:::shakes head at people with blinders on:::
Kerry stated he would have voted to give Bush the authority to take action, regardless of WMD evidence presented. He believed that the President has the perogative to use force, if needed, in such affairs. In that, he is not entirely correct, either - that's why it's up to a vote in the first place.
Beyond that, we do NOT know what action he would take, though keep in mind, under Clinton, he favored ALL military action taken against Saddam.
As for 9/11, it's another myth that Bush blamed the whole thing on Saddam. It's also still not proven, one way or another, whether he had involvement. There are actually some compelling, though tenuous bits of evidence that he did indeed have something to do with it, starting with potential sleeper agents planted in Kuwait in 1991 (several hijackers and other al qaida agents have history back to Kuwait, after the country was liberated, but NO TRACE of existence before then.) as well as meetings between Iraqi officials and known al qaida operatives in Europe. For all that's said about the differences between the Baathists and al qaida, they had a common enemy (the West), and as the saying goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" - the two had plenty enough common "cause" to put aside those differences.
My point isn't to make the case they were working together - only that the possibility has NOT been disproven and there are still too many unanswered questions to make that statement.
Likewise, it's a terribly flawed logic to also state Saddam had no WMDs. We do know several things:
1. Saddam DID attempt to buy yellowcake from agents in Africa. Joe Wilson and his wife provided some evidence of this, though they've switched stories several times - but other witnesses have verified this as fact; and Wilson is anti-Bush, so his obvious flip-flops on the facts underscore his lack of credibility at this time.
2. Saddam's reluctance to allow inspectors free access. It still boggles the mind. Without WMDs, the only possible explaination is that Saddam THOUGHT he had WMDs, but was lied to by his advisors. The other reason, well.....
3. Various stockpiles of chemical artillery shells found around Iraq. Mostly these are discounted as old, aging relics of the 80's war with Iran, except two things bother me about it.... a) they were supposed to be destroyed, in accordance with UN resolutions after Desert Storm and
Some of the shells found could NOT have been that old, based on the agents involved. I can see several reasons for the US to hide the true facts here, but I feel the greater good would have been served to reveal it here. Obviously, the hunt is on for the remainder of these weapons, hence the downplay of these WMDs found as "old relics"
4. Roach coaches or biolabs? We all saw the discovery of these, revealed embarrassingly on network news.... pooh-poohed by Blix as nothing more than roach coaches, though no food preperation appliances or whatnot was found, only ammonia and bleached -wiped surfaces hidden behind secret panels. The set up was ideal for a bio lab, not a rolling meal wagon. What happened to the contents? I'm sure that question is a scary one to intelligence - perhaps one bad enough to bury the discovery of these trucks? Nobody in the military has ever fully dismissed these trucks, either, to my knowledge - just ignored the situation until nobody asked about it anymore.
5. Buried treasures.... Saddam buried whole aircraft in the desert (quite a big desert, by the way), as well as missiles (under 6 yards of concrete, no less). He had bunkers 10 stories deep. We have still not located all of his caches and hiding spots. Advanced missile systems he was NOT supposed to have have been found in shipments of scrap metal sent out of Iraq as the US beat the war drums.
6. The curious rotation of border guards. The Baathists had an odd habit of occasionally, for a day or two at a time, replacing border guards along the Iraqi-Syria border with members of Saddam's personal guard. The only obvious reason is so material and people could be moved across the border. What kind of material might we be talking about, anyway? This happened much more frequently as the impending invasion neared.
Taken separately, I suppose "somewhat" plausable excuses could be made, but together? It's clear Saddam
thought he had WMDs; the reality/fact of this is still in question, as his advisors might merely have been milking him for years.
Is the world safer with Saddam gone? Hell yes. The spasms of Islamists fighting the introduction of tolerance and democracy should be seen for what they are - the dying gasps and desparate grabs for power by criminal and radical elements alike. With all of the attention on "ousting" the infidels, there is nobody to sponsor training, financing and arming of terrorists, at least in Iraq. Iran is spending all of it's energy in two efforts: building a nuclear weapons program and supporting the Shiite insurgency in Iraq; Many Iraqis see Iran's role for what it is, by the way. We'll surely have to deal with Iran's nukes soon enough, as the UN Muslim nuke authority continues to dither and buy time for Iran - but it will happen.
