Today on Blogcritics
Home » Appeal to the Liberal Voter

Appeal to the Liberal Voter

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

This letter is directed at my liberal friends on the need to vote for George Bush.

We must dispense with myths and deal with truth.

George Bush inherited an economy slipping into recession and because of his moves, including the passage of his tax cut plan, the United States suffered the shallowest recession in our history. More people are now working today than ever before! So the myth that we are losing jobs is incorrect. You can make the argument that that manufacturing jobs took a hit but there has been an increase of entrepreneur spirit not picked up on the radar screen.

Let face it, if you are liberal you have to be happy about many things that Bush has done. He has doubled federal spending on education and yes, he actually passed a drug plan for seniors. (If you don’t buy into Bush’s liberal spending spree, then you should actually read what many of my conservative friends complain about. They complain about the increased spending on education and a new entitlement program passed under George Bush.)

The key to this election is simple. It is national security, and which presidential candidate is better prepared to defend our national interest. Kerry’s thesis, as incoherent as it is, is based on the fact that we are fighting the wrong war at wrong time and we pissed off our allies. He opposes Bush’s policy of “preventive war” and his “going it alone” approach.

Kerry is wrong on both points. The war in Iraq is connected to the war on terror. There was and is an alliance between certain Middle East nations, including Saddam’s Iraq, and the terrorist network. The evidence is overwhelming, so there should be no debate. Now I am going to ask you one question: is the world better off without Saddam or not? Kerry has all but admitted that the answer is no. Under a President Kerry in 2001, Saddam would still be in power and there is no guarantee that the Taliban would not still be in power either.

Remember during the first month of the Afghanistan war, there were talks of a quagmire in Afghanistan? Now we had seen elections in Afghanistan and the Taliban are on the outside looking in. There is a long way to go in Afghanistan but who can deny that Afghanistan is not a better place today? Today, the terrorist network have two less states to operate from.

As for Iraq being a preventive war, well, this rush to war included 16, 17, 18 or maybe even 19 UN resolution disobeyed by Saddam over a 13-year period. (As for the number of resolutions, I lost count.) Iraq was in violation of UN dictates, so the war was indeed justified by international law. 13 years cannot be classified as a “rush to war” nor could it be called “preventive.”

I will give you one bit of advice: Don’t depend upon the mainstream media for your news on Iraq. You will get all the bad news but not the good. You will not hear about the military successes that are occurring, the involvement of Iraqis in their own defense, as well as the rebuilding of a new civil society. You will never be well informed on most issues if you depend upon the evening news and the New York Times for your news.

Iraq will have elections in January and begin its slow march to a democratic government. So Bush has liberated two Muslim nations from Islamic fascist regimes. These are accomplishments that should be celebrated not trashed.

Now let us turn to the charge that Bush has gone it alone. We now know that the French, German, Chinese and the Russians were being bribed with money provided by the food for oil program. The sanctions were collapsing and the French were profiting from their relations with Saddam. With children starving to death and denied precious resources, Saddam was enriching himself with proceeds from the Oil for Food program. The French were taking their cut as well. So do you want to ally yourself with a bunch of weasels that steal from children?

There have been 30 nations who sent troops on the ground and this alliance is comparable in numbers to the original Gulf War alliance in 1991. Have the American bear the brunt of the causalities in this conflict? No, when you count Iraqi soldiers and police officers. As for alliances, our contributions were similar to the first Gulf War (an alliance that Kerry opposed.) We bore the brunt of the casualties in the first Gulf War. In the second Gulf War, the Poles and the Italians replaced the French military participation from the first Gulf War. A fair trade in my estimation.

We also bore the brunt of the defense spending during the entire cold war and while Kerry has used Reagan as an example of alliance-building that Bush should emulate, Kerry opposed the policies of Reagan. So I would like to know what alliance or global test that Kerry would approve? He opposed the first Gulf War and he opposed the Reagan-Bush policies that liberated millions in Latin American and Central Europe.

Bush is building new alliances. We are seeing an emergence of an Anglosphere alliance between Australia, Great Britain and the United States. We are witnessing a closer relation between India and United States. The Japanese, Australia and Russian Prime Ministers have endorsed Bush, so this idea that Bush has engaged in a unilateral policy is false. There are more than enough leaders who are prepared to work with Bush and prefer his reelection. In his dealing with the North Koreans, Bush is working with Japan, China and Russia in a multilateral fashion. So much for the lone cowboy. (I will add that Kerry has already stated that he will abandon the Bush’s multilateral approach!!)

