Administration - and NOT enough on personal objective independent analysis and understanding of America's relationship with Iraq.

Up until the late 1980s, Iraq and Hussein were American allies in the Middle East. Bush Sr. even gave $200 million to Iraq in 1988. Rumsfeld was sent to Iraq in the mid-80s as an envoy for Reagan. A picture says a thousand words:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/

That horrible gassing of Kurds in Northern Iraq in the late 1980s? It was done under OUR Government's watch - because we sided with Iraq when Iran and the Ayatolla were the "evil ones." Why wasn't it a human rights crisis then? Why is it justfiable for War in 2003?

Bush1 had a CLEAR chance to kill Hussein in the first Gulf War. Bush promised AIR support to the Kurdish rebels who were going to take Baghdad and overthrow Hussein. At the last minute, Bush pulled out, the reason was later told in an excellent 60 Minutes story told by Admin insiders - Bush's Admin felt that its better to have a known quantity such as Hussein (a former friend), instead of a new regime (who most likely would have been friendly with the United States, but we will never know).

With no AIR SUPPORT, the Rebels were literally slaughted. Their throats slashed, left on the streets like dogs, an example of what will happen if anyone challenged Hussein.

Bush1 lost the election - a bumper sticker at the time read: "Sadaam still has his job, do you?"

After 10 years of sanctions, thousands of Iraqis died of starvation. Iraqi oil was still not supposed to come to America, but it made it here anyways via Syria, Yemen, etc. Cheney's company, Halliburton, sold and supported Iraq in their attempt to rebuild their oil industry - all through the 90s. Iraq also had UN weapons inspectors - who dismantled their weaponry to the point that Hussein was the "mayor of Baghdad," a classic "paper tiger." A eunuch of a dictator.

So why did Bush attack? Simple. It SEEMED easy, and an easy war meant re-election in 2004.
Also, the military industry that financed his campaign needed a payback, and a limitless supply of contracts ("$87 BILLION, thank you Mr.President") from Iraq would be perfect. Far from Congressional oversight, and no one will ask questions for fear of looking "weak on the war on terror."

These are facts, good or bad - take them for what you will BUMPER.

But to justify greed and bankruptcy of the American people with the death of almost 3000 people in NYC people doesn't sit well with me.

It shouldn't with anyone else either.

[dakotagopher]

___________________________________________
Originally posted by JKU

Up until the late 1980s, Iraq and Hussein were American allies in the Middle East. Bush Sr. even gave $200 million to Iraq in 1988. Rumsfeld was sent to Iraq in the mid-80s as an envoy for Reagan.

That horrible gassing of Kurds in Northern Iraq in the late 1980s? It was done under OUR Government's watch…..
Bush1 had a CLEAR chance to kill Hussein in the first Gulf War. Bush promised AIR support to the Kurdish rebels who were going to take Baghdad and overthrow Hussein. At the last minute, Bush pulled out (since they) felt that its better to have a known quantity such as Hussein…… instead of a new regime (who most likely would have been friendly with the United States, but we will never know).

With no AIR SUPPORT, the Rebels were literally slaughtered.……...

After 10 years of sanctions, thousands of Iraqis died of starvation. ……….Iraq also had UN weapons inspectors - who dismantled their weaponry to the point that Hussein was the "mayor of Baghdad," a classic "paper tiger." A eunuch of a dictator.

These are facts, good or bad - take them for what you will BUMPER.
__________________________________________________

Ah yes. Blame America First. The standard fallback position of the Left.

One thing that always amuses me about those on either end of the political spectrum is that they will predictably mirror the arguments of the other when their opponent is in charge. Also, it sure is easy to Monday Morning Quarterback our foreign policy with a decade of hindsight to fall back on.

Wasn’t quite so easy, I suspect, when we were embroiled in the cold war looking for allies where we could find them. The wrong choice with hindsight? Probably. Learn from it and move on. FIX THE PROBLEM, NOT THE BLAME, is my favorite Japanese industrial slogan. Too bad our political system expends so much energy on pointing fingers than on fixing problems and fronting solutions.

You are right, of course, on Bush1. His failure to remove Saddam now looms large, but his REASON for not removing Saddam seems to be proven right……..wonder how the leftist historians will spin that one………but it definitely is NOT “most likely” that the new regime would have been “friendly” to us since it likely would have been made up of extremist Shiites. Same problem we’re running into now over there.

Like it or not, Saddam (in all of his brutal, despicable evil) was the single most stabilizing factor in the Gulf region. His Baath party kept the majority Shiite sect under their thumb and away from the fanatical Iranian imams. Bush1’s key concern in this matter was never Iraq………it was Iran. Now, with the removal of Saddam, we’re seeing more conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites every day. How long before Iran’s influence becomes overt? And without Saddam’s regime to maintain the buffer between Iranian Shiites and Iraqi Shiites, we may be left with one big angry assertive chunk of humanity.

