oh joy, more drivel from a witless democrat who ignores facts to engage in cliche generalizations.

FACT: The NTY article to which you refer used an anti-Bush source at the IAEA. NBC News has footage of American troops at the allegedly “unsecured” weapons facility less than 24 hours after the invasion. The weapons had been removed months before.

FACT: France sold those same weapons to Iraq, ANOTHER of the many economic reasons explaining why France opposed liberating Iraq.

FACT: Bush is at 51% (Kerry 47%) according to CNN’s latest poll. Further, Bush leads is ALL national polls and in the electoral college. Incidentally, he is also winning in WI by 4%.

FACT: In 1980 the economy was in deep recession and headed to depression. It took Reagan and a broad shift in policy to affect positive change.

FACT: The unemployment rate has DECREASED.

FACT: The US has never possessed the “Largest standing army in the world” as you put it. Where did you imagine that “fact?” Our military is actually quite small. Technologically advanced weaponry and strategic warfare innovation make our military so potent. In 1980 there were many countries with a larger standing army than the US (Iraq, North Korea, China and the Former USSR are fine examples.)

Rob Deters, you should know that ignorance is no defense. Your article is shamefully inept.

Actually I found the “pay as you go” jab extremely funny, as did many people.

-klemz

To Anonymous #1:

Ignorance may not be a defense, but neither is arrogance. Even if Bush is re-elected, he cannot continue his current course. Let’s have some fun and address your “facts” or as discerning citizens say, “half-truths”.

“FACT: The NTY article to which you refer used an anti-Bush source at the IAEA. NBC News has footage of American troops at the allegedly “unsecured” weapons facility less than 24 hours after the invasion. The weapons had been removed months before.”

Actually, Rob doesn’t refer to a NYT article. Are you really trying to claim that the story is made up, because an IAEA official doesn’t like Bush? Fact is, the explosives are missing and it is only now coming to light. So the explosives disapeared between the time we told the inspectors to leave Iraq and today. This is not disputed. Can you still claim Bush is on the right track with Iraq? The sanctions and inspections were working in Iraq, do you have any “half-truths” to say otherwise?

“FACT: France sold those same weapons to Iraq, ANOTHER of the many economic reasons explaining why France opposed liberating Iraq.”

This is surely not “fact”, but speculation at best. For you, there may be no difference between opinion and “fact”, but let’s examine why France opposed this bungled mess in Iraq, (one can hardly call it a liberation, well except our lovely anonymous poster). How about the fact that 10% of France’s population is Arab. Even if France was opposed to the war because of Financial Reasons, it really doesn’t justify anything, except probably the real reason we went into Iraq, to stop this shady dealings and get our share. May sound like a fair idea, but hardly the “facts” presented before the war. Those “facts” have been discredited (ie. wmds).

Plus, don’t accuse Rob of misstating “facts” that aren’t even in his article, which it is becoming apparent you haven’t even read. More proof below:

“FACT: Bush is at 51% (Kerry 47%) according to CNN’s latest poll. Further, Bush leads is ALL national polls and in the electoral college. Incidentally, he is also winning in WI by 4%.”

Um, great for you, but did Rob mention anything about polls? Oh yeah, here is what he said:

“Bush's approval ratings are less than 50 percent in most battleground states. His numbers are shaky, and undecided voters historically tend to break to the challenger. Bush, locked in a statistical tie with Kerry, appears to be in serious trouble.”

First, approval ratings are not the same as the poll you cite. It is a different question. If you think people are happy with Bush’s job, then less than 50% is kinda bad news for you. By the way, a statistical tie means that a candidate’s lead is not more than the margin of error, which is typically about 3-5%. So your “fact/half-truth” is not only off target with regards to this article, but doesn’t show a reason that Bush should stay on his present course.

“FACT: In 1980 the economy was in deep recession and headed to depression. It took Reagan and a broad shift in policy to affect positive change.”

Again, mostly opinion. By the way, our recession ended November 2001. Why does Bush still think cutting taxes every year is economical? Fact is, it isn’t, its ideological.