In the meantime, Kerry has disparaged those allies that have supported us. Did you know that Kerry sister campaigned against John Howard, the present Australian Prime Minister? Just ask the Polish Prime Minister his thought on Kerry. It was not positive.

Kerry prefers the company of the French, who were taking money under the table from Saddam to those who bled side by side with us. When Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi came to Washington, one of Kerry’s advisors called him a puppet. Nothing like disparaging an ally, who is risking all including his life. Kerry foreign policy is “screw those allies who are helping us and kiss the ass of those who are screwing us.”

John Kerry has taken numerous positions on Iraq, much of it poll-driven but his public record shows a man who never been on the right side of history. When Reagan was building our defenses and designing policies that would end the cold war, Kerry opposed them. When the first President Bush was organizing the alliance of the first Gulf War, Kerry opposed it. Kerry has a record and there is no nuance needed to decipher it. So how important is winning the war on terror? That is the question you must ask yourself.

Now let us discuss one more thing. I want you to read this. This came from Instapundit.

“On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod’s law dictates he’ll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr – where are you now that we need you?”

If a Republican had said this, it would be hate speech and rightly so. Much of the left has engaged in this kind of rhetoric. George Soros, the left’s biggest moneyman, has insinuated that Bush is a Nazi. The Democratic Party has a memo for their operatives in the field to yell voter intimidation where none exists. Democratic field operatives are being told to lie about incidents of voter fraud to tie up the court system and delegitimize Bush’s victory. It is as if the left has decided to launch a scorched earth policy. Do you feel comfortable with these tactics? Then there are the cases of outright violence against Republican headquarters including robbery and drive-by shooting. On one occasion, one Republican volunteer suffered a broken wrist. Where is the outrage?

Politics can be a rhetorical rumble and I have no problems with John Kerry attacking Bush’s record, nor should you be concerned about the Republicans examining Kerry’s record. Each candidate must defend what he has done and present a vision of what he will do. There is no place for violence or encouraging voter fraud. Democrat activists are presently doing both. Nor has the national Kerry campaign condemned these acts of violence upon Republican headquarters nationwide.

As I mention, you have to take what you read in the mainstream media with a grain of salt. The mainstream media has taken sides. An ABC news executive wrote a memo that his reporters should be “harder on Bush than Kerry.” CBS not only pushed a false story about Bush’s National Guard duty but also gave the Democrats a heads up by contacting at least one Kerry advisor before the story came out by suggesting a meeting with their source. I could go on but as I mention, you are not getting the full truth. Evan Thomas of Newsweek has admitted that the Mainstream Media wants Kerry to win and that their favoritism means a bump of 5-15 points in the polls for Kerry.

So what is Bush’s vision?

Bush wants to spread our democratic institutions worldwide. This is a liberal idea or least it use to be.

Bush wants you to keep more of your money and wants to you to have more ownership of your healthcare and social security. Thus his promotion of health saving accounts that will make health care more affordable, and his proposal to allow individuals to own a portion of their social security. (Notice the word portion: Bush is not asking for a complete privatization of social security.)

Bush will use the Federal government more extensively in educational matters than most of we conservatives are comfortable with.

Bush would like our toughest social issues settled by the people, not the courts. (I should point out that both Kerry and Bush believe that marriage is between a man and woman. The difference is that Bush is willing to let us decide the issues and take the issue to the people. His Vice President has come out in favor of a federalist approach. Kerry wants the courts to decide the issue so he doesn’t have to take a stance.)

Lest I forget, Bush will not bring back the draft. While this rumor has been spreading like bonfire, the only people who actually have proposed a return of the draft and drafted legislation to accomplish that objective were Democrat legislators like Representative Charles Rangel.

You might not agree with Bush’s agenda but you have a President who is looking ahead to the future. You have a President who understands that 9/11 has changed our world forever and that new alliances will be formed and we can’t depend upon old alliances to defend ourselves. He also understands that there will be a time that we will need to act alone to defend ourselves.

Democrats like Ed Koch and Zell Miller have abandoned their Party for this election because of national security issues. They have not abandoned their liberal traditions but are trying to rescue them. For one election, you can join Koch and Miller, among others, for if our freedoms are not defended abroad, they are at risk at home. That is why Bush should be elected President.

About Tom Donelson

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    In total denial, are you?

    Instead of going after the terrorists, Bush invaded Iraq and increased the threat of terrorism worldwide, made the US less safe.

    Instead of growing the economy, his inept economic approach has brought this country to the brink of a recession.

    His deficits are going to reduce the GDP of the world.

    He promised jobs – maybe he shouldn’t have, but he did – and hasn’t been able to bring back the jobs lost under his watch, much less the additional 7 million jobs required because of population growth during his term.