Bush2’s hand was forced by 9-11 and I still believe removing Saddam was the only prudent choice all things considered, but it’s come at a frightful cost and we’ve got a lot of work to do in the region. That doesn’t mean it is impossible or not worth doing. No doubt the neighboring nations will do everything in their power to deter us. But if we win, and establish a functional democracy, it will be a clear victory for Good over Evil and the first major strategic win in the war on terror. Trite, I know, but true. My opinion.

And please don’t fall back on the UN weapons inspectors having any appreciable impact on this situation…….the sixteen UN violations combined with Saddam’s refusal to allow unfettered access makes that point moot. The UN is a toothless, clawless tiger without the USA’s backing.

[lostindc]

Even in hindsight I find it difficult to find any errors with Bush 1's handling of Gulf War I or even any possible improvements for that matter. If he conquered iraq in 91 then he'd have the same problem W is having now: chaos, uncertain victroy conditions or exit strategies, and possibly strained US foreign relations. If Bush I aided the Kurds in topping the regime the outcome would have been worse: an immediate invasion of iraq by turkey and a greatly expanded war.

The world is not about us vs them or good vs evil, but rather a complicated and delicate balance of power and diplomacy shared by almost 200 different players each with different concerns a different view point and a different agenda. If the administration doesn't take the concerns of allies into account we risk fracturing the alliance that took generations to build. Foreign policy moves have numerous consequences and side effects: a single assasination touched off world war I.

[jku]

Hi Dakota -
Ah yes, fall back on the standard talking points of the same people who have destroyed the image of America around the world. Why are objective FACTS considered LEFT WING rhetoric - to me its a difference between fantasy and reality - not right/left.
There is no reply to the argument's facts, so the standard RIGHT WING taunt is: "you're so UN-American."
I like you Dakota, I think you're a really sharp dude, but how could you stoop to using a line like that? Questioning my loyalty?
You're well aware I'm a true patriot of the U.S. - as much as you or anyone else. I respectfully ask you for an apology.

If you're just a cheerleader for people have blundered our foreign policy, then why even write a well thought out retort as you did - you could just say "rah, rah - go team" - saves time.

The smartest line was by LOSTINDC, and something I think you should ponder on DAKOTA:
The world is not about us vs them or good vs evil, but rather a complicated and delicate balance of power and diplomacy shared by almost 200 different players each with different concerns a different view point and a different agenda. If the administration doesn't take the concerns of allies into account we risk fracturing the alliance that took generations to build. Foreign policy moves have numerous consequences and side effects: a single assasination touched off world war I.

And Dakota, I'm stunned by this line:
"Like it or not, Saddam (in all of his brutal, despicable evil) was the single most stabilizing factor in the Gulf region."

So he's a stabalizing force in a volatile region in a time of war, but he needs to be removed immediately? Which is it?

So the policy of containment worked then? Right?

How can you not see that this war has everything to do with Bush Re-election 2004 and military contracts? Do you refuse to believe the facts when they're right in front of you?

David Letterman said it best: When we write that check for $87 billion, don't forget, HALLIBURTON is spelled with two Ls.

[doctor_kaz]

We were allies in the Middle East because we were enemies with Iran after they took our citizens hostage at the Iranian embassy and held them hostage for over a year.

We were also allies with Joseph Stalin during World War 2. It doesn't mean we were responsible for the horrors of Stalinism and the spread of Communism. (Of course, the Left has never even acknowledged the existense of the horrors of Stalinism, so that point might not mean a whole lot to some people). We also allied ourselves with Ho Chi Minh during World War 2. That's the way that the world works. Sometimes the immediate threat requires you to take drastic action.

It would be nice if we lived in a fantasyland where we never had to ally ourselves with an unpleasant regime. But that just ain't the way that it works.

Originally posted by lostindc
The world is not about us vs them or good vs evil, but rather a complicated and delicate balance of power and diplomacy shared by almost 200 different players each with different concerns a different view point and a different agenda.

Share this with someone who lost his families in the gas chambers at Auschwitz or someone who lost some of his buddies in the smoldering rubble of 9-11. Or maybe a refugee of Pol Pot's murderous "Killing Fields". There is such a thing as good vs. evil and us vs. them. World War 2 was a clear cut case of us vs them and the man that we defeated was very, very evil. The Cold War was very much the same. Sometimes the free world has to defend itself against aggression and the forces of intense hate.

When we fought against Japan we didn't have round table discussions about how Pearl Harbor was our fault because of our Pacific Imperialism. Blame America was not the knee-jerk reaction of the American Left at the time. There were no Howard Dean's and Noam Chomsky's in the 1940's. Thank God.

9-11 was our Pearl Harbor. The remaining question is whether we will answer it like Neville Chamberlain or Winston Churchill.