If the argument is that by giving people tax cuts they will invest it, then could you explain the reason for the market being down? Interestingly enough, when the tax cuts are enacted, the market does increase, but my hunch is, that it increases briefly, then shortly afterwards we see a sharp decline. Why? Again, my theory is that the tax cuts and returns are swept away in the market, by profit takers with better information and access (ie Bush’s buddies remember Bush called ex-Enron chief Ken Lay, “KennyBoy”). This causes inflation to increase, as profits from the market trickle upwards and the burden of the economy shifts from investors to consumers. This may increase short-term growth some, but doesn’t maximize longterm. Without further boring you with MY OPINION (although you saw fit to bore me with yours), my main point is that “it took Reagan and broad policy changes to affect positive change.” is not fact, it is opinion.

“FACT: The unemployment rate has DECREASED”

It is interesting that you cite this. You fail to mention that it has INCREASED under Bush, only to then fall slightly in one of the worst economic recoveries in 70 years. It is also noteworthy that poverty has increased under Bush, showing the types of jobs that people are taking, if they are even looking for work. Basically, this “fact” is not addressing the very real problems of our economy and is misleading.

“FACT: The US has never possessed the “Largest standing army in the world” as you put it. Where did you imagine that “fact?” Our military is actually quite small. Technologically advanced weaponry and strategic warfare innovation make our military so potent. In 1980 there were many countries with a larger standing army than the US (Iraq, North Korea, China and the Former USSR are fine examples.)”

I suppose you are overlooking the Fact that our army is not potent with poor leadership. Abu Ghraib, soldiers who disobey orders, not enough soldiers, not enough equipment, insurgents able to control entire Iraqi cities and regions, not securing Iraq from looting, etc are all examples of the poor job Bush has done reflected in his poor job approval numbers. It is quite clear if Bush is re-elected, he will have to flip-flop from his campaign promises yet again, to fix the mess his current policies have become.

To Rob,

Not everyone who voted for Bush in 2000 is voting for him again. This is my largest qualm with your article, which, yes, I did read.

Josiah,

The claim about Iraqi explosives wasn’t made up. It just cited the facts that the media thought would be damaging to Bush, while ignoring (or not bothering to investigate) any fact that might NOT be damaging. By the time the full story is printed, most people remember only their immediate impression rather than the correction. Yes, I believe that it is deliberate.

From CNN:

“However, late Monday a U.S. television network embedded with the U.S. military during the Iraq invasion said the explosives had already vanished by the time American troops arrived at the site.”

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives.intl

The government isn’t a service industry! Its role is to provide national defense and infrastructure. WTF is it with lazy liberals wanting the government to provide a veritable plethora of services for them? Private industry is not only more efficient than governmental control, it provides a mechanism for accelerated economic and technological growth. Go to class and quit doing the crossword puzzles, you might actually learn something and have an intelligent point to make.

Lizzy,

Who’s cherry-picking facts?

1) “First, military and non-proliferation analysts say that a detachment of soldiers not specifically trained in weapons inspections work and certainly an NBC news crew simply wouldn’t be in a position to make such a determination.” 2) “In any case, that visit wasn’t the first time US troops went to the facility. That happened a week earlier, on April 4th, as was reported at the time. According to an AP account from the following day, the troops made spot visits to some of the buildings and found chemical warfare antidotes but no WMD…Like the visit on the 10th, this visit seems to have been far from exhaustive and thus far from conclusive about what was there. Neither visit seems to provide clear evidence that the explosives were gone — and the first may point in the opposite direction.” 3) Pentagon reports on this have been conflicted. It took all day for the administration to settle on the same story, the one that you put forward. “If you look at the multiple contradictions in the different stories administration officials told reporters over the course of Monday, it’s hard not to get the sense that they’re caught without a good explanation and they’re just making this stuff up as they go along.”

It’s fair to say that the NBC report throws some doubt into the NYT account—but it certainly doesn’t put the controversy to bed.

As for the top poster, relying on one poll one day will only make you feel worse on election day, and your assertion that Bush leads in all polls (though a lead inside the margin of error isn’t really a lead) is simply wrong (LA Times, for example) Bush’s approval ratings have been below 50% in many polls for most of the month, and the race has been inside the margin of error. If young voters turn out, or the undecideds don’t break evenly for Bush and Kerry, the president is toast.

Anonymous,

“Put the controversy to bed”? I never implied any such thing. You might recall my actual point: the media blares any anti-Bush item it can find, and quietly mumbles anything that doesn’t help Kerry or bin Laden.