    Any place you look – enerygy, environment, the economy, security – he has been a total failure.

    America’s failure would be to let him continue.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    A good post that brought up important points, but I just recommend a little better job at editing in the future…

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    ” Bush will not bring back the draft.”
    Your reasoning is that Bush SAID he wouldn’t bring back the draft? Bush also talked about their being a direct threat of WMD’s from Iraq.

    Please don’t base any arguments on what Bush SAYS. Let’s stick to what has actually happened. Let’s stick to the record. Let’s stick to the largest attack on US soil, let’s stick to a war brought on false pretense, let’s stick to a man who commonly doesn’t know what he is talking about or what he has said in the past.

    We are talking about a man who is simply not competent to be President.

  • bob2112

    RJ, are the points Hal so articulately displayed worthy of your support? I have a more graphic style of the same exact message, yet all I get from you is discourse & disdain. Please explain? Different styles, different people, same message. What’s the difference?

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    Your question is actually a $200 billion question, and I answered it when Bush asked: “Can You Imagine What Iraq Would Be Like If Saddam Were Still In Power? (Link opens in new windows)

    • Iraq would be less of a threat to Americans than it is today.
    • There would be over a thousand more Americans alive today.
    • There would be tens of thousands more Iraqis alive than there are today
    • More Iraqi children would be in school instead of running around in the streets.
    • Iraqis would have better security and better health care, crime would be far lower.
    • Iraqis would have more running water, more electricity and better sanitation.
    • Iraq would be producing more oil.
    • There would still be no WMDs and no terrorists in Iraq, fewer terrorists worldwide.
    • We would have spent less yet been able to catch more terrorists where they were and are (Britain, Poland, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Peru, Switzerland, Indonesia, Philippines, Florida, etc.)
    • We would have spent far less yet been able to improve homeland security (95% of incoming cargo is still not inspected, chemical plants that can kill millions have no security, etc.)

    Anything else?

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    Um, just to connect the dots for others, Tom sent me the following in an email so I responded with comment 5:

    Tom: I won’t go into a debate on the subject but here is the million dollar question. Is the world better off with Saddam in power or not? That is the one question that those who oppose Bush’s policy to answer.

  • Shark

    What a deluded load of crap. So much to debunk, so little time.

    Tom: “Don’t depend upon the mainstream media for your news on Iraq. You will get all the bad news but not the good. You will not hear about the military successes that are occurring, the involvement of Iraqis in their own defense, as well as the rebuilding of a new civil society.”

    So Iraq is hunky-dory?

    Averaging 120 insurgent attacks PER DAY? 18 Iraqi civil servants died yesterday + six American GIs wounded.

    And a free election in Iraq in January?

    Ahahahah. Don’t hold your breath, pal.

    (We won’t even see a ‘free’ election in the US in November.)

    Tom: “…Bush wants to spread our democratic institution worldwide. This is a liberal idea or least it use to be.”

    1) spreading democracy with a miltary invasion force is NOT a “liberal” idea;

    2) Bush HAS been successful in spreading hatred of Americans;

    3) Bush HAS been successful at increasing recruitment for Al Queda;

    4) What happens when Iraq’s “democratic” vote ends with a fundamentalist Muslim theocracy? Do we get to “invade” and try again?

    Iraq is very simply: BLOOD FOR OIL.

    If you’re a millionaire, drive a gas guzzler, and don’t have a close relative in the military, then go ahead and VOTE FOR BUSH, the most dangerous leader in American history.

    PS: Is the above essay more evidence that your average Bush supporter is barely literate?

  • http://philosoraptor.blogspot.com Winston Smith

    Thanks for the sober, seroius argument. I disagree almost entirely, however. I’ll be brief and address just one general point. you write:

    “The war in Iraq is connected to the war on terror.”

    This is the same kind of vague formulation that the administration uses to pull the wool over our eyes. The war in Iraq is related to the Battle of Kursk, the War of 1812, and the Crusades…but any old connection isn’t good enough.

    “There was and is an alliance between certain Middle East nations including Saddam’s Iraq and the terrorist network.”

    An alliance between “certain ME countries” and “THE terrorist network”? If this is what it takes to justify invation, then we’ll have to take out the whole ME. Again, the formulation is so vague it is useless. As we now know, there was NO OPERATIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QAEDA.

    “The evidence is overwhelming, so there should be no debate.”

    About this you are absolutely right. We know the answer: there was no significant relationship. Bush was wrong. Meaningful debate on this is over.

    “Now I am going to ask you one question, is the world better off without Saddam or not?”