As for the subject of this thread, if Dean gets nominated, it will be another Mondale/Carter/Dukakis type disaster for the Democratic party. Dean simply represents the angry reactionary Left and he has no mainstream appeal.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by doctor_kaz

When we fought against Japan we didn't have round table discussions about how Pearl Harbor was our fault because of our Pacific Imperialism. Blame America was not the knee-jerk reaction of the American Left at the time. There were no Howard Dean's and Noam Chomsky's in the 1940's. Thank God.



So, are you saying it is always useless and unpatriotic to review and analyze what effect we may have on the world that then leads to further effects that we may not like? Or do we only see in cause and effect vision, without being allowed to look at what caused the cause? That is terribly simple minded and short sighted.

If we are allowed to occassionally review what we ourselves had the power of doing and doing differently, please let us know fo examples of when that might be, because from your post, apparently, we are never supposed to question whether any of our actions might cause a reaction we don't like.

[dakotagopher]

____________________________________________
Originally posted by JKU

Why are objective FACTS considered LEFT WING rhetoric ………..There is no reply to the argument's facts, so the taunt is: "you're so UN-American." …….. how could you stoop to using a line like that? ....I respectfully ask for an apology.

If you're just a cheerleader for people have blundered our foreign policy……just say "rah, rah - go team".

And I'm stunned by this line:
"Like it or not, Saddam (in all of his brutal, despicable evil) was the single most stabilizing factor in the Gulf region."

So he's a stabalizing force in a volatile region in a time of war, but he needs to be removed immediately? Which is it? So the policy of containment worked then?

.....this war has everything to do with Bush Re-election 2004 and military contracts?
_________________________________________

JKU - I mean no offense, you are obviously paying attention & involved & eager to effect positive change in American. However, you seem to have the blinders on! Don’t be one of these people that is so passionate for their political ideology that they are blinded to objectivism. Consider all facets of a situation. Much of what you espouse on these boards, while intelligent, is pure hard left spin. Often you present opinion and half truths as Hard Fact when it’s not the case……. While I agree on many points you made, I was just pointing this out and commenting that things are not always so clear…….

Anyway, a few points:

1) there is plenty of reply in my post to your “facts”. However, your interpretation of these facts is open to opinion. As DP Moynihan (spelling?) liked to say, “you’re entitled to your own opinion but you’re not entitled to your own set of facts.” I clearly agreed with you on your assertion why Bush1 left Saddam in power…..but disagreed that this was the wrong decision; in fact, it appears to have been the right decision considering the problems we’re having there now. Also agreed that we supported the regime throughout the 1980s………..this is clear……..

2) Yes, sigh, Saddam was stabilizing, keeping the sunnis & Shiites apart and the religious fanatics from gaining control. However, as I said, Bush2’s hand was forced by 9-11 and he had to take Saddam out. Containment arguably worked up to that point, though it shredded the credibility of the UN and of two US presidents, plus cost thousands of innocent lives. Can you imagine the hue &cry from the Left had Bush left Saddam in place and a future terror attack were to generate, directly or indirectly, from Iraq? The obvious thorn that we should’ve been focusing on from the start? Back to my point about how it’s so easy to criticize and second guess from the cheap seats………..

3) I am not a cheerleader for those who’ve blundered our foreign policy……..I noted in my post that the policy of supporting Iraq in the 70s & 80s was likely wrong……..HOWEVER, my overriding point is that it’s pretty weak to hammer on these issues so hard using the benefit of hindsight. Be objective…….be fair………..when we were fighting to keep the wolves at bay in the cold war (few of us remember the realness of that threat now) we couldn’t possibly foresee the repercussions of supporting Saddam. Foreign policy takes a long time to “bloom” one way or the other……..

4) I never called you “un American” as you say………never questioned your loyalty……strange you would come away with that impression from my post. All I noted is how quickly many on the Left will justify horrific actions based on our support of the party that performs the crime. This is total BS and I think Dr Kaz’s post (see below) well describes why this fallback position is so weak.

5) This war may well help Bush win again in 2004……..but I think it’s left wing spin that the election or rewarding big biz is the root cause of the war. Had there been no 9-11, there is no way we’d be embroiled in this conflict. Bush is reacting to a new world. Plus, I think the war could as easily hurt Bush as help him in the election……….

I read an editorial today that said we’re involved in the “War for Civilization.” Not too inaccurate! But that is another thread.

[lostindc]

Dr. Kaz,

World War II (like WWI, the cold war, and just about every other period in history) was an excercise in Diplomacy. Winning WWII required deft diplomatic actions to the point where it could be argued that diplomacy greatly affected the outcome. Churchill did not announce that he was "going it alone" but rather looked to create an alliance. FDR did not tell Japan "to bring it on".

WWII was filled with treaties and broken treaties, lend-lease deals, and side switching, so much so that the war was won at the diplomatic tables in as much as it was won on on the battlefield.

To be successful in diplomacy one need to consider the 200 different view points, reactions and side effects rather than just telling your allies "its my way or the high way". Unforunately it seems that this administration is taking the latter approach.

BTW with all the dictatorships in the world why Iraq? Why not north korea or iran or syria or . . .