Incidentally, I can’t check on the claims you quoted, because you provided no link.

“…and quietly mumbles anything that doesn’t help Kerry or bin Laden.”

You not only think our media attempts to help bin Laden, but you classify him with a presidential candidate? Bush-backers really need to stop complaining about how people are always attacking the President. You have lowered yourself to putting Kerry in the same group as Osama bin Laden, and that is just ridiculous.
If you really think that if Bush is re-elected that we will not get attacked by terrorists again, you are ignorant among other things. Terrorsits will find ways to attack us if they really want to, whether Bush or Kerry or anyone else is President.

Lizzy,

I never claimed the story was made up. Do conservatives ever read (although my post was long). I just noted that whatever the case, there are missing explosives. We knew where they were when the inspectors were in Iraq, now we don’t.

Do you understand that you are arguing against the Bush administration? By saying that the weapons were taken before the US reached them is a serious indictment of The Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war. This strengthens my point and you can look to our handling of Iran and North Korea as proof of the change in policy of the US. Whether Bush is re-elected or not, changes will have to be made. I am having trouble believing that Bush is so principled when his foreign policy and domestic policy is so bad, he can’t even stand to continue it. I think this point shows through in the NYT article, however misguided. You should be thanking your lucky stars that people haven’t put the two together, yet. Or at least that those “explosives” are not the wmds that was the reason for our invasion.

As for the liberal media nonsense, how “liberal” was the media when Bush was making his case for war? The NYT itself had to print an apology for not properly laying out the evidence AGAINST Bush’s assertions.

Ah, Lizzy…your defense of this administration is truly admirable.

First, there was only a month between when the IAEA last saw the explosvies and the U.S. forces arrived. This is from March 8th (IAEA sees the stuff last) and Apr. 4th (U.S. troops first inspect Al Qa Qaa, a week earlier than the 101st gets there.)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030405-chem-readiness01.htm

That link shows that when U.S. troops get there they see thousands of boxes containing vials of white powder. HMX and RDX look exactly like white powder and vials of it would be exactly how it would be inserted into artillery shells, exactly what Al Qa Qaa was for.

Then you’ve got the statements of David Kay, weapons inspector, who says that he’s pretty sure the explosives were looted.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-explosives26oct26,1,5204158.story?coll=la-home-headlines

That link above is a registration required link, but it’s free.

Last, we’ve got the whole,”who cares?” issue. The fact is, just prior to invading Iraq, or after we were already there, we allowed 380 tons of high explosives to disappear from under our noses. And I mean that literally. The IAEA secured sites were certainly known to the U.S. Every satellite, spy plane and monitoring device known to our government was given priority to watch Iraq.

It would take nearly forty trucks in a convoy carrying 10 tons a piece to cart that stuff away. Or an even larger operation done piece meal.

Whatever way you cut it, this was a disaster. For the blame to be placed squarely on Bush’s policies is the point. Did Bush himself forget about Al QaQaa? Of course not, just the men under his command.

Is there any doubt that this is a proliferation disaster and probably contributing directly to the injury and death of our soldiers now? I don’t think so.

This issue is illustrative of is the entire point Kerry has made about Bush’s leadership. Bush didn’t plan for his “catastrophic success” in Iraq because the entire idea of going into Iraq was done half-cocked and under false pretenses.

This is why Bush cannot be elected president again. History will judge him so poorly, it’s not even funny. I’m ashamed of my government, not a good place to be, and that’s why Kerry has to be elected. Ratifying the last four years of ineptitude and corruption cannot take place.

John Kerry lied on behalf of totalitarian communists. His organization fabricated charges of war crimes. He smeared America as a fundamentally evil society. Kerry met with the enemy and endorsed the enemy’s negotiating position. Today we learn that he may even have been coordinating with the enemy. It is outrageously dishonest to portray John Kerry as just another guy who disagreed about the cost/benefit ratio of the Vietnam war.

That is not to say that Kerry is the moral equal of Osama bin Laden. But in its fever to defeat Bush, the mainstream media hardly cares about the moral stature of the people it is assisting. The media has proven itself willing to run with anything anti-Bush, even when the stories often turn out to be false or wildly exaggerated. They learned nothing from Rathergate. In fact, 60 Minutes was planning to run with the missing explosives story on October 31st. If it had, then NBC’s evidence might not have come out until after the election.