    Well, that’s a completely different question. Another administration sophistry. But even ignoring that: though it’s an almost impossible trick to pull off, somehow we made the world WORSE by deposing one of its worst, most brutal dictators. You’d almost have to TRY to do that. It’s virtually impossible. But Bush did it.

    Bush will go down in history as the worst president since Andrew Jackson.

  • boomcrashbaby

    You forgot to mention that Bush, diverting our might from Osama in Afghanistan to go after a rat in a hidely hole, has given terrorists nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives, that they didn’t have before.

    The article points out that these weapons are capable of detonating a nuclear weapon.

    Don’t forget to pass this info along, in your appeal to the liberal voter.

    Every day Bush is in office, I cannot help but feel more and more vulnerable. Whether it is from the Religious Right who wants a medieval theocracy, or the terrorists who now have a far greater potential for a nuclear strike than before the invasion of Iraq. The lead lemming is now poised at the precipice and there is such a mob of devoted followers pushing towards him, that some of us cannot get out of the way anymore. It’s scary.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “the Religious Right who wants a medieval theocracy”

    Hyperbole, much?

  • boomcrashbaby

    From my perception it is very much a reality. Many people feel that way.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Really, Tom? You don’t get it, do you? Every argument you make in your entry has been refuted time and again by reliable sources. I knew your entry was doomed when you started it with the claim that Bush had aided education. Are you the only person in the country who does not know that No Child Left Behind is intentionally underfunded? That dropout rates are higher, around 50 percent for Hispanic and African-American kids? That Pell Grants are for smaller amounts because so many more people qualify for them? That Bush’s education miracle in Texas turned out to be a fraud based on not counting the majority of dropouts as dropouts?

    Other posters have ably pierced your fantasy world in regard to other issues.

    One more thing. Your assumption that ‘this came from the Instapundit’ enhances what you have to say doesn’t. Not everyone in the blogosphere falls on their knees because a Right Wing mediocrity in Tennessee blew his nose.

    I can’t speak for other people, but this entry is the kind of nonsense that would drive me away from Bush, if I were undecided. It insults the reader by assuming he or she is uninformed.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Not everyone in the blogosphere falls on their knees because a Right Wing mediocrity in Tennessee blew his nose.”

    Professor Reynolds is not really all that “right-wing,” and if you actually read his site, you’d know that.

    Oh, and at least he posts under his real name, as opposed to a mediocrity from Oregon…

  • tom donelson

    First, my data has been supported by far more sources than refuted. I take my sources and lessons of history anytime over those of my opponents. I have debated more than my share of so called experts and yet to lose. The reason? Facts on my side.

    First, education spending has doubled. Period, no debate. Notice I never said that education was improved by more federal spending but that Bush spent more. It could easily be argued that federal involvement has been counterproductive. Bottom line, Bush has insisted on standards and his opponents have been trying to dilute those very standards set. Bottom line, federal money has increased faster under Bush than Clinton. Case closed.

    Do you believe that my “fantasy has been pierced.” The problem is that too many of you on the left read the NY Times and read talking points from moveon.org.

    For example, one of my critics admitted that Saddam would be better for the Iraqis and the world. Who is living in a fantasy now? The facts are simple and easy to see if you choose. Iraq will only be lost if we lose the will. If you actually read what Iraqis say for the most part and read solid report on what is going on, then you will know two things. We have the advantage on the ground and the political situation could go south, if we abandon our effort. The best source for both the political and military is Strategy page.com. They have proven to be more accurate than the mainstream media or the leftist journals that you obviously depend upon. Let just say, that I read volume of materials from both the left and the right, so I can better informed. So I will ask you the same question the others. Do you believe that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power? And I will ask one more question, Do you believe that Arabs are capable of developing Democratic government or not?

    As for Instapundit, you obviously don’t read the guy often for it you did, you will know that he is not right wing crack pot. Mr. Reynolds is liberal on many social issues including gay rights, stem cell research and abortion. While Mr. Reynolds is hawkish on foreign affairs, he also links to many different sources on his website. If you read Instapundit on a daily basis, you will find more variety and different opinions than what you will ever see on the pages of the New York Times. Reynolds will direct readers to opinion that disagrees with him. What Instapundit provides is variety of views and interesting debates on the big issue. I don’t always agree with him but he does engage in honest debate. The problem with you on the left is that anyone who disagrees with you are ignorant and full of fantasy. I will add that every one of my critics have basically depended upon talking points provided either by the Democratic Party or various left wing organization such as ACT and Moveon.org.