Syria is also laying in wait for some serious attention, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn we've got a serious build-up of intelligence assets in country now; revealing "official" knowledge of WMD transfers to the Baaka Valley would likely jeopardize those efforts - meanwhile, Syria won't move a damn thing, for fear of being revealed themselves. In effect, their role as sponsors of global terrorism is limited, at best.
North Korea? They no longer have Libya and Iraq buying arms from them. Iran, yes, but for how much longer? China won't support any aggressive acts, nor their nuclear ambitions, so it boils down to attrition. Frankly, how much longer can they hold out without any new cash to feed and pay their army? It sounds cruel, as the waiting game will cause millions of North Koreans to starve to death, but it's Kim's choice, ultimately, unless we choose direct confrontation.
Iraq presented several tough problems from a sanctions standpoint. It's clear France, Germany and Russia illegally used the food-for-oil program to get oil from Iraq and it resulted in BILLIONS in profit (perhaps more so that WITHOUT the so-called UN sanctions) with the Iraqi people paying the price as Saddam luxuriated in his palaces and his sons raped and tortured the population. Food-for-oil officials also illegally raked in millions in bribes and incentives to look the other way as these activities went on. There was no way the West could "wait Saddam out". Meanwhile, Saddam was paying families of Palestinian suicide bombers as direct financial support of terrorist acts. Oh, and as a minor issue, he was thumbing his nose at the U.S. the whole time.... while it rankled, it could easily be forgotten (as in the case of Kim or Khamanei) except for the other little items in the Iraqi portfolio.
I'm not a big fan of some of Bush's policies, but even those I'm not fond of, he's managed to distance himself from taking action on (these being personal liberty issues). For those imprtant things, like the war on terrorism, he presents a far more attractive and focused leader on the matter than Kerry ever will. The worst thing I can say about Bush is the ever-growing deficit, but there are several factors (including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the recession that began before he took office) which make arguing the fiscal situation moot at this point.
What should disturb you is what Kerry WOULD ACTUALLY DO, since it's clear what he says, and what he does are often different things. He's a war protestor who stands behind his "glorious war hero service" as evidence of his ability to act as commander in chief, yet even now, after evidence continues to mount, he admits his first purple heart resulted from self-inflicted wounds, and he was not under enemy fire at the time. He's a priviledged person with homes all over the world, able to do things on a whim you or I have to spend years planning and saving for. On Sunday afternoons, he's having wine and cheese socials arguing the finer points of a Manet he just bought, while "Dubya" is kicking back having a barbeque with his Texas neighbors, enjoying a football game. I know who I have more in common with....
Kerry's chief supporters are billionaires and millionaires - people who've NEVER had to worry about overdrafts and making a rent payment. They are people who have stated, time and time again (Hillary most recently stated it) "we will take your money and spend it for the good of the people" - Hmmm.... the good of MY people is what's best for my family, not what some stuck up socialite
thinks my money should be spent on (like needles for heroin addicts or welfare checks). They've spent MILLIONS on "527" organizations like MoveOn.org, which exists solely to ATTACK Bush and have direct ties to the DNC and Kerry campaign, in violation of FEC regulations. They have stated, quite bluntly and openly that THEY know what's good for us, and they'll shove it down our throats for "our own good" whether we like it or not.
Kerry's people will not suffer $3-4/gallon gas prices.
Kerry's people will not be forced to use interest-only payment home loans.
Kerry's people will not be forced to debate bankruptcy proceedings to keep a roof over their family's heads.
Kerry's people will not ever contemplate the need to get food stamps to feed their children.
The more I am forced to rebut the anti-Bush crowd, the better I feel about voting for Bush in this coming election. As a veteran, and as somebody who knows many honorable Vietnam vets, I find Kerry more descpicable every day the election creeps closer. His own words and actions taint him and demonstrate his absolute inability to lead our nation as Chief Executive. Kerry's certainly proven himself as an excellent gigilo, servicing rich women. He's also great at delivering speeches, no matter what the facts really are. Realistically, though, the only reason most of his potential voters support him is becuase he's not Bush, and that's simply idiotic.
Author
Topic: Bush Vs Kerry (Read 985 times)