Many in the media may believe that there’s no penalty for undermining the war on terrorism with partisan, hit-piece journalism. They may be like Marxist college kiddies of the 60’s, who could spout off about the evils of capitalism because they really couldn’t imagine that their cushy lifestyles might ever be threatened. But if they succeed, the consequences will be catastrophic, whatever their intentions might have been.

Wow, Lizzy, are you retarded? What the fuck are you talking about?

josiah and ROb bring up issues relating to his article and you start talking about Vietnam? Flogging that dead horse?

I love it, you were so clearly rebuked and torn to peices by their arguments and you caved and started babbling.

I hope i get to debate you some day. You couldn’t argue your way out of a paper bag!

Anonymous,

I was responding to the post immediately above Josiah’s last post, and hadn’t seen either post following it. If you can’t be bothered to type in a name, then don’t expect it to be clear when someone is responding to you.

Josiah,

I never said that you claimed the NYT story was made up. But you did strongly imply that Anonymous #1 thought the NYT story was made up… at which point, everyone else has probably given up trying to follow our exchange.

It is a spectacular nonsequitor to claim that the explosives story represents a failure of preemption. Preemption NEVER claimed to be able to account for every kilo of explosives. The point was to stop Saddam from using these conventional explosives in weapons of mass destruction. As detonators of nuclear warheads, these explosives could kill millions. Used as roadside bombs, these 380 tons of explosives barely register a blip compared to the 600,000 tons of explosives in Iraq. Preemption worked here.

Earlier you said that the sanctions and inspections were working in Iraq. They weren’t working very well, and thanks to Western humanitarians, they were bound to get even less effective. Because of the corrupt oil for food program that the UN was running, Saddam could rearm and support terrorists even before the war. (Yes, that is the same UN that Kerry thinks should play a leading role in Iraq now.) While Saddam got his weapons and palaces, Iraqis were not getting much in the way of food and medicine. Because of that suffering, the big-hearted leftists were demanded that the sanctions be lifted. As the Duelfer report makes clear, Saddam then planned to resume his WMD programs.

I hope that Bush has not given up on preemption, because Iran and North Korea are threats too. Rob Deters and his like have scorned Bush’s never ending war. In other words, they would like to pretend that if we stick our heads in the sand, we can avoid having to do anything about the rest of the threats in the world. In addition to evasion, they suffer from the fallacy of the frozen abstraction. If preemption always meant invasion followed by a complete takeover of an enemy country, then indeed we couldn’t practice preemtion without a vastly larger military. But preemption just means using our military BEFORE the enemy vaporizes Manhatten, rather than having a “proportional” response to every act, or treating terrorism as primarily a law enforcement issue. With North Korea, preemption should definitely mean a naval quarantine, with the implied threat of blockade. Iran’s nuclear program should definitely be targeted. Preemption should not be off the table, if we plan to win this war.

Lizzie,

Like rob said, your admiration for this administration is quite amazying. I feel if they told you britian was going to attack us you would believe them. In your last and most recent post you actually make a few vaild points.

One is that we cannot stick our heads in the sands and hope to aviod and ignore any threats. This clearly is not a good idea, but i dont think that rob was trying to make this point.

I cant speak for him, but in my mind going into iraq was a good idea, however the way in which it was done was not. If you are to argue that things in iraq are going well and we have done an excellent job, then quite frankly im going to give up talking to you. It doesnt take an idiot to read any news about iraq to realize that things are not in great shape. Any time there are thousands of insurgants inside a country trying to attack innocent people, things are going wrong.

So i think that though i was willing to give Bush a chance, at what i believe could have been a defining moment in his otherwise abismal administration(im refering to his social and domestic policies at home and this is my opinion) he failed. Thats the reason that so many of the news sources are jumping on this. What would you have them do, they are corporations trying to make money, they want the story first and will show it when they have it. The same was true going into iraq with all the news organizations implanting troops into divisions and displaying a much more positive message without ever really questioning the whole thing. i think this says alot for the sad state of our media.