    I have always made the point in my post to respect the opinions of those I oppose and I never belittle their opinions. My writing is design to engage in serious debates. I have many friends on the left who I debate all the time. So I do take your ideas seriously. Obviously more seriously than you take mine.

    My case for Bush is simple:

    He understands the world better than Kerry. Kerry still thinks it is 1969 and not 2004. Do you truly believe that this present war on terror is a law enforcement problem that Kerry has claimed on many occasion? Study History and you will find that we have been here before. Here is a thought, in 1936, the French had the best opportunity to end Hitler’s regime when Hitler marched in the Rhineland. Had the French taken military action then, World War II would have been prevented and millions of lives saved. Bush found himself asking the same question. Do I act now or wait? Hussein was killing thousands of his own people and everyday and his misuse of the oil for food program abetted by the French and other members of the UN aided the effort. With the intelligence available at the time, we had no idea what was available to Saddam. We now know that Saddam was angling to be rid of the sanctions thus his use of oil for food money to bribe many of the UN and that he would have aggressively started a new weapon program.

    I take this a step further. Military action in Iraq allowed us to persuade Libya to give up their WMD’s and much of the intelligence world underestimated Libya progress. If you seriously study intelligence estimate of other countries WMD’s, they have consistently underestimated other nations capacity. It was only in Iraq that we may have overestimated. As I mention, Libya progress was virtually under the radar screen and I might add that North Korea and Iran progressed faster than what intelligence stated would happen. So Bush erred on the side of caution and history will prove him.

    So was 1000 American lives worth liberating an Arab nation? I say yes, and you obviously don’t think that liberating Muslim from Islamic fascists are worth American sacrifices.

    I will also tell you that I have disagreed with Bush on various issues. When he slapped tariffs on foreign steel, I dissented publicly. I have disagreed with his increase in spending. On the other hand, he has had the courage to deal with the problems of social security and health care by taking the debate to other directions. Whether you agree or disagree with his plans for partial privatization of social security or his emphasis on expanding Health savings Account you have to admit that man has put his principle on the line.

    Finally, let’s talk history. During most of the cold war, those who supported the more hawkish stances proved correct. When Reagan build up military defenses and walked away from SALT II early in the 80′s, he was oppose by many on your side of the table. His strategy proved the correct one and the Cold War ended. When many on your side oppose the first Gulf War, Bush senior analysis and strategy proved correct.

    I could go back to Vietnam when the Hawks talked of the domino theory, and the potential bloodbath if the Communist won proved correct. The killing fields of Cambodia produced 1-2 million Cambodians and South Vietnam saw concentration camps. Let just say the political left in this country has been wrong for nearly 60 years on the big issues of national security. Not a good track record and I live in a fantasy world?

    Thank you for taking the time to post and write. Have a good day and I have a feeling that you will be responding soon.

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    That’s a lie, Tom, or an extreme lack of comprehension on your part if you’re talking about my post:

    Tom: one of my critics admitted that Saddam would be better for the Iraqis and the world

    Give it another try, maybe turn the iPod off and concentrate as you read it this time.

  • Tom Donelson

    Actually that is exactly what your post stated that IRAQ would be better off with Saddam and so would the world. You gave several reason for this. I asked the question Imagine what the world would be like and you gave numerous reason why the world would be better with him in power.

    So are we better off with Saddam power and you answered in the positive. So please don’t tell me that I misquoted or misunderstood you.I will give you another chance to clarify your own quotes. Is the world better off with Saddam in power or not? Yes or No

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    You’re wrong, Tom, in saying: “He understands the world better than Kerry. For instance, by invading Iraq, Bush proved that he had no understanding whatsoever of the terrorist threat.

    Contrast the approach to fighting terrorists of the 9/11 Commission with that taken by Bush:

    9/11 Commission Bush:
    Attack the terrorists where they are. Started right in Afghanistan, then abandoned this approach and pursued the neoconservative policy of removing Saddam to aid Israel.
    Eliminate terrorists faster than you create new ones. The Bush Crusade and unilateralist invasion of a non-terrorist, Islamic state does exactly the opposite.
    Strengthen national security. Instead, spent $200 billion in Iraq to implement the neoconservative policy, while homeland chemical plants are unprotected, 98% of cargo is not inspected at ports, millions of aliens illegally enter the country through porous borders from Bangor to Seattle, San Diego to Brownsville. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

    The bottom line is that thanks to Bush we see Worldwide terrorism-related deaths on the rise, and Bush is reckless and a danger to America. It’s time to boot him out and start working on the security of this nation and the world.

  • andy marsh

    I’ll say this, at least all those new terrorists that bush is creating aren’t making it over here. They’re to busy ducking in Fallujah! How do you know that Bush’s policies are creating more terrorists?