Finally though you think that the U.S. is going to be able to take on North Korea and Iran by itself, you are sorely mistaken. This needs to be an international effort, and though im not sure the international community is ready for such an event, i am certain the U.S. can not do it alone. I think in general it would be wise for everyone considering this next election to take a step back from all the issues that have enflamed us, and think about the world, its state today, and what can be done to improve it. Though i disagree with almost all of your views i still appreciate your willingness to share them. And im still waiting your response to the NYT article i sent you about the WMD claim.

Thanks

Sorry about the lack of links, Lizzy—I got lazy. Thanks to Rob Deters for having my back. BTW, note that your own statement, “Today we learn that he (Kerry) may even have been coordinating with the enemy.” is also the sort of thing for which you might want to provide some evidence, and no, World DailyNews.com won’t cut it. I could just as easily cite internet sources that connect Bush to the Saudis or his family’s connections to fascism (especially Prescott Bush). Do you really want to play gutter journalism with me?

“They (the sanctions) were bound to get even less effective.” Maybe. Is that the sort of calculation, however, on which you want to spend 120 billion dollars (plus 80 more slated, plus an extra 40-50 Bush will beg for if he’s elected), 1000 lives, global credibility, and the ability of our forces to respond to any other global threat? For me, that answer is no. For Republicans, though, no matter how FUBAR Iraq gets, no matter the cost, the lack of WMDs, or the lack of a demonstrable connection from Iraq to 9/11, you still support it. Why—because no matter how imcompetent the president is, or how bad his judgment, he assuages your fear that someone needs to “kick ass”? Supporting a president who threatens to kill people who may harm us, even if his judgment and competence are lacking, strikes me as a cowardly response. I go on conservative message boards to see posters argue that killing a thousand Iraqis is worth one American life, regardless of the circumstances or whether we were right about our reasons for premptive invasion. Terrorism will only defeat our way of life if we capitulate to fear—and supporting Bush, regardless of (what I see to be) his manifest errors, is doing just that.

“Before the enemy vaporizes Manhattan.” Fine—let’s say I grant you the preemptive point. How about targetting the f—-ing countries that are at the top of the threat list? We DON’T target Iran or N. Korea BECAUSE they already have nukes. Our Iraqi adventure has basically told the rest of the world that if they have nukes, we’re negotiate with them, but if they’re still in the process of getting them, we’ll invade them. What kind of incentive do YOU think that creates?

The biggest danger to the United States is NOT “rogue nations”—it’s areas of the world where lawlessness abounds and terrorist groups can move around with relative impunity, because there’s no real authority to contest them. We have a new such place on the map—it’s called Iraq.

“Now, NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski just went on MSNBC with this follow-up (emphasis added) …

Following up on that story from last night, military officials tell NBC News that on April 10, 2003, when the Second Brigade of the 101st Airborne entered the Al QaQaa weapons facility, south of Baghdad, that those troops were actually on their way to Baghdad, that they were not actively involved in the search for any weapons, including the high explosives, HMX and RDX. The troops did observe stock piles of conventional weapons but no HMX or RDX. And because the Al Qaqaa facility is so huge, it’s not clear that those troops from the 101st were actually anywhere near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX. Three months earlier, during an inspection of the Al Qaqaa compound, the International Atomic Energy Agency secured and sealed 350 metric tons of HMX and RDX. Then in March, shortly before the war began, the I.A.E.A. conducted another inspection and found that the HMX stockpile was still intact and still under seal. But inspectors were unable to inspect the RDX stockpile and could not verify that the RDX was still at the compound.”

Drudge pushed the story a little early, I think…so the Republicans will need to concoct a new defense (again). Right now, the meme seems to be coming back to “we can’t possibly control everything”—an argument, perhaps, that might raise the question of whether the administration had the brains or capability to invade and occupy Iraq without actually making American LESS safe.

Anonymous Dimitri,

(Please type in your online name so that people at least have some hope of following the discussion.)

I admire the administration to the extent that it vigorously wages this clash of civilizations. That is by far the most important issue in this election. If we weren’t in this war, then other issues would drive me away from Bush, including his religious conservatism and his willingness flush more money down the welfare state than the worst spendthrift of a Democrat. But when I come here and see criticisms of the President that are just dumb or hypocritical, then it’s easy to defend him all day.