    Unilateral! How many countries does it take to get rid of this overused bullshit word?

    The cargo that you speak of is tracked and suspicious containers are actually checked at points of origin. So, although the ports are still somewhat unprotected…it’s nowhere near as bad as it’s made out to be.

  • tom donelson

    Andy, you nailed on the head. First, let dispense with this creating new terrorist. Hey, these guys have been fighting us for over a decade, from world trade center bombing to USS Cole. So we are not creating new enemies, there were already there.

    As Andy mention, how many allies do you need for an alliance. We have at least 30, so will 40 do it for you? As I mention, the alliance is similar to the Gulf war both in scope. US contributed nearly 90 percent of the manpower in first Gulf war and they are contributing 90 percent this one.

    What is this neo conservative plot to aid Israel comment all about? I know when Pat Buchanan uses it, he is referring to the Jewish member of the Bush administration. I am not accusing anyone of anti-semitism just understand exactly what some of those who this phrase are referring to.

    Now let dispense with this notion that Bush administration deposed of Iraq to please Israel. Iraq was not dispose to please Israel, but it was in our interest.

    P.s. historical note on the crusades. The Crusades were in fact a counter attack after nearly 500 years of Islamic pressure upon Europe for control of the Mediterrain Sea. Read Bernard Lewis for more on this.

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    That’s not what the question was before Bush’s unilateralist invasion.

    The question at that time was: will the world and the US be better off if America invades Iraq?

    Bush and his neocon clicque came up with the wrong answer, so the world now has many more terrrorists, everyone is less safe.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Hey, we’re less safe!

    No terrorist attacks since 9/11…

    But we’re less safe!

    Numerous al qaeda leaders dead or in jail…

    But we are less safe!

    Yea! We’re less safe than in 2000, when Afghanistan was run by Muslim extremists, and Osama had endless terrorist camps there. And Iraq was run by a pro-terror dictator…

    But WE ARE LESS SAFE! And only John Fonda Kerry can save us!

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “That’s not what the question was before Bush’s unilateralist invasion.

    “The question at that time was: will the world and the US be better off if America invades Iraq?

    “Bush and his neocon clicque came up with the wrong answer, so the world now has many more terrrorists, everyone is less safe.”

    In other words, you wish Saddam was still in power, and Afghanistan was the first and only American reaction to 9/11.

    Nice…

  • curt

    rj -

    you speak very bravely.

    if you’re so gung-ho for this invasion and subsequent occupation, why haven’t you enlisted and volunteered for combat?

    or would that be too dangerous? it’s much safer playing the cyber-patriot role, while someone else sacrifices life and limb in your place over there…isn’t it?

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    No, RJ, your words are yours, not mine.

    I’ve told you the same thing more than once; I wish you’d learn.

  • Shark

    Curt to RJ: “…if you’re so gung-ho for this invasion and subsequent occupation, why haven’t you enlisted and volunteered for combat?”

    We’ve asked him many times. His example of integrity of character is apparently modeled on his heroes Dick Cheney and George aWol Bush.

    ie. CHICKENHAWKS.

    Tough War Talk is cheap when you’re “fighting terrorism” from some Junior College in Florida.

    feh.

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    Wrong, RJ .

    RJ:No terrorist attacks since 9/11…

    Surely you understand that this is not a measure of safety? The terrorists waited 8 years before their second strike at the World Trade Center.

    But because of engaging in a unilateralist invasion of a country that had diddly-squat to to with terrorists:

    • As an attack on Islam, it increased anti-Americanism and pushed those who already disliked America closer to hate and fanaticism (and many over that line).
    • As an attack on a state that had little to do with terrorism, it is a major distraction and diversion of attention and resources from the real jobs of suppressing terrorism and encouraging democracy.
    • As a unilateralist invasion, it weakens the international unity that is required to effectively deal with the Islamic extremist cells interwoven into the fabric of countries like Britain, Germany, the Philippines, Thailand, Bangladesh and probably dozens more.

    As policy, it was doomed to failure and we’re seeing some of that played out in Iraq and around the world.

    RJ: Numerous al qaeda leaders dead or in jail…

    That’s disingenuous.

    18 of 24 Al Qaeda who were on a list have been captured, but that’s out of 18,000 Al Qaeda. And it does not address the issue of the scores of other terrorist groups worldwide.

    Abandoning the war against terrorists gave them a huge boost. (Link opens in new windows)

    Our Commander-In-Chief has failed catastrophically and must be fired.