I don’t trust George Bush to win this war, but I do trust John Kerry to lose it.

OT: If you’re determined to show that “Bush lied”, then the NYT article wasn’t the smoking gun your were looking for. Even if we buy the paper’s spin completely, it mostly shows analysts bending over backward to make sure that Saddam didn’t put another one over on them. In the post-9/11 world, that is exactly what I want from the intelligence community.

Before the first Gulf War, people were surprised at how far the Iraqi nuclear program had progressed. He was not far from getting enough enriched uranium for a bomb, largely because he was willing to use an outrageously expensive and inefficient method of enrichment - magnetic separation. Export controls made it difficult to get U235 by other methods, but nobody was trying very hard to prevent him from using magnetic separation. In fact, I don’t think that anyone had used that technique since the Manhatten Project. A quarter of all spending on the Manhatten Project went into magnetic separation, which was used for approximately one bomb. If Saddam was willing to do that, then completely reengineering some tubes would be minor in comparison.

Anonymous,

You ask for the source on Kerry’s possible coordination with the enemy. Here you go:

http://www.nysun.com/article/3756

You also ask why, if preemption applies to Iraq, are we not also going after Iran and North Korea? I say, “good point!”

I think it’s pretty lame that the Badger Herald staff have to refute the anonymous posters by loggin on as Josiah and Lizzy Lanche. Can’t the Badger Herald staff just write their stuff and let other people respond? I also think it’s pretty stupid that Pat Klemz has to trace down everyone’s IP address actually like he’s going to do something.

Wake up, grow up and shut the f* up!

Clash of Civilizations, eh? Read your Huntington do you?

Lizzy, if you truly are separated from the religious right adn the welfare supporting policies of President Bush (which go much further to business than it does to individuals) then I have to ask, why is that you’re so scared?

I can’t keep track of all these anonymous posters either, however one of them hit it right on the head.

You’re terrified. Petrified. Quaking in your boots. And instead of rationally making decisions, you’re ratifying the decisions of a bunch of war-mongers.

Believe it or not, I’m a hawk. I have a major in itnernational relations, and I completely believe in intervention, humanitarian and otherwise.

Belligerent acts require muscular response.

However, not every situation requires the stick.

Iraq is so off the map, so far removed from the true threats to American safety that only someone blinded by the propaganda can swallow this sucker’s bet.

I never thought the no-fly zones were a bad idea. The oil-for-food program was corrupt, but that doesn’t imply the entire U.N. is corrupt. Cops are corrupt nationwide, do you suggest we get rid of them entirely Lizzy?

The fact is Iraq was a canard. The true intentions of the Bush administration are murky. Was it exertion of U.S. influence on a region it’s long desired to control? If it was it was poorly planned, and pulled off in an arrogant and terribly coordinated manner.

If it was for anything as crass as oil or personal gain, that’s clearer and simply criminal.

Iraq is a failure of ideology and planning. It’s an empty gesture to a scared and bloodthirsty public like yourself.

It’s a lollypop in the crying mouths of Americans who don’t understand why fundamentalists hate us.

You don’t defeat fundamentalists by killing them. You destroy what they feed on…poverty, ignorance, and lack of opportunity.

The clash of civilizations will require guns, but a lot more butter.

This is a law enforcement issue, an incredibly tough one.

But Lizzy, the war in Iraq is never, ever going to make you safer. In fact, I would suggest you don’t move to Manhatten.

“You don’t defeat fundamentalists by killing them. You destroy what they feed on…poverty, ignorance, and lack of opportunity.”

You’re half right. You defeat fundamentalists in part by destroying what they feed on. But because their hatred is so deep and their will to murder innocents so great, you still have to neutralize them in some way. Only one nation on Earth, Israel, has the stomach to even try to neutralize its terrorists without killing all of them, and the price for their humanity is that they are constantly criticized when they do kill one. Such criticism encourages the terrorists. As a result, the only way to ensure that they do not kill any more innocent people is to kill them first.

Lizzy, Someone above said something about how you are not a real person and that you are someone at the badger herald. Though i thought this at first impossible, i was unable to find you on a UW madison search. When i googled you nothing came up besides the badger herald responses you have written. Please let me know if you exist.