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    Tom, you wouldn’t have had to ask if you had followed the link I provided. Since that was too much effort, here’s what you would have found there:

    Earlier, [Richard Perle] was involved with Israeli foreign policy. In 1996, then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked an Israeli think tank to come up with a foreign policy statement for him. Here are some excerpts from it:
    [Introduced the idea of getting rid of Saddam:] “Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right …”

    [And the idea of having the Hashemites control Iraq, which James Woolsey raised again last year in the Wall Street Journal:] “Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.”

    The report was produced by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith [now Undersecretary of Defense] and others [A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ]

    A few days after the report was prepared, Prime Minister Netanyahu presented it virtually verbatim to the US congress, looking for help from the US to get rid of Saddam.

    Congress didn’t buy it, so in early 1998 a few right-wing partisans in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) presented an “Open Letter to the President” (Clinton), once again asking for an attack on Iraq (“In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing”). An amazing number of signatories to that letter have since become part of the Bush administration and clearly had a big hand in the invasion of Iraq. Here are a few whose names you’ll probably recognize:

    Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense)
    Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Secretary of Defense),
    John R. Bolton (Undersecretary of State)
    William Schneider, Jr. (Chairman of the Defense Science Board in the U.S. Department of Defense)
    Elliott Abrams (National Security Council, Middle East and North Africa portfolio)
    Zalmay Khalilzad (Bush’s ambassador to Afghanistan)
    R. James Woolsey (not in the current administration)
    William Kristol
    William Bennett
    Vin Weber
    Richard Perle

    That didn’t work, either, so PNAC sent the letter to Republican Senate Leader Trent Lott and Republican House Leader Newt Gingrich. A few months later, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was passed.

    I’ve posted more material on the neocons in case any of you are interested in more facts:

    “WHAT THE HECK IS A ‘NEOCON’?” – Part II
    “WHAT THE HECK IS A ‘NEOCON’?” – Part III

    Further reading (authors’ opinions are theirs not mine):
    * The rise of the neocons Once-over-lightly briefing mentioning the neocon Marxist roots in The Week Magazine 05/23/2003
    * Among the Neocons [Probably the best of this list] “A foot soldier in the ideological wars relates what went wrong with neoconservatism.” By Scott McConnell, ex-neoconservative founder of The American Conservative Magazine 04/21/2003
    * Neoconservatives Were Spawned Right Here in N.Y.C. Includes quotes from William Kristol, lists some neo media, money men, “clubs and scene-makers,” and more. 04/28/2003

    The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism and everything to do with ideology on the right.

  • Truth Minister

    Tough War Talk is cheap when you’ve never served in the military either.

    It’s sad when you sell out and put your fellow soldiers in danger for all of a few months just as John “F”erry Kerry did to get his purple hearts. It will definately cheapen the value of the true purple hearts of our real hero’s if that quack is elected.

  • tom donelson

    A few more points, obviously,I have ruffled a few feathers.

    First, everytime most of the Bush’s critics speak- I hear unlaterial, unilateral. Nice talking point but not true. 30 nations equal a coalition. Repeat 30 nations equal a coalition. Only in a leftist feverish mind would 30 nations count as unilateral action. Let us quite confusing French approval for a coalition. So repeat after me- 30 nations equal a coalition.

    Second, George Bush is now a puppet of Israel and neo con (most of whom are Jewish) so sounds like the old Zion of Elders language. The 1998 Iraq liberation act was passed by wide margins on quite a bipartisan fashion.

    Here is the bottom line. There is two frame of thoughts. We go after “terrorist cells” abroad and “try to intercept them at home” or we sapped the oxygen out by crippling or going after the terrorist states that support them.

    So far the score card reads- Iraq, Afghanstan out of circulation, Libya giving up nuclear weapons, Pakistan nuclear bazzar sales stopped, 50 million Muslim now beginning first steps to democracy. Sound okay to me.

    I will add many Israelis find Iran and Syria just as much of a threat as Iraq. Let put it this way. Bill Kristol opposed Bush in 2000, so this is one neo con who strayed off the reservation.

    Now for a more serious tone. I understand the position that some have taken that have we taken the ball off the terrorist? I will say no for the simple reason going after terrorist means dealing with the nations involved.

    There are significant difference. Kerry would have left Saddam in power. Somehow, leaving a thug who killed hundre of thousands of his own people while threatening others should be a good thing.

    In January, you will see a national election throughout Iraq and as we speak, there have been local elections throughout Iraq so the process is ongoing. In the mid-80′s, El Salvador had elections in the midst of a civil war and yet today, El Salvador is still a functioning democracy. Democratic roots take a long time to root but it can be done. Think of India, Japan after World WarII, Italy, Spain, Germany after World War II, and the naysayers were there as well.

    What I see more than anything is a lack of faith in what we can accomplish and lack of confidence in who we are as a people. Optimism is an American trait.

    So, I will not convince many who disagree. Have a good night.

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    Clearly you haven’t been paying attention, Tom.

    Invading Iraq was Netanyahu’s foreign policy. The listed neocons and a few others convinced Mr. W to do their bidding on this.

    Going after terrorist cells is indeed the way to fight terrorists.

    Going after them in Afghanistan was a smart thing to do.

    Invading Iraq was stupid – the terrorists weren’t in Iraq at the time of the invasion.

    How this administration has managed to convince so many that reality was different boggles the rational mind (but does indicate how good Rove’s propaganda machine is).

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    “30 nations equal a coalition”

    Oh yeah, the Coalition of the Killing — a ragtag militia of mercenary and sycophantic nations, most of whom sent in-kind items rather than soldiers. OK. Real coalition.

    It is nice that you would try to convert the libs to your side, Mr. Donelson, but surely you had to realize that this was a fool’s errand from the get-go.

  • Shark

    Since Tom’s deluded mention of “No Child Left Behind” — and MacDiva’s reference to Bush’s hideous record here in Texas, I thought it appropriate to provide a link to “Bush’s Record as Governor”.

    It’s pretty dismal, but not near as bad as his record as President. (He never invaded Mexico once during his Governorship!)

  • Eric Olsen

    as Nat alluded, this post is a polemic, the purpose of which is to convey a certain perspective as convincingly as possible, which it does very well. Everyone is free to dispute interpretations and conclusions, which those who disagree with Tom’s overall position are bound to do. Outrage over his central thesis – that Bush is the better choice even for liberals – is rather pointless

  • curt

    “it will definately cheapen the value of the true purple hearts of our real hero’s if that quack is elected.”
    post #28, truth minister

    sorta like gw bush, who went awol his last 1 1/2 years, cheapened the value of the true honorable discharges of our real guardsmen?

  • curt

    “tough war talk is cheap when you’ve never served in the military either.”
    post #28, truth minister

    you mean like dick cheney, karl rove, john ashcroft, newt gingrich, rush limbaugh, rj elliott and the rest of the right-wing chickenhawks?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    Curt – I keep reading your complaints about W and his guard service.. Any ideas why jFk hasn’t released ALL of his military records?

  • curt

    andy -

    i’m not the lone ranger in my complaints about w and his (non)guard service. check out http://www.awolbush.com

  • tom donelson

    Thanks for responding, some points. Are we still debating Bush’s National Guard record. Let face it, CBS tried a smear job only to find it was all false.

    Bottom line, is National Security important enough to change Party for one election? My answer is yes, some will answer no. Have good weekend.

  • curt

    don’t you find it peculiar that texans for truth have NOT found ONE SINGLE person to collect their $50,000 reward for a gw bush siting at dannelly afb in 1972?

    if he was not awol, then how come no one saw him there, including the commanding officer, whom he was ordered to report to?

  • http://www.rodneywelch.blogspot.com/ Rodney Welch

    George Bush is a lying, ruthless, amoral war-monger who has made every American life less secure, and will continue to do so as long as he is in office.

    THAT is the grim reality we can choose to face, or not face, next Tuesday. The man can’t be kicked out of office soon enough.

  • Truth Minister

    And if Kerry is elected we might as well go ahead and send some flight simulators overseas to the terrorist. It would be alot cheaper than Clinton’s way.

    If anything Bill Clinton should be prosecuted for allowing this to go on for eight years while he disgraced the White House.

  • Truth Minister

    If you want a free ticket to drive drunk, snort cocaine and rape women, just say that your last name is Kennedy or Clinton.

    Damn those whore-monger, terrorist harboring, rapist liberals!

  • Truth Minister

    Maybe Kerry could write a kids book and call it “not by the hair of my chiny chin chin”. Kind of like that other famous character who nose grows when he lies except his chin grows. God help us all…

  • http://www.rodneywelch.blogspot.com/ Rodney Welch

    I’m looking forward to the day George W. Bush is tried for crimes against humanity.

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    I agree that National Security is important enough to change Party for, and am waiting for the other Republicans to agree with you, Tom.

  • curt

    truth minister -

    wasn’t is future president gw bush who:

    1) skipped his mandatory guard physical in aug ’71, knowing he’d never pass with the cocaine in his system (and thereby permanently grounding himself);

    and 2) also later sustained a drunk driving charge … (?)

    people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    why hasn’t john kerry released ALL his military records??? Signe the SF180 Mr. kerry!