Thanks

Rob says that Iraq was “removed from the true threat”, a “canard”, and a “sucker’s bet”. I can only quote these fine words in response:

“Others argue that… confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can.” — John Edwards, October 10, 2002

http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20021010_iraq.html

Rob managed to hit every DNC talking point in his last post. Too bad it blatantly contradicts what his candidates were saying a couple of years ago. But no matter; most people won’t remember that, and the NYT damn well won’t remind them.

That unserious attitude is worse than any specific error, even though it would take twenty posts just to address all of the fallacies of Rob’s latest effort. There is little point in refuting a position that will be replaced by its opposite in a few months. I could show again why Iraq was a threat that couldn’t be left lying around. But when people like Rob merely parrot the position de jour, facts and reason aren’t likely to convince them.

It is the same say-anything mentality that allows Kerry to condemn the war rationale he endorsed, and to support the tactics at Tora Bora before he dismissed them as “outsourcing the fight” in Afghanistan. It adds only a little irony when he demands that we now outsource the fight in Iraq. And that attitude didn’t start with Iraq. America likes a war hero? Presto, Kerry is a war hero, and don’t you dare question any details. America likes an anti-war hero? He’ll call the war a great big war crime and throw his medals over a wall. America is proud of its veterans again? Well, he didn’t really toss his own medals.

I said earlier, much of this nonsense occurs because the kiddies don’t believe there is any consequence for their posturing. Well, children’s hour ended on 9/11. The choice now is not for the person with the best policies. It’s between Kerry the petulant child and Bush the adult.

Dear Anonymous,

Lizzy Lanche is my pen name. It refers to what happened to the Herald when it posted an especially stupid article by Fayyad Sbaihat. If you don’t want to use your real name, go ahead and use a psuedonym. It will make the discussions easier to follow.

I do, however, find it amusing that you demand proof of my existence while posting anonymously.

Lizzy, I think it interesting that you call me out on my DNC talking points.

Research my past articles, especially the ones prior to the Iraq war. I have been on this position since before it was a talking point. I believed it before there was a full slate of candidates vying for Bush’s job.

I believe this because it’s true, not because I take marching orders from the DNC.

I have been where I am on the war since before it’s inception, while it was going on, and in it’s aftermath.

I have been, I’ll be honest, more consistent than Kerry on this.

That doesn’t change the fact that Kerry will be a better leader than George Bush.

Besides, I love the fact that Republicans bring up the “pre 9/11 mindset” as the problem with Kerry.

Whose pre 9/11 mindset was blinder?

The leader in the White House who sidelined a seasoned anti-terrorism expert, ignored (or didn’t understand) his briefings on the threat from Bin Laden until it was too late and then responded forcefully, but left the right war too early to fight an unneccesary one too inadequately?

Bush’s leadership has been horrendous and we are all paying the price.

Rob denies spouting the DNC talking points, and then proceeds to spout various DNC talking points. Along the way he shows exactly the mentality that I talked about: he has no serious suggestions and is willing to say anything, even if it blatantly contradicts his stated principles.

He accuses Bush of ignoring or misunderstanding his briefings on bin Laden. Yet the “smoking memo” of August 2001 never mentioned anything that might be comparable in magnitude to 9/11. If the administration had warned airlines about a hijacking, the airlines might even have made things worse. Airline policy was to have flight crews be as cooperative as possible, to prevent terrorists from killing anybody on board while their demands were being heard. That policy wasn’t especially effective on 9/11. There were measures that could have been taken prior to 9/11, such as racial profiling at the flight schools, or increased airline security. But the left is going into hysterics over the loss of liberty, even AFTER 3000 people were murdered. Is Rob really going to tell us that he would have embraced such measures without the 3000 dead?

Homeland security is a big Maginot Line, unless it is coupled with aggressive action against the terrorist bases. Now I know that Rob has called the “war on terrorism” a law enforcement operation. I doubt that even he would suggest sending a police officer out to Afghanistan to ask bin Laden if he would like to come ‘round to the police station and answer a few question. The real options look rather militaristic. Bigger missile strikes, commando raids, and even an invasion might have been possible. Rob Deters calls Bush a warmonger for using military preemption, even in the post-9/11 world. And now he wants us to believe that he would have endorsed military action before 9/11?

Rob’s columns are not analysis. They are the poutings of a spoiled child.